Journal des débats 1987-déc-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Ms. Bryden: I want to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) the fact that the Toronto Transit Commission is considering replacing its 103 trolley buses with diesel buses on the grounds that it would save $3 million a year and provide a more flexible bus service.

However, there are important environmental and health effects that must be considered as well as potential savings. The Toronto medical officer of health, Dr. Alexander Macpherson, has said that the change would create a possible pollution hazard due to the toxicity of diesel fumes. Users of trolley buses praise the cleanness, the quietness and the use of a nonpolluting fuel as their major attractions.

In view of the fact that the province pays a substantial portion of transit costs in Metropolitan Toronto, I urge the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of the Environment to discuss the proposal with the TTC and urge that full consideration be given to the environmental, health and noise impact of such a decision. I also urge the same ministers to consider giving the TTC greater funding so that it can join the province in the goal of a healthier Ontario.

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

Mr. McCague: At one time, “cramming” was the trendy catchword that many Ontario students used to depict their mid-term study habits, but for the students of Simcoe county, “cramming” has adopted a new definition, compliments of the Ministry of Education. I am referring to the horrendous number of Simcoe county students who are being crammed into portable schools during a time when the government of Ontario is flogging blank promises of improving the student learning environment.

The fact is that the number of portables in Simcoe county has skyrocketed by over 100 per cent in one board since this government took office. Since 1955, the number of portables used by the Simcoe County Roman Catholic Separate School Board has jumped from 52 to 102 while the number of portables housing the Simcoe County Board of Education students has climbed from 165 to 168.

This shocking statistic clearly illustrates the paper-thin promises made by this government. The government cannot expect improvements to this serious problem when it will not provide the capital. If we were to subject the Ministry of Education to a mid-term evaluation, its 1987 Christmas report card would be graded F for failure.

JOHN BATES

Mrs. LeBourdais: I rise this afternoon with a great deal of pride -- and I use that word advisedly, as you will hear in a moment, Mr. Speaker -- to pay tribute to John Bates, the president and co-founder of PRIDE, People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere.

Mr. Bates, a constituent in my riding of Etobicoke West, was honoured last week by the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation for his efforts against drinking and driving. Mr. Bates and PRIDE have campaigned actively against drinking and driving throughout Ontario via government committee participation, publications and education programs in schools and universities alike.

Since its formation in 1982, PRIDE has established 15 chapters in major centres across the province and has worked closely with the addiction research foundation to highlight the dangers of impaired driving. I feel it is most important, as we approach the holiday season, to stress the importance of a program such as PRIDE and to warn all Ontarians against drinking and driving.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you asked my leader to withdraw the comment that the government had been misleading the people during the last election around its promises on education, having promised $300 million in grants and now only giving $62 million. Yesterday after the House, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) referred outside to his campaign announcement, saying: “The first full year of implementation is three years from now. You check the words...we’re doing exactly what we said we would do.”

I am pleased to say that some members of the press did check his precise words. On August 6, he said to reporters: “Right away -- I think we’ll make a lot of progress in the next month or two and it will certainly be completed by next year.” He then also said to someone from CBC Radio, “All of those programs are starting right away.”

Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps you went beyond your bounds in asking a member to withdraw a statement alleging something that took place outside of this House and before this House and session ever took place, but I would certainly say that the evidence is very clear that the Liberal government promised one thing, specifically $300 million this year for education grants, and only gave 20 per cent of that. The people of the province need to know that hoax was perpetrated on them.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Marland: The child care system in Ontario is characterized by low wages, a shortage of available spaces, an absence of flexible programs and an uneven distribution of spaces. Only one eighth of the number of children that require assisted child care are receiving it.

Since taking office, the Liberal government has made numerous announcements adding up to hundreds of millions of dollars in child care promises, but then has tied these promises to the initiatives of the federal government, notwithstanding the fact that constitutional responsibility for child care rests solely with the provincial government.

In light of the federal announcement on a national child care plan, which is expected this week, I call upon the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) to act on those promises and immediately implement an adequate child care program at least for all Ontarians in all sectors of delivery.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr. Fleet: I applaud the Ontario government for promoting multicultural policies and urge it to move forward by declaring Ontario an officially multicultural society. Ontario has undergone a fundamental change in recent decades. Our population is richly diverse. Fully 52 per cent of all Ontario residents are of backgrounds other than British or French. Multiculturalism includes the right of each person to celebrate her or his own heritage, ethnicity and cultural traditions. It also includes the right to participate equally and fully at all levels of society. It is an appropriate time legally to entrench these rights.

Recognition of and respect for different cultures is a fundamental characteristic of Canada. The distinctiveness of provincial societies is part of the current constitutional debate. We are an officially bilingual country. Should this Legislature some day choose to declare Ontario officially bilingual, it would be a profound statement, an act of national unity. Similarly, the official recognition of multiculturalism would further symbolize our dedication to mutual tolerance and understanding. I again call on the government to declare Ontario officially multicultural.

1340

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Mr. McLean: I want to know if the Premier (Mr. Peterson) will tell this House how much the people of Ontario are paying for skating lessons for members of his Liberal cabinet. Was the contract for this instruction put out for public tender and which skating school got the contract?

He seems somewhat more perplexed than usual. I can understand that, when his Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) says the loophole in the law that allows Sunday shopping would be closed, according to one Toronto newspaper, and would not be closed, according to another. Later, in the Legislature, she further aggravated the situation by saying it could be closed.

The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) says she will build more housing units per year than is humanly and mechanically possible. On education policy, the Premier said during the election campaign that within one year after forming the government he is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on more teachers, more classroom computers and reduced class size. Now he wants us to believe year one is year three in the life of his government.

If that is not enough figurative skating, how about his jelly-type promises for increased funding of skills development, when the Provincial Auditor’s report tells him there is too much money? Instead of the red tie as a symbol of Peterson Liberals, I am afraid Ontario voters are seeing his symbol as a red herring. Can we expect his government to honour any of his election campaign promises?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Hon. Mr. Scott: The intervention from the honourable member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) has driven me to my feet so that I can make a statement about the application of the Retail Business Holidays Act on Sunday, December 27, 1987.

The need for clarification arises from the fact that Boxing Day this year happens to fall on a Saturday. This means that most stores in Ontario will be required to close on Saturday, December 26, as well as on Sunday, December 27.

However, stores that employ fewer than eight persons and occupy less than 5,000 square feet will, under the act, be permitted to open on Sunday, December 27. This is because of the so-called Sabbatarian exemption in the act, which permits small stores to open on Sunday if they close on Saturday.

The purpose of this Sabbatarian exception, as it is called, as the Supreme Court of Canada made plain in the Edwards Books and Art case, is to reduce the impact of the legislation on those religious groups for whom Saturday is a Sabbath. Without such an exception, Saturday observers would have to close two days of every week, once because of their religion, the other because of the legislation. The Sabbatarian exemption puts them on an equal footing with other retailers by providing them with the opportunity to close on their Sabbath and yet remain open for business six days a week.

This discussion of the purpose underlying the Sabbatarian exemption illustrates that it will operate in an anomalous and unfair fashion on December 27 of this year.

The anomaly arises from the fact that the exemption is available to any store which closes on a Saturday and meets the floor-space and employee requirements. There is no obligation on retailers to demonstrate that their stores were closed on Saturday because of genuinely held religious beliefs. The exemption is structured in this way, as the Supreme Court of Canada explained in the Edwards Books case, so as to avoid the necessity of a state-conducted inquiry into religious beliefs. But this means that the exemption will be available to all small retailers on Sunday, December 27, even though they were closed on Saturday because of a statutory holiday, rather than for any religious purpose.

This will produce, I believe, serious unfairness on Sunday, December 27. A provision originally intended to lessen the impact of the act on Saturday observers will now have the effect of conferring on one class of retailers a competitive advantage over all others. Stores which happen to meet the floor space and employee requirements of the Sabbatarian exemption will be permitted to open six days during that week, whereas most other retailers will be permitted to be open for only five days.

It is clear that the act was never intended to operate in this arbitrary and unfair manner. The Sabbatarian exemption was intended to place stores which observe a Saturday Sabbath on an equal footing with other stores. It was not intended to permit stores closing on Saturday because of a statutory holiday to enjoy the competitive advantage of being open an extra day during the week.

Given this serious and unintended inequality, the Ministry of the Attorney General has concluded that the Sabbatarian exemption in the act should be interpreted in a broader fashion on the weekend of December 26 and 27, 1987. Specifically, the ministry has concluded that the exemption should be available to any retailer who closes on Saturday, December 26, regardless of the size of the store or the number of employees serving the public. This interpretation will mean that any store which closes on Saturday, December 26, Boxing Day, will be permitted to open on Sunday, December 27. The crown will not proceed with charges laid against any retailer on December 27, if that retailer can establish that his or her store was closed the preceding day.

This interpretation will ensure an evenhanded application of the act on December 27 and avoid the anomaly arising from the fact that Boxing Day happens to fall on a Sunday.

A test based on this statement will be conducted in hearing room 1 at 3:30 p m.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Over the past several years, it has become readily apparent that there exists widespread concern about the current and future status of the Retail Business Holidays Act as it applies to Sunday closing. There has been considerable confusion as to the application of the law. For this reason, I would like to inform all members of the House of the result of the government’s deliberations on this issue.

In recent months, the government has been giving careful and detailed study to the select committee’s report on the Retail Business Holidays Act, which was brought forward last spring. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, the report contained a number of recommendations with respect to the present law.

Specifically, recommendations for change included the development of a provincial tourism exemption plan and related municipal plans, a ban on roping off as practised by larger stores to meet the current size restrictions for Sunday openings and increased penalties for contravention of the law.

Regrettably, the government has concluded after careful consideration that the recommendations of the select committee are unworkable. Any tinkering with the law tends to create more unfairness than it eliminates and adds to the degree of uncertainty and confusion that already exists.

For example, it would be virtually impossible to develop a provincial tourism plan which reasonably encompassed all facets of tourism across the province yet was not so broad that virtually all commercial activity would fall within the plan.

Similarly, there are contradictions in the ban on roping off, while endorsing restrictions on pharmacies, which could only be reasonably accommodated by further roping off.

To proceed with certain of the committee’s recommendations, while rejecting others as untenable, would only perpetuate the problem of piecemeal adjustment to an act which, quite simply, has been overtaken by the times. Just as the tourism exemption in the current law resulted from the recognition that economic factors such as competition from other jurisdictions and the expectation of visitors could not be ignored, other societal pressures must now be accommodated. Demographic factors, such as the significant increase in the labour-force participation of single-parent and double-income families, have led many to call for a less restrictive approach to Sunday openings.

At the same time, it must be recognized that these circumstances vary enormously across the province. The factors affecting consumers and retailers in Hawkesbury or New Liskeard are quite different from those in Metropolitan Toronto and may require different approaches to the issue.

For all these reasons, the government has come to the conclusion that only a municipality itself can best address the appropriate solution in its locality. Municipal governments are in the best position to determine local needs and the problems inherent in ensuring that equity prevails with respect to retail store openings.

1350

Therefore, it is the intention of the government to introduce in the new year legislative changes allowing individual municipalities to regulate Sunday openings. This is fully in keeping with the existing power dedicated to municipalities under section 211 of the Municipal Act, which allows municipalities to control shopping hours on all other days of the week. In this way, all Ontarians will be guided by Sunday opening rules which will better reflect their local conditions and attitudes.

The government believes that by announcing our intention to give municipalities an option on Sunday shopping, municipalities across Ontario will have an opportunity to consider their response and prepare for the change in the law. In the interim, the current law will continue to be enforced.

In those municipalities which embrace the Sunday opening options, consumers will clearly benefit from increased convenience, yet this must not be achieved at the expense of retail workers. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) will shortly be addressing the issue of protections for workers which may be required.

In approaching this issue, the government had two choices: to continue by minor adjustments and amendments to carry on with a piece of legislation, which has resulted in a lessening of respect for the law; or to recognize societal change while accommodating local diversity and ensuring worker protection.

The government has chosen the latter.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Last March our government announced major initiatives to expand and enhance women’s health services in this province. I am pleased to report to this House that we have been able to move quickly to implement these programs.

A women’s health bureau is now functioning in the ministry and is responsible for promoting greater awareness of women’s health issues. It is performing its task well and is taking an active daily involvement in the ministry’s decision-making process.

Earlier this month my ministry held a very successful childbirth conference in Toronto. Outstanding speakers and representatives attended from across Canada, the United States and Europe. They participated in an exchange of information and ideas that will assist us in setting future directions of childbirth care in Ontario.

My ministry has been working in consultation with hospitals to develop a range of comprehensive services for women.

Today I am pleased to announce that a regional women’s health centre, the first in the province, is to be established at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto. The hospital will receive $1.5 million in ministry funding for the centre, which is to provide a wide range of education, counselling and referral services to women in Metro.

The hospital is to proceed immediately on detailed planning to implement its proposal. The centre will have a staff of 45, including doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, health educators, ultrasound technicians and support staff. Women will be able to use the centre through self-referral or by the referral of a physician, health professional or community agency.

As a health education resource centre, it will become a central access point in the province for consultation on women’s health services and offer a wide range of written and audio-visual information on reproductive health.

Services in the new women’s health centre will include individual and group counselling in family planning and contraception, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The centre will offer physical examinations, pregnancy assessment and diagnosis and referral to other services.

Infertility counselling will be provided for individuals and couples experiencing this problem, which will include minimizing stress through one-to-one counselling and also through support groups.

A premenstrual syndrome education and support program will assist women to better understand the syndrome and ways to cope with the symptoms.

A menopause support program will provide counselling and treatment for those experiencing problems with this stage of life.

Services for pregnant women will include counselling on alternatives to abortion and support for single mothers.

Counselling and referral will be provided to women who are seeking therapeutic abortions. The centre will facilitate immediate access to one of several Metro hospitals co-operating in the regional service. These are Women’s College, Toronto General, Toronto Western, Mount Sinai and Wellesley hospitals, all of which will receive additional ministry funding to allow them to meet their anticipated needs.

Other Metro Toronto hospitals that provide therapeutic abortion services will be given the opportunity to join the new regional referral service. I want to commend these hospitals for their leadership in this important area.

Women’s College Hospital has provided leadership in meeting women’s health unequalled in other Ontario and Canadian hospitals. It was the first hospital in Canada to offer clinical opportunities for women physicians and plays a prominent role in academia. It introduced the first breast screening research program in the late 1950s, and it established the first perinatal unit in the province. Three years ago Women’s College set up the first sexual assault treatment centre and was the first provincial hospital to offer educational outreach programs on women’s health issues with the holding of large seminars at St. Lawrence Centre. It is the first provincial hospital with an urgent care centre instead of an emergency department.

In February, Women’s College Hospital will open its new brief psychotherapy centre. It will provide outpatient services for women in crisis situations and is being designed to prevent the development of serious psychiatric illness, particularly for those in their reproductive years.

The centre is being designed to ensure that women have timely access to the services they need, provided by sensitive and supportive professionals who are committed to quality of care.

My ministry wants to be sure that women in all areas of the province have access to services which can give them immediate referrals to appropriate agencies, institutions and professionals. We will continue to welcome further proposals from hospitals, community-based agencies or organizations for the provision of comprehensive women’s health services in their communities. In the next few weeks I expect to be announcing other women’s health services and programs.

RESPONSES

Mr. Reville: Taking a leaf out of the book of the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), I should like to respond to all three statements.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Reville: First of all, my congratulations to the tag team of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Solicitor General, particularly on having such crack research teams as were able to determine that in fact Boxing Day does fall on a Saturday this year. This must be perhaps one of the more machiavellian -- nay, let me not mince words -- Mephistophelean schemes --

Hon. Mr. Scott: It beats hypocritical, which he usually says.

Mr. Reville: -- which, as the Attorney General charmingly points out, beats hypocritical.

What the government of Ontario has managed to do is to look squarely in the eye of a serious problem and dump it on a municipality.

Mr. Wildman: When in doubt, duck.

Mr. Reville: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario sends them its white feather of the month. We are going to have to rope off the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins).

Hon. Mr. Scott: Sarcasm doesn’t work in here. They don’t get it.

Mr. Reville: It is clear that very little works in here.

It must be particularly embarrassing for the Solicitor General, who strove mightily, along with a lot of members of this House, and with me, to come to grips with the difficult problem of whether we want to shop our brains out on Sundays and holidays or not.

In fact, it is a matter on which there is no consensus in the province. It is, however, a matter on which hang a number of other important issues, particularly the protection of workers from being required to work on Sundays and holidays, and one trembles to think at how those workers will be protected by a government such as this, which can think of no better solution than to send this downstairs to city halls.

I have struggled as a member of a council, and I know the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), the Solicitor General and a number of other members on the government benches have also done that. We know that municipal politicians do not like this issue any more than we do and that they will be subject to the same kind of polarized views as we here have been. It strikes me that it is sad that this vast government, with its vast mandate, cannot get its vast mind around a problem like this.

Mr. Breaugh: There is the problem. I think we have just identified the difficulty.

Some hon. members: It is only half-vast.

Mr. Reville: For the record, there are some sotto voce or not so sotto voce voices saying the government’s mind is half-vast.

1400

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: On the statement from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), one out of three is not bad. Perhaps I could congratulate the Minister of Health on this initiative in respect of the regional women’s health centre, and of course follow those congratulations quickly with, “Where is the rest of it?” Clearly, we all applaud the good work that has been done over many, many years by the folks at Women’s College Hospital. We expect that this good work --

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I was born there too.

Mr. Reville: This hospital is older than I thought. I might point out that the Minister of Health is younger than I am.

The minister, however, has not addressed the problem of access to abortion services in this province, and she well knows that. It is too bad the government has an inadequate position on that matter as well. One hopes that as time goes on, it will realize that the setting up of six women’s health centres in Metro Toronto and perhaps six in the rest of the province will not do the job when it comes to making sure that women have access to abortion services.

I think the other thing that should be said at this time is that, in respect of sexually transmitted diseases, the Ministry of Health is failing there as well. The inadequate response to the spectre of human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome, which is part of what is being addressed here, is truly an indictment of the government. Clearly, the fact that 30 people in the city of Toronto last night contracted HIV indicates what a bad job the government is doing.

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

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Cureatz: Might I first congratulate the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) on at least coming forward with this statement. Over the last week to two weeks, we had a great deal of concern that possibly there was a lack of leadership on the front bench, albeit the second row, in terms of the wavering description of Sunday openings and special holidays and concerns for the employees, whether they would be lessened in their employment.

I am concerned about the Solicitor General’s statement because, although she has indeed gone through four or five pages of outlining the problem, all of which we know, she then comes up with a solution which, it grieves me to inform her, is no solution. As indicated by my New Democratic Party colleague, all she is doing is passing on the dollar to the municipalities. It is interesting, notwithstanding the Solicitor General’s statement, that on page 5 she goes on to say, “Municipalities across Ontario will have an opportunity to consider their response and prepare for the change in the law.”

I wonder if she is now going to still have an escape clause whereby, if the municipalities in the Association of Municipalities of Ontario react so strongly to the proposal of putting the responsibility on them, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is then going to say, to get us over the Christmas holidays, “I guess we had better take another look at it.”

It grieves me no end that the Liberal Party of Ontario and the government are not taking their responsibility seriously about these problems, taking leadership and, instead of passing the dollar on, deciding on the front bench what they are going to do about it, getting the support of the rest of the Liberal caucus and letting them go across Ontario to explain their position.

But no, what do they do? They send it off to the municipal politicians, and let me say they are going to have some very difficult decisions to make. Does the government think municipal politicians in the city of Toronto are the same as those in the town of Newcastle in the region of Durham? They have different thoughts and different concerns and the government is going to have a mixup of policy --

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: Oh no, the government is going to have a mixup of policy right across Ontario. There will not be any cohesiveness in Ontario, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), and I say to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) there will be a hodgepodge of policy. You are going to be crossing from one municipality’s boundary to the next not knowing what you can do on specific days. We are going to look with great interest at the proposed legislation and at what the municipalities have to say about the lack of leadership of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and Deputy Premier in this area.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond first of all to the statement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). It was only two short weeks ago to the day in this Legislature that she informed myself and other members of the Legislature that she still had not made up her mind whether or not she would make the disclosure of these women’s health centres public. I am glad the minister has finally come to her senses. She came to them the next morning as a matter of fact and said she would now be in a position to tell the people of Ontario where these centres would be located.

I do not think anybody doubts the great contribution Women’s College Hospital has made to health care, especially with respect to women in Ontario. I am glad to see the minister is finally forthcoming about the counselling and referral service with respect to therapeutic abortions. It was not so difficult, was it? All she had to do was tell us that. I do not think she had to try to bury it on page 3 of her statement either, but I do commend the minister on having finally taken this initiative.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Eves: With respect to the statement made by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), I presume that the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Owen) will not be too impressed by the Attorney General’s statement. It was just a few short days ago that he rose in this House to say that he certainly hoped stores in his riding at least would not be allowed to remain open on that particular Sunday.

I might say to the Attorney General and to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) that if they had bothered to look into some of the recommendations of our task force, one specifically, and had allowed stores to remain open on Boxing Day, they would not be in the dilemma they find themselves in today.

It is interesting also to note that the government is now going to pass off any difficult decisions to municipalities. I presume that now we are going to have different liquor laws in every municipality in Ontario because they have different needs and concerns. I presume that with respect to rent controls, for example, it is going to permit municipalities to determine on an individual basis what they want.

The ramifications of this are possibly endless. We can just pass on all their responsibilities and maybe we can divvy up all their cabinet salaries and give them to reeves and mayors across Ontario.

Mr. Harris: I have four seconds, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you have.

Mr. Harris: It’s a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker: Now that the member for Nipissing has completed his response, that completes ministerial statements and responses.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware of the many ongoing occupational health and safety problems at Continental Can in Concord. The workers and their union, the United Steelworkers of America, Local 2514, have decided to concentrate on the lead issue. The metal beverage cans are soldered with lead. Doctors at the workers’ health centre have discovered that lead levels in some workers are above the permissible levels and lead, as the minister knows, is a killer. The Minister of Labour ordered that there be a control program done on lead in the plant by September 23. The company did not comply. Why did the Minister of Labour not do something to ensure the compliance?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It should be pointed out to my friend the member for Hamilton East that indeed the ministry did order a lead control program at Continental Can. What he failed to mention is that the order which was made against Continental Can was appealed by Continental Can and that the process of hearing that appeal is ongoing right now. l would add that ministry officials are in the process of continuing an investigation there in light of the appeal that has been made by the company.

Mr. Mackenzie: We got the regulations in 1981. We got the order, to be complied with by September 23. The company wrote the minister on November 22 saying it would comply with the order by December 7, but that was a day after a story in the Toronto Star and had little to do with the minister’s own pressure on the company.

The minister will no doubt be aware that 169 of the 300 workers in that plant have written complaints to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario concerning the company doctor. The workers want an independent test of their blood levels to determine the exposure to lead. The company is refusing to allow the in-plant tests to be done by any independent source.

The minister knows that this is one of the five key areas that led to the temporary settlement of the McDonnell Douglas dispute. Is the minister prepared to ensure that the workers can be tested in the plant by an independent source?

1410

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend points out the issue relating to McDonnell Douglas. What he failed to mention when he pointed it out was that at McDonnell Douglas what was identified was the clear right of the worker to have an independent test done by the physician of his choice. There is no obligation however, either on McDonnell Douglas or Continental Can, to have the clinic of the choice of the workers located in the plant. What we decided, and what was clarified at McDonnell Douglas, is that if there is no clinic in the plant, then the worker has the option of leaving the plant and going to the physician of his choice. That is the way the law stands. The law does not provide that any company, Continental Can in this case, must allow a clinic of the workers’ choice to locate itself within the plant. He knows that.

Mr. Mackenzie: Yes, I do know that. I also know what it took to get the testing and the lost time to be covered if it is done outside the plant. I am wondering if that is part of the decision the minister is willing to make in this case, because his ministry was part of those negotiations at McDonnell Douglas. I know the minister does not consider mass refusals incredible, but certainly if he does nothing we are going to see that at this and other plants in the province.

There are over 300 chemicals in this plant. Lead is the only one for which there are tests. The ministry has done nothing to see that the program is complied with. So far, only 38 of the workers have managed to be tested by independent doctors simply because the company will not allow the in-plant testing

These workers went there to work, not to die. Again, I ask the minister is he prepared to ensure that the workers can be tested in the plant or set up arrangements for them to be tested that are much quicker than what is going on right now?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Some of the workers at Continental Can have an interest in having a specific clinic run by a specific doctor located in their plant. There is no obligation under the law to require a plant to accommodate that specific physician within that specific plant, with that specific clinic in the plant. The workers have a right to time off. In the case of McDonnell Douglas, it was an arrangement for the right to time off for two hours and the choice of the physician of their choice. That is the law and those are the provisions under which I would expect that the workers at McDonnell Douglas can have an opportunity to ensure they are fully tested.

Once again, the issue is the fact that the workers have a right to work in conditions that are safe. That is the overriding provision of the law. Where a medical surveillance program is put into place, the workers have a right to choose the physician they want to go to. If an arrangement can be made between a plant and a clinic to locate a clinic on the premises, then that facilitates and accommodates the workers. In this case, the workers and the company cannot agree on the choice of physician and the choice of a clinic. Under those circumstances, the workers regrettably will have to find their physician in another location and the company is obliged --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question. The member for Oshawa.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The October survey done by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. of apartment rental accommodation in Ontario is now out. It is clear that the situation is worsening. What is the minister doing to prevent last year’s fiasco where the ministry failed to deliver on low rental accommodation across Ontario? What steps is she taking this year to see that she does not fail in her job of providing some relief to a very serious accommodation crisis across Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The vacancy rates were released and the results were that the vacancy rate in Toronto is the same as it was, which is obviously very bad. The vacancy rate is down in large urban centres and up in smaller urban centres. That is the reason we have our program for increasing the supply of housing in the province. That is the reason we have made major commitments to increasing supply.

I should also tell the member our records indicate that since January 1986 some 18,000 or 19,000 rental units have been produced in the province, which is, for the first time in a long time, some significant production of rental units; and about 8,000 of those have been produced without any form of government assistance. So there is rental housing now being produced in the market in a greater number than has been true in the past.

Mr. Breaugh: It is very interesting. The minister might give us a clue some day as to when we will actually begin to notice this. Certainly the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. in its survey did not.

Can the minister explain why there were over 26,000 applications before her ministry last year to provide some kind of reasonable housing on a rental basis for people in Ontario and it was able to approve and deliver on only some 6,700 units?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: We actually delivered on more than that number of units. As the member knows, the problem of producing housing in Ontario -- and in Metro Toronto the problem is most severe -- has to do not with our ability to approve the units but with the fact that the market has been heated up for production at the higher end of the market.

The difficulties have had to do with providing land and giving access to land as well as government support to the people who produce lower-end housing. But the biggest problem has been land and also the cost and the time involved in some of the municipal approvals. This is an area we are very concerned about and very informed about. We have been talking with the people who have these difficulties in the nonprofit sector regularly, and we are working very hard to try to come up with solutions to help them.

Mr. Breaugh: If talk could produce a house, we sure would be in luck here.

Finally, let me ask the minister about her comments about land. We know she has been conducting surveys of government-owned property here in Metropolitan Toronto, for example. Will she table the survey of property that is already owned by governments in Metro Toronto, and will she give us a reasonable commitment today that this land will not be turned over to the private sector to build more luxury condominiums? Will she ensure that this property is used for a variety of uses, including recreational but by and large in the housing sector, that it is used for nonprofit housing so we can accommodate these 26,000 applications to build reasonable housing for people in Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like to refer that question to the Minister of Government Services while telling the member that we have been in active consultation about it. May I do that?

Mr. Speaker: You can refer it, but then you cannot add any of your own comments. Do you wish to refer it?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Yes. I would like to refer it to the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Patten: There is a review of all the lands in Metropolitan Toronto. Those are being reviewed in the light of the most probable use.

The member is aware, of course, that there is a “housing first” policy, which means that throughout any development of those lands the very first question being asked is: “What is the appropriateness of housing? If not necessarily as a primary feature, what may be developed in conjunction with some other form of development?”

As soon as that report is finalized, it will be available to all members.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: I have a question of the Solicitor General. On May 22, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was quoted in the Globe and Mail as having said, “We owe it to the people, particularly for the next pressure point, which will be the Christmas season, to tell them exactly what the law is and to make it enforceable.”

That is what the Premier had decided to do on May 22. I would guess it was the responsibility of the cabinet over that period of months to come up with a program. A week ago, while the Solicitor General was responding to questions in the scrum outside the House, it is my understanding that when she was asked about the municipal option relative to Sunday shopping she said, and I believe I quote her correctly, “We would not use the municipal option because that would be the chicken way out.”

What was the chicken way out a week ago has now become the policy of the government of Ontario. I wonder if she can share with this House what sort of conversion has actually taken place over the course of the last matter of days.

1420

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Sarnia will be aware that we received a report from the select committee asking us to try to create a definition of tourism as it applies to the retail sales that would indeed apply across the whole province. We have worked very hard on this, which has taken up the time that delayed us in coming down with some sort of statement. In fact, hard as we might have worked at it, we were not able to come up with such a definition that would apply right across the province. We still see, however, the value of having a definition that could be applied locally by the local municipalities, and so we do not want to take that option away from them.

Mr. Brandt: I know that giving the municipalities this new option and this new responsibility will be welcomed by them in exactly the same fashion as when the government could not make a decision on the issue of beer and wine. They welcomed that decision by shoving it right back at the government and telling it they wanted nothing to do with it.

The reality is that all the minister has done is that, taken the responsibilities that she acknowledged she had some months ago, she has completely ignored the need for province-wide legislation in this regard. I have to tell her she has come up with the absolute most chicken way out possible, to use her own words.

Would the minister clarify, if she would, my question, Mr. Speaker, which I know you are anxious to have me proceed with?

Mr. Speaker: I would like to hear it.

Mr. Brandt: Knowing how well the minister and the cabinet have thought out the option of passing this on to the municipalities, I wonder if the minister can share with us, recognizing that she has thought this through very carefully, whether it is also going to be a local municipal option to keep open beer and liquor stores on those particular days. Will that also be their decision?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Generally speaking, as I have examined legislation from other provinces, the laws that apply to liquor are specially treated and probably will continue to be so as time goes on. We have, as I have pointed out, left an opportunity here for municipalities to speak to us, not about what the long-term effect of us opening up the municipal option in itself would be but about what sort of option they would like there. We will be getting input from them about the exact nature of our law, which will be permissive to them to do this.

I would point out, when the member mentions beer and wine options, and I would point out also to the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), that the province did give the communities many years ago the opportunity to have a local option in liquor stores, to be dry or not dry. As a matter of interest, I believe some 15 areas have still opted to stay dry. So one can assume that in this very wet province there were 15 municipalities or areas that appreciated the opportunity to make their own decision.

Mr. Brandt: By way of final supplementary, we are, as the minister can well imagine, somewhat confused about how this law that she is proposing came about. We are also somewhat confused about what is going to happen with respect to beer and wine openings on those particular days. But let me proceed a little further.

Is it the responsibility of the province, in the minister’s view, to provide any form of protection whatever for workers who, for either religious or family reasons, do not wish to work on days that municipalities determine are going to be open for business? Is the province going to take any responsibility whatever in this regard, or does the minister simply take a Pontius Pilate attitude and wash her hands of the entire matter?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The province has already said that it will be addressing the matter of the labour laws in the time to come and that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) will be coming forward with a bill before we come forward with the retail bill that we are proposing.

I would point out, as a matter of interest and just by way of example, that the Employment Standards Act will limit the number of hours that can be worked in any case.

Having spoken to others, including my daughter-in-law, who worked in a retail store in Vancouver, they had very little trouble working it out in the store she worked in. They took either Saturday or Sunday and worked it out so they had one or the other off. Probably there would be many people who would like to work on Sunday and have Saturday off. We may well find that some people do.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Attorney General. On November 5, 1987, the Attorney General indicated with regard to the conflict-of-interest bill that the bill will be treated as if it were already in force with respect to cabinet ministers. I would like to ask the Attorney General if all cabinet ministers have, as of this point in time, complied with the requirements of his proposed legislation.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am advised that all cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants have complied by delivering their disclosure statements to the interim commissioner, the Honourable John B. Aird, in the time fixed by the draft legislation.

Mr. Brandt: It is my understanding that Mr. Aird indicated that the disclosure statements would be available by the end of November. In checking with the Clerk of the House at the end of November, we were not able to get the assurances we felt we should have with respect to compliance on the part of all cabinet ministers. We did not check into parliamentary assistants, but we did check in connection with cabinet ministers.

Is the Attorney General giving us the assurance today that all the cabinet ministers have complied? We on this side of the House in opposition have no other way of finding out, now that he has changed the rules to suit himself.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member is getting revved up for this. I think he is going to be the last leadership candidate who enters these stakes that are going to take place.

The reality is that we introduced a bill, which will be debated today, that establishes, if the Legislature adopts it, some rules as a matter of statute and not as a matter of guideline. That is a first in Ontario, and I believe it is a progressive step.

The cabinet ministers are required under that bill to file their disclosure statements with the interim commissioner within a time limit. That time limit has in each case been met. The interim commissioner is obliged to file disclosure statements with the Clerk of the House “as soon as reasonably practicable.” That is the language, I believe, of the draft statute. He indicated that he would be doing so by the end of November. The other day the Premier (Mr. Peterson) indicated that he had heard from him, and the interim commissioner had indicated that an additional two weeks would be required.

Mr. Brandt: Let me say to the Attorney General that it has been written in some quarters that the last shall be first. I just want him to know that.

Let me say as well to the Attorney General that the flexibility --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the member for Sarnia has a final supplementary he would like to put through the chair.

Mr. Brandt: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for this opportunity, because it is obviously feeding time over there. We are getting a lot of responses back.

My final supplementary is with respect to the timetable the Attorney General put forward, namely, the 61 days for full compliance, which is in his bill and which he indicated would be taken as law.

To suit his own purposes -- the Attorney General should check his bill; I see he is reading very rapidly to catch up to the points I am trying to make with him -- is this going to be a bill where he can build in the type of flexibility that will accommodate every cabinet minister under every circumstance, no matter what the conditions are? It appears to us that the Attorney General is operating this bill in such a way as to create the most convenience for each and every member of cabinet. What are his intentions with respect to compliance with the law that he is proposing?

1430

Hon. Mr. Scott: I noted the honourable member’s observation that the last shall be first, and I was tempted to take that as a public declaration that he in fact was seeking the leadership. The looks on the faces of the member for Cochrane (Mr. Pope), the member for Burlington (Mr. Jackson) and the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) confirmed beyond any doubt that this was the case, and I know that all members of the House, except his colleagues, will wish him well in that important struggle.

The honourable member was absolutely right. I was searching for the bill because I think, if a question is going to be asked about the bill, we might even turn to see what it says.

Mr. Cousens: Have you sent a copy to John Aird?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Well, apparently l have sent copies to the member for Markham; it does not apparently make any difference.

If we look at section 11, we will see that the bill provides that “Every member shall, within 60 days of being elected” --

Mr. Harris: It doesn’t affect us. It affects you and John Aird.

Mr. Cousens: Has John read it?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I know the honourable members opposite have not, and so we are reading that only for cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants at the moment, but it says that one shall, “within 60 days of being elected, and thereafter annually, file with the commissioner a disclosure statement.” That has in every respect been done.

Section 12 provides that the commissioner, after an interview with the members, shall file his statement in the House, and that will be done when the commissioner determines he is satisfied.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Mackenzie: I have another question for the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour is no doubt aware that dozens of injured workers demonstrated this morning when officials of the Workers’ Compensation Board presented the new policy on supplements payable to workers on a WCB pension who co-operate with or are available for a rehabilitation program.

The minister said yesterday that it is quite clear in some cases benefits will be cut off and less supplements will be paid out. He also said it gave him a great deal of concern that there would be cutbacks in the supplement.

Will the minister today demonstrate his concern with action, and will he ensure that these cutbacks do not take place?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I recall in the first question from the opposition party today, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville), I think it was, used the words “Machiavellian” and “Mephistophelean” to describe actions which clearly were not the case on the part of the government. Now my friend the member for Hamilton East is suggesting to me that I simply ignore the authority of the Workers’ Compensation Board to interpret the law and apply the law.

The fact is that the policy of the board on subsection 45(5) simply provides that during a period of vocational rehabilitation, or during a period of on-the-job training, and thereafter during the period of adjustment to workplace, for workers who have suffered a permanent partial disability, a wage supplement can be paid. That is what the section says. I invite my friend to read the section, and then he will know that what the board is proposing is simply to apply that section.

He knows and I know that there has developed a habit at the board to pay out supplements well beyond this period of vocational rehabilitation, in some cases some three or four years after the fact, after the vocational rehabilitation has taken place, and the board has simply said, as I understand the policy, it is no longer prepared to do that.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister’s smug little lectures do not do him any justice in this House if he suggests there is not a link between the cutback in supplements and a threat to vocational rehabilitation. Injured workers can get these supplements only if they are co-operating in or available for a rehabilitation program. If you cut back on the number of workers getting a supplement and the duration of a supplement, you are going to cut back on rehabilitation.

Instead of assertions that the rehab will not be affected, can the minister promise some action? Can the minister tell us when he is going to implement the recommendations of the report of the task force on vocational rehabilitation?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Talking about smugness and lectures, I simply remind my friend that it was two weeks ago in this House that he became rather smug and rather offensive to the entire House. I would have expected that when he asked the question, there might have been a comment retracting that comment. Perhaps I expected too much.

The fact is that the board is spending more, not less, on vocational rehabilitation. It is not enough yet; he and I agree on that. The board is currently examining the Minna-Majesky report on vocational rehabilitation, as is the Ministry of Labour. We are proceeding on that.

I cannot tell the member when it is going to be implemented, but I want to make sure that everyone in this House knows that an interpretation of the policy under subsection 45(5) is not to be interpreted as less money being spent on vocational rehabilitation. The interpretation simply says that if a worker is no longer on vocational rehabilitation, is no longer going through a period of on-the-job training and is no longer going through a period of work adjustment and he has finished all of that, then there is no authority in the act to continue the supplements. Therefore, the board has said, “We have no authority to pay that and we ought not, under the law, to continue to do that.”

RENT REGISTRY

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Could the Minister of Housing tell this House if the rent registry is currently active?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The rent registry now has about 150,000 units on it and it is available for people on computer.

Mr. Cousens: In other words, saying the rent registry is active means that when someone called the rent registry this morning and asked for some assistance, the answer that was given on the toll-free number of her ministry is that it would be two months before the registry would be fully activated. I ask the minister, how can decisions be made about the 23,000 claims before the board if the rent registry is not even activated?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In my earlier answer I told the member that 150,000 names are currently on the computer. Let me add that 10,000 letters will be sent out next week every single day, starting at the end of next week, to inform the people who are entitled to information on the rent registry so that more names and more of that information will be out. When all of the information is out, then everyone will be able to get an answer.

INTERVAL HOUSES

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Many members have had the opportunity in the last few days to meet with the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. I would like to know why the minister continues to fail to meet a need that was identified as far back as 1982.

Our standing committee on social development made the ministry aware that there was a severe problem with people who were living in hostels and substandard accommodation who were going through this kind of horrible transition period in their lives when the housing need was severe -- was chronic, in fact. Why are we still at the point where this group is continuing to identify a real housing need that we have known about for some period of time? Why have we not been able to respond to these people?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite shares with me a serious concern for those women who have been battered and who have to stay in interval houses for periods of time. Indeed, there is a difficulty in finding second-stage housing for those people because of the cost of accommodation in the province.

We have recognized that difficulty, and one of the reasons for a project that we started last year, called Project 3000, which is meant to address the needs of people with particular difficulties with housing, is to address also those women who are battered and who need second-stage housing.

Mr. Breaugh: I am saddened somewhat by that kind of reply because I am aware that the minister knows how serious the problem is. With that kind of knowledge, with that kind of advance warning and with that kind of programming in place, why is it that last year, when it had over 12,000 submissions to provide adequate housing for people in this kind of need, her ministry was able to approve and deliver only just slightly over 3,000 units?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The need is very great; I agree with the member opposite that it is. One of the difficulties is the large number of women who are living in situations where they are being battered. The number continues to grow, and the people who go to transition houses then need that second stage of housing.

1440

Our commitment to continuing to supply housing for those people remains both through the project I mentioned to the member and through support of community living initiatives, as well as through housing that will be made available by all the work we are doing. I do not think all the women who are currently in battering situations will necessarily need support in order to live in the housing that should be made available to them. I do not believe in creating housing --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: They can’t even leave the battering situation. Sixty per cent of them go back to their homes.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: We all know there are serious problems for women who are battered, and the reasons they return are many. It is our commitment to increase the supply of housing available to all people in need and also to people who are in need of supportive housing. One thing that has been changed is the eligibility requirements for people entering Ontario Housing Corp. housing, which has now put those women who are battered at the top of the list. So they are the first to get access to those houses.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Premier. The Transitions program was one of the very first campaign statements that he made this summer in Hamilton on August 4. Specifically, he promised that older, unemployed workers who might participate in his program -- and I quote from the Globe and Mail of August 5 -- “would still be able to claim unemployment insurance and any other benefits.”

On the same day, he told the Toronto Star that “the federal government is co-operating on the new plan by continuing workers’ unemployment insurance benefits while they undergo retraining.”

No doubt the Premier is prepared today to stand in this House and state that when he made that statement on August 4, the federal government was in agreement with him and he could guarantee unemployment insurance benefits to older, laid-off workers who took training. Who told him that such a deal had been made, and is he prepared to stand by that statement today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that to the Minister of Skills Development.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the member knows, in the Transitions program the client gets $5,000 as a voucher with which to seek training. We had discussions and consultations with Canada Manpower, and we were assured that this would not affect the unemployment insurance benefits.

Mr. Jackson: I believe my question was directed to the Premier with respect to statements he specifically made.

According to the federal Department of Employment and Immigration, on August 4 there was no such agreement. According to his own Ministry of Skills Development, on August 4 of this year and as late as last Thursday, there was no agreement. According to the document that the Premier tabled at the recent premiers’ conference, there is still no agreement, by his own statement.

The Ministry of Skills Development reports the Transitions participants are being cut off from unemployment insurance benefits, a direct contradiction of the statement made by his Premier on August 4. The Minister of Skills Development now knows why I stated outside of this House yesterday --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Jackson: -- that his Premier has misled the older workers of this province. Can he tell this House --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member withdraw the word “misled”?

Mr. Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling on this very point from you on December 12, 1985 --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jackson: I would ask the Speaker to examine his own ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I will be glad to examine it at a later time. Will the member withdraw? Order.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: there is nothing out of order. I do not believe the member has said anything in this House that is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, would the member withdraw the word he used, “misled”? Will you withdraw?

Mr. Jackson: Can I still ask my question?

Mr. Speaker: If you withdraw.

Mr. Jackson: I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Jackson: Yes. My question is to the minister. Given the fact that we have a statement made that asserts one thing and we now we have the same Premier making an opposite, contradictory statement, will the minister not now agree that at least the Premier’s comments are at variance with the facts and that our older, unemployed workers in Ontario are at severe risk and have absolutely no confidence in the assertions he has made on this Transitions program?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have problems dealing with the honourable member’s so-called facts. Just yesterday, the member stated in the House that when he called about the Transitions program in many areas the people he called said it was not there. The member also called the labour plant closure branch to receive material and he said it had cost $6. I checked and found the costs only $1.65.

The member also stated that nobody knew about the Transitions program. When we called the University of Toronto, we were told the people there were informed two months before. Then the member stated in the House that they did not know of the program. Now he states that there is an inconsistency in what the Premier has stated. We had the assurance from the immigration authorities that they would not in any way interfere with the $5,000 training vouchers that were given to the client. That assurance is what we stood by.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Callahan: My question is for the Minister of Health in regard to her statement. During the election, my colleague the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland) and I visited a very excellent facility being provided through a local community organization that provided counselling to young people coming for abortions. It told them where they could go in terms of housing, in terms of accommodation, in terms of money that might be provided for them and so on. I am pleased to see that in her statement the minister is putting emphasis on the question of counselling methods other than abortion.

I notice on page 5 of her statement she indicated that she would continue to welcome further proposals from hospitals and community-based agencies or organizations for the provision of comprehensive women’s health services in their communities. Can I take it from this that an organization such as I have indicated would be eligible to receive some form of assistance, be it monetary or perhaps monetary and facility assistance?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I thank the member for the question. I would say to the members opposite that it is a very good question.

We have requested proposals for comprehensive women’s health initiatives from hospitals, community-based groups and organizations across this province, and I would encourage not only the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) but also any member in this House who knows an organization that would like to submit a proposal to encourage it to do so.

Further, I would offer the services of the women’s health bureau in the ministry to work with any community group or organization that would like to submit a proposal to facilitate and assist them in their efforts.

HELP CENTRE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development in regard to the unemployed workers’ help centre in Sault Ste. Marie.

The minister is aware that the centre closed its doors in November and has been able to reopen them only as a result of a reprieve that has been given to it by the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling). However, ongoing funding is by no means assured because of a matching formula requirement.

The minister has been asked whether his ministry will get involved in the funding of this centre, and I ask the minister whether his staff have had the opportunity to meet with the help centre people and whether his ministry will assure that funding will be available beyond the month of December.

1450

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je tiens à remercier le député de Sault Ste Marie pour la question qu’il vient de me poser.

First of all, I was approached last week by the Minister of Skills Development about this problem at the centre. I instructed my ministry to look into this with the Minister of Skills Development to try to find a solution to this problem. I cannot say today that I will fund this, but I am looking into it and will come back to the member on this question in a few weeks.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I want to remind the minister that the centre will be closing as of the end of December if it does not receive assurances of ongoing funding. Can the minister assure us that the final decisions will be made before the House adjourns and that a statement to that effect will be forthcoming from the minister before we leave here two weeks or so from now?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je tiens encore à réitérer ma réponse, à savoir que nous sommes en train d’étudier ce problème-là, et je voudrais assurer le député de Sault Ste Marie qu’avant la fin du mois de décembre, nous aurons une réponse à lui donner.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. When he released his second-quarter economic figures recently, the headlines the next day indicated, “Welfare Spending Soars as Jobless Flood Ontario.” It appeared that the influx of out-of-province jobless was the reason that our welfare rolls were swelling. This argument seemed to be the government cover for any lack of fiscal control or other legislative or administrative changes.

In view of the fact that the combined family benefits allowance and general welfare assistance totals were 279,691 in January 1987 and 272,103 in September 1987 -- in other words, it has dropped by 7,500 during the period that the Treasurer says it was this unexpected influx that caused the spending to go rampant -- l wonder if the Treasurer could explain that.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member will be aware that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) joined in the explanation by indicating that there was a variety of programs, some new and some strengthened old programs, which indicated that the utilization of public funds in providing facilities for the homeless and a wide variety of programs, not only in the metropolitan area but elsewhere, had contributed to the overexpenditure.

Mr. Harris: It may have contributed, but the overwhelming reason given was this flooding of the jobless into Ontario. The facts are that as of September there are 7,500 fewer on the rolls than there were in January. It is becoming apparent that the Treasurer has not seen to it that there are any controls whatever on government spending. It is becoming apparent that new programs are being developed and implemented with no value for money consideration either in the dreaming up of the programs or in the implementation of the programs. It is becoming apparent that in good times, as the money rolls in, the name of the game is to spend it as fast as he can. This is all becoming readily apparent to us here in the Legislature.

An hon. member: It is out of control.

Mr. Harris: It is totally out of control.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Harris: In view of the fact the Treasurer once again has no idea what is going on with the taxpayers’ money, I am not sure it is appropriate to waste the House’s time with a supplementary.

[Later]

Hon. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: To correct the record in the truncated exchange between the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and myself, there might have unfortunately been left the impression that his numbers were correct.

I regret to inform you, sir, that I may have left the impression that the honourable member was correct, and I wanted to assure you that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to remind all members that we do have a tradition in this House where a member may make a point of personal explanation and correct the record of something that individual has said personally.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Owen: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I am quite sure he is aware of the problems associated with the Innisfil landfill site. I understand that leachate has been identified migrating off the property, causing concern among nearby residents. There is some concern also that the leachate may be heading in a direction that may affect Lake Simcoe. I would like to ask the minister what is being done to control the leachate and what impact it is having on nearby families and their properties.

Mr. Jackson: Under 20 minutes or less.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It will be a relatively distinct and precise answer to the member.

Mr. Jackson: That would be refreshing.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, I appreciate the member letting me know that he was going to ask this question today. That does not very often happen in this House, but since it is specific to his constituency, he was kind enough to let me know before I walked in so that I could gather some information.

Mrs. Grier: Would it shorten the answers if we gave notice?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore wishes to do the same, I will be happy --

Mr. Speaker: I am sure you have the answer prepared.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member may be aware, the Innisfil site sits on sand beneath which there is approximately 60 feet of thick clay base. The hydrogeologists, who are always looking for particular sites that would be useful, would say that it is virtually impossible for leachate to migrate to contaminate ground water supplies in those circumstances.

The basic integrity of the landfill is found to be secure. However, the problem is with the leachate. The leachate is running along the top of the clay beneath the sand towards the direction of the Davis property, which is next door, and emerges there on the surface. The break-out of the leachate has been of great concern to our ministry and we have ordered the company, the Innisfil Landfill Corp., to install a $200,000-leachate collection system. That system was installed and is now operational as of September 1987.

Our ministry has conducted studies --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Owen: Neighbours have reported to me illegal dumping at the Innisfil landfill, which they indicate they have witnessed. They report that they feel some of the wastes are being dumped in Innisfil from north Simcoe when these wastes should be going to the Keele Valley landfill near Toronto. The residents have told ministry officials that the number of vehicles hauling garbage to the site is twice the projection for garbage haulage to that Innisfil site. Will the minister investigate to determine that Innisfil is receiving wastes from only those areas allowed under its current certificate of approval?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would say first to the member that the Ministry of the Environment has conducted studies and has found that there is no evidence of leachate running into the creeks or contaminating Lake Simcoe.

In regard to his supplementary question, I want to indicate to him that the investigations and enforcement branch when notified of potential violations conducts an investigation. The Ministry of the Environment has indicated to the owner of the site that there is a certificate of approval which cannot be violated without a prosecution taking place. I expect the investigation will be concluded in a relatively brief period of time in this circumstance. If there is evidence that there is a violation of the certificate of approval, of course we will proceed with the prosecution and a court case.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I would like to inform the minister that I have a concern about the Salvation Army employees at the Eventide Home in Cambridge, who are being forced to subsidize the care of the elderly by virtue of the fact that they must take substandard wages. I am bringing to the attention of the minister two items. First, an arbitration agreement signed by a representative of the Salvation Army agrees that the employees should receive an increase of $2 an hour and that there is some $80,000 to $100,000 owing to those employees in back pay. Following that --

Mr. Speaker: I would like a question, please.

Mr. Farnan: This is necessary to understand the question, Mr. Speaker. Following that, there was a letter from the Salvation Army to the employees. After granting the employees the wage increase for one week, each employee received a letter saying that it was rolled back and that they would not get the back pay. My question to the minister is, what is he prepared to do to protect the employees of the Salvation Army so that they do not have to subsidize through low wages the care of the elderly in this province?

1500

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: What a terrible time of year to raise a question such as that about the efficacy of what the Salvation Army is doing in Cambridge.

I must apologize to my friend the member for Cambridge to the extent that I am not aware of the dispute going on at that home. If my friend would be kind enough to forward to me a copy of the documentation, I could review it and then get back to it and let him know whether or not there are steps that should or could be taken within the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Farnan: I agree that for the workers at this institution it is indeed a terrible time of the year to be underpaid and to be facing extra costs at Christmas. The Salvation Army public relations director, Major Edward Pearce, explained that the facility is funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, rather than the Ministry of Health, which results in a substantial reduction in the grant money received. “We come in at the bottom end of the scale,” he said.

Will the minister agree that when workers are underpaid in the manner of this nature, morale suffers and the care of the elderly suffers? Will the minister make a pledge to this House that he will work in cabinet, together with the Minister of Community and Social Services to ensure that employees --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I consider it my primary responsibility within cabinet to make as forceful arguments as I can in the interests of workers, not only workers working at nursing homes under the jurisdiction of the Salvation Army, but all over the province.

If there is a particular labour dispute, however, between the workers at this nursing home and their employer, be it the Salvation Army or anyone else, my friend the member for Cambridge and I both know that the appropriate action is to take the case either before a board of arbitration or, under some circumstances, to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It would be inappropriate, from the facts that he has given me, to intervene in this particular case.

I cannot tell him more about the funding arrangements. Obviously, it is the jurisdiction of my friend the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). I take him at his word that his interests and my interests are the same when it comes to promoting the interests of workers.

OSHAWA AUTO AUCTION LTD.

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On November 18, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister Consumer and Commercial Relations, I asked the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) a question regarding the car auction at Oshawa. It hinged around the sales of October 21 and October 28 of this year.

I would like to ask the minister if he is as concerned as I am that Lloyds Bank apparently withheld the funds that it was understood were in trust, which totalled over $2 million on those particular sales, and the cheques that were issued on October 21 and should have been payable right away were withheld. They were bounced -- not sufficient funds -- on October 29.

I would like to ask the minister --

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

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member in his question to my colleague also asked if we would get together with the Used Car Dealers Association as quickly as possible. I can report to him and to the House that I had an opportunity to meet with the association last Wednesday morning, and to review this situation with them thoroughly. I certainly share the concern that has been raised by my friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew as to the situation where there is some $2.3 million of loss, spread among a large number of dealerships, but in some cases, as a result of the loss, there have already been layoffs and very real hardship.

I am sure my friend will understand that Lloyds Bank falls into the jurisdiction of the federal Minister of Finance. As a result of the meeting, my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions and I sent a telex last Thursday or Friday to Mr. Wilson asking for his immediate intervention in the situation.

I want to say while I am on my feet that while we have no jurisdiction directly, I would express a real concern on the part of this government as to the actions of Lloyds Bank in this situation. While it was not a formal trust, it was clearly expected that that $2.3 million was in a trust fund, and I think it was quite inappropriate that that money was seized.

Mr. Wiseman: I realize that it comes under federal jurisdiction, but our Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and our Minister of Financial Institutions meet from time to time with the banks, and I think they can put a certain amount of pressure on the banks to release this money.

Will the minister give a commitment today and perhaps talk to his colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions, to write to that bank and outline what he has said to the House here this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: A number of options were examined. Certainly I hope the senior officials at Lloyds Bank will acknowledge and be made aware of the views of this government on the basis of the answer I am giving to the honourable member today. We felt it was most useful in terms of getting immediate action to ask the federal Minister of Finance, who does have jurisdiction, to get involved.

While I am on my feet, I should say there is one other thing that will be of interest to the honourable member and which we shared with the Used Car Dealers Association. It is that until now, because these are dealer-to-dealer auctions, the trust situation has not been licensed and registered. As we are reviewing the legislation, that is one area we intend to tighten up.

Because they were dealer-to-dealer auctions, it had not been viewed in the past that there was direct consumer involvement. While there is not direct consumer involvement from the fallout of this situation, I can say that the indirect consumer involvement has been quite significant indeed.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the resolution passed last week by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, despite the objections of the pork producers in particular, does he support the unanimous resolution of the County Federation of Agriculture “that Ontario agriculture has nothing to gain and everything to lose from the free trade deal”? If he does, can he explain why his colleagues voted down the resolution put forward last week against free trade and calling on the government to do everything possible to stop the deal?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It depends on which sector of the agriculture and food industry you are talking to whether they support this agreement. As the member indicated, the red meat producers tend to support this agreement, whereas the grape growers and the fruit and vegetable growers have very serious reservations about it.

I would tell the honourable member that ever since there were even rumblings about this free trade agreement, my ministry became very active. It met with all sectors of the agriculture and food industry. It released a report on the impact that free trade would have on the agriculture and food industry.

We have continued to have meetings with the industry, and we will also be releasing another report indicating what this deal means to all sectors of the agriculture and food industry. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) will be in receipt of this report, as will the cabinet ministers.

I will be attending an agriculture ministers’ conference tomorrow, and I will definitely be participating in the discussion on free trade and letting the federal Minister of Agriculture know exactly what each and every sector of the industry has to say about free trade and how it will impact on their industry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to inform the members that the time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could help me. Is it your understanding the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) did not answer the question as to what his position is on free trade?

Mr. Speaker: I did state that time for oral questions had expired. Point of order?

1510

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

Mr. Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Today you ruled out of order comments that I made outside of this chamber. I would ask if you would examine your ruling of December 12, 1985, in Hansard on this very point on behalf of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine).

Mr. Speaker: I remember it very well and I certainly will.

PETITIONS

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM

Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to present a petition signed by persons, some of whom are in the gallery today, in regard to the rights of grandparents and heritage of children.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Some members may wish to leave the chamber; some members may wish to have a private conversation with other members. However, the member for Parkdale would like to present a petition and be heard.

Mr. Ruprecht: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just like to remind all our visitors we are most happy to have them here. However, they must not participate or demonstrate in any way.

Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to present a petition signed by over 1,400 persons from Ontario, some of whom are in the audience today, in regard to the rights of grandparents and heritage of children.

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

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

“That the Ministry of the Attorney General hereby amend section 21 of the Children’s Law Reform Act so the word ‘grandparent’ be included to apply for access of their grandchild. This existing law must be improved so it is recognized that a child has the right to his or her heritage.”

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Owen: I have been asked to file a petition from 95 residents of my riding, mainly injured workers, who are requesting a royal commission on the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker: To the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, I presume.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT

Mr. Reville moved first reading of Bill 50, An Act to provide for Community Mental Health Services.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Reville: The bill in question allows the minister to establish and maintain systems of community mental health services which follow certain comprehensive principles and which may include certain comprehensive components.

ANSWER TO QUESTION IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before calling the first order of the day, I would like to table the answer to question 2 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Monday, December 7].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 1, An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office.

L’hon. M. Scott propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 1, Loi assurant une plus grande certitude quant au rapprochement des intérêts personnels des membres de l’Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres avec les devoirs de leurs fonctions.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a word or two to you and to my colleagues about this bill, which has, as you know, because it was inadvertently introduced as Bill 1, a high degree of priority for this government. The reason for that, of course, is that one of the basic obligations of all of us is to ensure that elected members of the Legislature are entitled to the confidence of their electors and the community of Ontario, whose work they do. This bill has been designed as best it could be designed, in my respectful view, to ensure that this will occur.

I want to begin by emphasizing that, as every honourable member knows, there is no subject that attracts more public interest, and perhaps with reason, than the potentiality that a member of the Legislature or a member of the executive council has exhibited a conflict of interest. All members will know there is no certifiably acceptable way to resolve the problems this potential presents.

There are a number of legislative responses in other provinces which are different than this, and honourable members will want to canvass very carefully the alternatives that have been adopted elsewhere. It is for that purpose that we expect and are content, if there is no objection -- indeed, even if there is an objection -- that the bill should be submitted to a committee so that the views of members can be taken in that environment about the strategies we have devised in order to deal with this extremely difficult problem.

The problem really presents four features that I would just like to touch on before I go on to describe the nature of the bill itself.

The first feature and the first difficulty in this exercise has always been to define what is a conflict of interest. Until an effort is made to do that, we do not know the evil to which the legislation is to respond. Defining a conflict of interest has never been a simple matter. It is one of those things like an obscenity: you may not be able to define it but you sure as hell know what it is when you see it. That metaphor was not from my prepared remarks. I just threw it in to give the honourable members opposite some sense of what we are trying to discuss here.

The point I want to make is that the first starting point must be the question of a definition, and the definition is never an easy question. I suspect when certain reports now reserved by judges and submitted to the federal government are made public, members will see that there is a wide variety of ways of defining a conflict of interest.

We have selected a definition to which I will come, and I will be grateful to have the views of all honourable members on whether that definition is too broad, too narrow or what modifications might be proposed with respect to it.

The second exercise here, once a conflict of interest has been defined, is to attempt to develop a scheme that will permit honourable members to avoid occasions which give rise to that conflict. So the second issue is avoidance: What rules can we establish, “conflict” having been defined, that will reduce the number of potential conflict situations and permit, or if not require, members to avoid what we in my church would call those occasions of sin?

1520

The third exercise in dealing with conflict-of-interest legislation, it seems to me, is to develop a scheme which will permit full disclosure to the public. I want to emphasize that, because that has not been a characteristic of most conflict-of-interest legislation in this country, and a number of strategies have been developed at various levels of government precisely to preclude full disclosure to the public. The blind trust and operations of that type, which do not require the disclosure of the assets subject to the trust, is only the most common example.

So the third challenge for us was to devise a bill that would require, with some modifications but generally speaking, full disclosure to the public certified by a commissioner. The purpose of that, of course, is not to satisfy the curiosity of the public, let alone the curiosity of the opposition or our own party, but rather to allow the opposition, the governing members and the public to judge whether the conduct of a member of the executive council or a member of the Legislature was likely to be in conflict in respect of a particular issue because of the economic assets he held.

It seems to me, if I may say so, that one of the most important features of this legislation should be our commitment to disclosure. As I say, federal legislation does not require this in the same way. Provincial legislation in Ontario has never required this in the same way, but this bill is founded on disclosure which, at the end of the day, will allow the public and our colleagues to judge most effectively whether we have as legislators or members of the executive council found ourselves in positions of conflict which we have been unable to resolve.

The last feature that was very much in our minds as the bill was drafted for presentation to the House arises by virtue of the experience many of us here have shared over the past two years. In the past two years, in this House, there were allegations of conflict of interest made against at least two honourable members. I have nothing to say about that except to observe that the only method of resolving that conflict, either affirming that it existed or, perhaps more important in some cases, judging that it did not, was a committee representative of the House.

Now I have nothing to say about the work of the committee over the past session, particularly as the chairman of the committee is present today, but I simply observe that if that kind of allegation were made today under the old rules about a member of the executive council, the committee that heard the charge would be a committee which, according to our way, represented the House and therefore would be dominated by government members. And though it may not be true to say that anybody over the past two years lacked confidence in the minority nature of the committee that dealt with the previous charges -- though, in respect of some of the members -- well, we will just leave that.

Mr. Breaugh: That’s a boy.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Was I right to leave that? All right.

One would not care to say that a committee established in a minority government would not be able to do justice between a member and the House when an allegation of conflict arose, but I do believe there would be a real perception that a committee dominated by a government majority might not be able to do that justice, whether that was true or false.

In other words, in this House the traditional way of judging whether a conflict exists is a House committee and that committee, with the greatest respect for the work it tries to do under very difficult circumstances, will not always be perceived as fair, quick or, most important, independent as between the member and the House.

The other traditional method in Canada of determining whether a conflict of interest has been made out -- and I say in parenthesis that we will always need a mechanism to determine whether a conflict has been made out, no matter how the bill is expressed -- has been a royal commission.

In the past two years we have had an example, for the delectation of members, of that exercise. It is fair to say that it may be that such an exercise is independent in so far as it may be presided over by an independent judge with tenure for life, but it cannot be said that it is quick and it cannot be said, because of the media treatment that such an exercise always receives, that the result will necessarily be fair in the public mind to the principal actors.

The fourth major challenge for anybody attempting to draft a conflict-of-interest act is to develop an independent mechanism which will be able to respond to the question: Was there a conflict of interest when the member voted on this bill, when the executive council member approved that program? So much the better if that independent commissioner can give advice to members beforehand, because surely the exercise here is not simply to catch out those who do wrong. The exercise must also be to assist those who want determinative guidance as to what it is right to do.

It was those four major challenges that we had in mind when we drafted the bill. I recognize from statements that have been made here and outside this place that the response of all members to that challenge will not be the same as the response the government has selected. It is for that purpose that l frankly look forward to taking this bill to committee and reviewing it with all honourable members.

The first challenge has been met essentially by our effort to define “conflict,” which we do in section 2 and, in an extended definition, in sections 3 and 4.

Section 2 reads: “For the purposes of this act, a member has a conflict of interest when the member makes a decision or participates in making a decision in the execution of his or her office and at the same time knows that in the making of the decision there is the opportunity to further his or her private interest.”

A conflict exists not when a wrong is done but when a member is put in a position where his duty to the public in making a decision conflicts with his private interest. Having found himself in such a position of conflict, the minister or the member has the obligation to exit the situation by declaring a conflict in the traditional way, with which municipal councillors will be familiar, and refusing to participate in the decision.

The point I want to make to honourable members is, I think, understood; namely, that all of us will at one time face conflicts of interest because all of us have private interests. Many of us, if not all of us, will be invited to make decisions, whether it is voting on a bill or approving a program in committee or in executive council, that may advance or handicap our private interests.

I live in a house in ward 6 in Toronto. I conceive it might be said that if this government introduced market value assessment, which I am led to believe will increase my tax rate but not the tax rate of other municipal taxpayers by $400, it may be said that my private interest as the owner of my house was in conflict for a moment with my duty to decide what was best for all ratepayers in the city or all ratepayers in the province. I would have a conflict. There would be nothing unusual about it.

1530

Members will have these conflicts regularly as they survey the private interests they have and their public duties. Respectfully, the trick is to face up to that reality, to acknowledge that the conflict exists and to withdraw from the decision-making capacity or the vote that would represent that they have succumbed and submitted to the conflict. The commissioner is here to assist all honourable members to do precisely that.

When you understand conflict of interest in that way, you will see why it was our decision, subject to what this assembly may say, to apply the conflict rules not only to executive council but to all members, because it follows that all members will be just as susceptible to potential conflict as members of the executive council. They will have the same private interests, or private interests of character and dimension. Indeed, because they will be entitled under our bill to carry on businesses, it may be that they will have more private interests.

They will be faced with the same public duty from time to time. Perhaps it will not be an obligation imposed on them in precisely the same way, but to vote on a bill, to participate in committee in moving or voting on an amendment, particularly in times of minority government when some of the oddest amendments proposed by the opposition got passed, will put an individual member in a position of conflict of interest. This bill is designed to recognize that reality by applying the principle to all of us who come here anxious to discharge our public duty.

The definition of “conflict of interest,” which is found in section 2, is, in effect, expanded by precise prohibitions in sections 3 and 4. The first, section 3, is utilized to deal with what marginally in the notice is called “insider information.” It says, “A member shall not use information that is gained in the execution of his or her office and is not available to the general public to further or seek to further the member’s private interest.” In other words, beyond making a decision -- and section 3 will be a matter of interest if you look at the case of a prominent federal cabinet minister much in the news -- where no decision was made, but where information available only to the member of the executive council was used to advance a private interest, that is an expansion of the definition.

Section 4 is an expansion based on influence: “A member shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made by another person to further the member’s private interest.”

So I believe we have not necessarily a perfect definition of that juxtaposition of private interest and decision-making or duty which gives rise to a conflict, but a workable definition.

I ask honourable members to assist in committee by applying their minds to this critical question of definition, because I think we all share, as one, the sense that conflict should be defined in an appropriately broad way so the public interest is advanced but, at the same time, with sufficient clarity so that members and the commissioner may be able to judge when the conflict actually exists.

The second important feature, responding to the second problem to which I initially referred, is that the bill requires full financial disclosure of the members’ interests, the interests of spouses and the interests of minor children. This permits a public record to be made of virtually -- l think I am correct in saying this -- virtually all assets of those three categories: the member, the spouse and the minor children.

Now, I ask members to consider the desirability of full disclosure for the reasons that I have given, but honourable members will also want to consider whether the net is broad enough, and that presents for all of us a major difficulty. Should it be that adult children should be obliged to disclose? Should it be that spouses of adult children should be obliged to disclose all their financial circumstances? If you go that far, why not the minor children of adult children and their spouses, and why not the spouses of those minor children? So what you see --

Mr. Wildman: Spouses of minor children? Wouldn’t that be unusual?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Certainly. It happens. It happens especially in the north. The honourable member will know that.

The question is, in other words, that the bill is based on the proposition that disclosure by near relatives should be required, just as is disclosure by the member himself or herself. Everybody understands that one’s family network will be close and tight or broad and loose depending on one’s personal relationship to those members. But a line had to be drawn somewhere, and I understand that the case for drawing the line in any particular place is very difficult. There will be those who say that, in this day and age, spouses of members who may be engaged in a perfectly lawful business earning their way should not be required to disclose their affairs for all the public to see.

A strong case has been made to me in the drafting process that if, in the late 1980s, we believe in the entitlement of spouses -- usually, in this context, women -- to make their careers and advance their interests, we should not impose on them -- whether they be doctors, lawyers or clerical workers -- the obligation of disclosing to the public everything they own and everything they have, simply because they had the misfortune to marry or enter into a relationship with a member of the assembly. But we have made that difficult choice against that interest and have recognized the practical reality that spouses should be compelled, in so far as they can be compelled, to full disclosure.

We have done the same thing for minor children. We have not done so for adult children, and a case can be made that we should do so. I suppose the case could equally be made that we should do so for parents. There is the necessity of drawing a line at some point, and I will be very interested in committee, or indeed in the speeches that follow, in hearing where that line should be drawn. There is no difficulty as a matter of principle, it seems to me, in drawing it here or there. There is simply the issue of what is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case in Ontario today so that disclosure can be obtained in the interests of the public but yet so that people will be allowed to carry on private business, as they would be allowed to do if they were not members in this place.

Those rules of disclosure apply to members. There are special rules that apply to members of the executive council, and those rules essentially are found in section 7, which provides:

“(1) A member of the executive council shall not,

“(a) engage in employment or in the practice of a profession;

“(b) carry on a business, including the management of personal financial interests; or

“(c) hold an office or directorship other than in a social club, religious organization or political party.”

What is the purpose of that rule? The purpose of that rule is not merely to require that the member of the executive council shall devote his full time and attention to government business. It will have that salutary side-effect, but its purpose is precisely to reduce the occasions which may give rise to conflict.

1540

Now, it does not -- and nothing could -- reduce them to a vanishing point, and again the issue about whether the reduction of the potentiality for conflict in the members of the executive council is not an issue of principle; it is simply an issue of whether the line has been drawn at the right place.

Even those, you see, who say that members of the executive council should be required to divest do not mean what they say, because they never require you to divest yourselves of everything. They require you to divest yourselves of certain things, leaving the potentiality for conflict with respect to the other things where divestment is not required.

As the honourable members can see, for example, if a garbage dump is being voted on in the executive council -- and that happens from time to time -- and it is going to be placed immediately on the ravine lot next to my property, it goes without question that I would have a conflict of interest if I proposed to vote on that project. Divestment would not solve that problem.

It is true that divestment would reduce significantly the number of conflicts that might arise, just as section 7 intends to do. Again, in deciding where the dividing line is, it seems to me that in committee, members will want to take account of the interests on both sides. Divestment, prohibitions against honourable members from carrying on businesses -- because we must not restrict this to the executive council -- the purpose of this is not to require your full attention to the job; the purpose of this is to avoid conflicts. I presume if that is its purpose, an argument could be made that it should be extended to all honourable members, or that divestment should be extended to all honourable members.

If members say, “That is silly. Honourable members do not make real decisions,” l ask them to look at the history of the last two years, when from time to time I used to begin to wonder who the government of the province was. So did the honourable members opposite, as they are plain to point out. It may be that the present disaffection of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), which is so apparent on his face as he comes gloomy into this hall daily at 1:30 p.m., is simply a function of his observation that his governing days are over.

But all that having been said, it must still be recognized that honourable members, in committee and in the House, can change laws and do change laws, and are therefore just as susceptible to positions of conflict, though perhaps not as many in number, as those who are in executive office. So if a theorist, a purist were to say, “Nobody here should carry on any business,” again we have --

Mr. Wildman: That has been happening here since November 3.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is certainly true in the case of the honourable members opposite, who are getting quite used to and quite comfortable with it, as a matter of fact. We know the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is going to be up every day. He is allowed one question, only about housing, never about his own party. We understand that. The member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) has not been allowed to say a word about French-language services from the day the House began, and we know that is because the fix is in.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I heard him one time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member heard him one day? It must have been in the antechamber.

However, it is an exercise in line drawing. We have decided that it is not an appropriate response, particularly in the light of the kind of emoluments that are available to honourable members, regrettably, to require honourable members to give up the right to carry on a business or to manage a business or to take outside employment.

I think it is important to understand that when honourable members opposite do that, they will be in positions of conflict from time to time. When one honourable member in the last session became an employee, as he was perfectly entitled to do then and is entitled to do under this bill, of a prominent drug house, when there was a drug bill before the House, he would face a conflict of interest as defined in this act or as defined by any typical authority. His obligation would be to --

Mr. Breaugh: He just couldn’t get his Maserati headed in this direction often enough, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Yes, but he is learning.

Under this act or any other, his obligation would be to declare that conflict and to absent himself from that part of the decision-making process.

In other words, our bill draws that line in favour of the right of individual members to carry on businesses and to take other employment. This is not a full-care-and-attention provision. It is a provision designed to reduce occasions for conflict, and we think that the present proposal is sufficient to reduce to a manageable level the likely occasions of conflict that ordinary members will confront.

With members of the executive council, on the other hand, we have taken a different view: that they should be prohibited from doing any of those things, because it simply escalates the occasion of conflict.

There will be those like the professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, who writes to the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star, but the Star three days before he writes to the Globe, and who is the --

[Failure of sound system]

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That’s the same way you guys handle your press releases.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, and who will be -- honourable members will want to hear this -- and who will be, if this legislation is passed, to his embarrassment, obliged to file a disclosure statement under this law, which we will all pore over on this side of the House. That professor says that divestment is the solution for cabinet ministers. He does not propose, interestingly enough, divestment for his old colleagues in the major opposition party. He proposes divestment only for executive council members.

We have drawn the line against divestment and we have done that, to be perfectly frank, because we believe that it will not induce people in Ontario to run for public office if they understand that the measure of their success in that run will be marked by increasing divestment of their assets. That is a judgement we have made, and I look forward to hearing the views of other members of the Legislature on that very difficult question.

I should say one other point about executive council members. Under most conflict-of-interest schemes that are incorporated by statute and under many which are found only in guideline form, a member of the Legislature or a member of the executive council who is required to stop carrying on business is entitled to transfer his business to some kind of trust, usually a blind trust. The purpose of this blind trust is that the management of the business will be remote from the honourable member and that he will not know the assets that that business acquires. We believe, and I believe the history of federal conflicts in the last two years illustrates beyond doubt, that people do not believe blind trusts work. Therefore, we have consciously elected to abandon that mechanism as a solution for the operation of a business that was owned by a member.

What we have said in its place is this: The member may assign his business to a manager. The manager will be approved so that his arm’s-length relationship is documented by the commissioner. It will not be any old manager; it will be any old manager approved by the commissioner.

The second thing is that the manager will be under a contract in statutory form which prohibits him from taking instruction from the beneficiary of the trust but which requires him to disclose assets acquired to the beneficiary.

1550

People may ask: “Why do you take the blinkers off the trust? Why do you force the member to know what he owns?” That forces him to know what he owns so that he will always be obliged to judge whether his private interest, what he owns, is in conflict with his public duty, what he votes on, what he decides, and so that he will never be able to say in good conscience: “I didn’t know I owned that. I didn’t know we had those shares. She never told me.” He will always know, and our evidence that he always will know will be the trustee’s statutory obligation to tell him.

Then if the honourable member fails to protect himself by asking for an opinion from the commissioner or by declaring a conflict and failing to vote, absenting himself from a vote, he may have an explanation, but it will never again be the explanation: “I didn’t know I owned those assets. I didn’t know I had acquired that property or that value.”

I believe that, increasingly, students of conflict of interest are recognizing that the blind trust, so well intentioned in its origin, has failed and that the only replacement solution is either divestment, which we have rejected, or arm’s-length management with full disclosure, which we have accepted.

The third element of the bill is the appointment of the commissioner and a process which will permit all honourable members to obtain the advice of the commissioner. In my respectful view, this is critically important, because while honourable members are going to be deemed to know what they own, and while we assume they have the wit, and will have the wit, to know when they are about to take a decision, it is not always an easy question to determine whether there is in an objective sense a real conflict.

One of the problems is that all of us are obliged to take that decision with whatever advice we can get to hand, often in only moments, on very short notice. It is inevitable that the best-intentioned and most honourable people, in making that judgement, will either abandon their duty to vote wholesale out of fear or will from time to time make the wrong decision.

In my view, that is unfair to honourable members, indeed intolerable to the process of which honourable members play a part, and there should be an avenue so that honourable members who seek it can ask somebody else to make a judgement on the objective facts of their case by applying the definitions under sections 2, 3 and 4 and have reasonable security that if the facts presented to the commissioner were accurate and full and complete, they will then escape the criticism that they have acted improperly.

The fourth major characteristic of the bill is the creation of a mechanism, not simply for the provision of advice from the commissioner but rather a mechanism which ensures that an allegation made by one member against another that a member has acted in a prohibited way, or in a situation where there was a conflict of interest, can be adjudged decisively, fairly and economically, so we will never again have to face in this chamber the unfortunate spectacle, which nobody sought to bring on us but which was imposed on us, of asking committees of the assembly, usually perhaps dominated by government members, or committees of the assembly in a fractious minority situation, to set themselves up as judges on such an important, critical matter relating so closely to the integrity of a member

As all honourable members will understand, if an allegation of conflict of interest is made against a fellow member, there can be no allegation that strikes more directly at his reputation for integrity, for honesty and fair dealing in the community. There can be no allegation that strikes more directly at the way in which he has discharged his obligation as a member of the assembly. When that allegation is made out, it is an indictment that may survive for a long period of time and that may be impossible to escape.

I believe all honourable members believe that we should have a mechanism that is independent, that is fair, that is quick either to point the finger at those who have failed the standard or to exonerate, even more important, those who have not but against whom the unfortunate and damaging allegation has been made. I believe that this mechanism is as close as we have yet come to devising an appropriate response.

I want to say two other things about it. I think it is critically important that the mechanism we use, whatever it is, be a mechanism that is nominated by and within the control of the assembly. I also think it is critically important that it is not a court or a judge, not because I have any sense of inadequacy about the capacity of a judge to, from case to case, decide these matters, but because I believe this is a function that the assembly, through its agents, should provide and that we should not give over to outsiders, no matter how experienced and intelligent they may be.

I will stop shortly, all honourable members will be pleased to hear, because I want to hear from my colleagues about this bill. If I may just predict for a moment what some of them are going to say, without actually spoiling it for any of the members by saying it, they are going to point to deficiencies in this bill.

They are going to say, “You do not cover this, you do not cover that, perhaps you have covered that improperly,” and so on. That information is going to be extremely helpful to the government and to the committee which ultimately comes to consider the bill, and we want to consider it carefully. We are engaged in a novel exercise of attempting to develop in statutory form, for the first time in Ontario, conflict guidelines and remedies, and we are anxious to have all the help we can get.

But I ask honourable members to note that there is no scheme at the end of the day that will uncover every cheat or every dishonourable person. This bill cannot be and, as a credit to this institution, should not be directed at the lowest common denominator.

In other words, we should draft this bill, conscious of the obligations it imposes on members, conscious of the extent to which it now requires divestment for some honourable members and also conscious of the fundamental reality that, though our answers may be poor, the questions may be stupid and the bumbling through from day to day is more protracted on some days than others, almost every person who has served in this assembly -- I am sure since Confederation, although some of the early cases raise doubt -- attempted to discharge his obligations with honour, and so it will continue to be.

This act is an effort to set guidelines and a mechanism in statutory form, not a police bill, and I ask the honourable members to review it in that way.

1600

Mr. Breaugh: I want to say at the outset that we will support the bill in principle. We have called for a legislative response to this vexing problem for some time. I am pleased to note that the minister is prepared to send it off to committee, because I really think this is a bill which has to have the committee forum. It cannot proceed in any other way.

I would also say it is a bit unfortunate that this bill was not done during the minority, because this falls into the category where a minority Legislature would have provided us with a better bill. Through a variety of unfortunate circumstances, to be polite, that did not happen.

I do think that one of the principles behind this is, very simply, that a bill of this nature has to be a consensus bill. It must be something that all members on all sides agree with or it cannot be successful. For example, if at the end of this process we are unable to achieve that consensus-building process and we have one political party still saying, “We do not think that is a good bill,” the bill has failed. I am afraid that may be the circumstance in which we find ourselves.

I have listened very carefully to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) this afternoon and I must confess I feel as if I just sat through first-year law at Osgoode Hall, one afternoon’s course in legal ethics, which is a conflict in terms, for starters. I want to pay the minister a little bit of credit. This will not take long. I think he has made the effort, from a finely honed legal mind, to do this, and the flaw in that process is that this is in the end not a legal process.

This is not about what we think is a conflict of interest. It is not about whether we fulfilled all the legal obligations that are laid out under this bill. If that is our approach to it, if that is our perception of it, we simply ignore the reality that the public does not leave it up to us to define what is a conflict. We can sit in committee for the next eight years and try to come up with the perfect legal definition of a conflict of interest and the public out there will say: “Wait a minute. What is this? This is not about your determination of a conflict of interest. This is about our determination of a conflict of interest, perhaps over a set of circumstances that you never even thought about.”

As a matter of fact, as I looked through the definition that was attempted here, the first thing that occurred to me was that it may well be a conflict and the minister or the member does nothing, has no assets, does not take any act, does not vote, does not support a program, just turns the old blind eye towards something and something happens that is of personal benefit to him. So it is going to be very difficult to do that. I agree that there needs to be something in writing about what we think in general constitutes a conflict of interest, but it is going to be a very difficult process to go through.

Let me lay out some problems I think we have already. In many ways, I am reminded of my days as a teacher, when very often I would go out on the playground and there was some kid who wanted to prove how fast he could run. Very often what happened in that circumstance was that he would line up at the starting blocks and fall flat on his face. He was so anxious to prove to me as a teacher that he was really good, really quick, had a lot of skill, that he just simply could not even get out of the blocks without falling down. In many respects, unfortunately, I feel that has kind of happened here.

The Attorney General is keen. We have to give the AG full kudos for being keen on doing things, and he has a fine intellect at work here. But it would really have been one of those occasions when it would have served him well not to be so anxious to demonstrate his brilliance in front of all of us.

For example, it is not a big deal, but a little bit of parliamentary tradition has been broken by introducing this bill as Bill 1. That should not have happened. Somebody should have told him: “Do not do this. You are really starting off on the wrong foot here. Wait until the second day and demonstrate your brilliance then.”

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is not written down anywhere.

Mr. Breaugh: It is not written down, but already the minister has to defend it. That is the wrong way to start the process.

I think there is that kind of problem. Let me point out a couple of other things that I think are really going to cause pain at some point in time. The title of the bill reeks, to be polite about it. I know there is a quaint tradition to say that something like this should be the title of a bill, “An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office.”

Does the minister know what people in my constituency think of titles like that? The veracity in the title is challenged immediately. When the minister gets that fancy, they say: “Why is he getting that fancy? Why does he not say exactly what he means? If this is a bill to deal with conflict of interest, why is it not called that? Why did somebody go to all the bother of stringing out all these long words?”

In their lifestyle, when somebody lays a lot of long words on them, the red lights go off in the back of their minds. They say: “Whoops, this guy is trying to do something to me. This person is trying to divert my attention. He is trying to sell me a bill of goods.” In their life, whenever they see that kind of language used, they know the warning signs should go up: “You better start to read the fine print. Somebody is trying to use vocabulary on me.” There is that kind of perception problem that I think has to be dealt with.

There is also another larger one that I think all of us in public life are struggling with. It is that the perception among the population that we are all somewhat less than honourable is pretty well set and the assumption that we could write a law that would resolve this problem is really pretty silly. They pick up on that kind of conflict very quickly.

I believe, having been around here for a little while, that all the members I have met are pretty honourable. I disagree with them and I think they are wrong, but I have not met very many people here who I thought were real crooks who were in this building to write a law that would make them a lot of money, or were in here to take advantage of a whole lot of perks and power and things like that.

Even when I have met some who did those things -- and I have met some people who were very powerful and took advantage of their position for personal gain -- I would measure that against something that is a little longer than that, that they also put in long hours trying to devise a political system in Ontario that in general was for the betterment of the people they served. So there is that kind of balancing that I think needs to be done.

If there is somebody in here who has never had a fault, who has been totally without sin throughout his entire life, what is he doing in here? He does not belong with this group. This is a group of people, and people have faults and sins and they do wrongful things. Sometimes they do not mean to. It just works out that way; sometimes they do not set out to do things wrong, but circumstances force them into situations where they make wrong choices.

One of my concerns these days is that, among the general population, those who set themselves up as being without sin are going to get really chastised harshly. We cannot avoid the kind of media influence that has been used on our population over those who said they were holier than everybody else. The holy wars in the United States among the fundamentalist churches spill over into Canada.

The attitude that honourable members are somehow without fault, without sin and would never get into a conflict situation is something you cannot sell on the streets of my community or anywhere else. There is a challenging of the process that is very strong in my community and in other communities I visit around Ontario. Just because you say you are honourable and just because you say you now have a bill that will not let you have a conflict of interest does not mean for an instant that they will believe you. Perhaps that is the way it ought to be.

Let me point out some problems that I think we ought to try to deal with along the way. Those of us who were on the committee I chaired in the last session of this House will know what an awkward, difficult process it is to try to hear allegations against another member that he did something wrong, and will know how tough it is on a day-by-day basis to present ourselves in a committee room here and do something we really do not want to do.

We are not elected to judge one another; we do that on an everyday basis in question period. But nobody wants to get formal about it. Nobody wants to get right down into a committee room and sit, as we did, through a whole summer with camera crews draped all over the place and reporters challenging everybody’s word and listening to allegations that were made, because committees of the Legislature are not good places to do that kind of work. That is the work of a court, or of someone else. A committee is not a place where you engage in a lot of cross-examination, where you have the rules of a court system established. It is a different forum.

1610

To balance that against the royal commission, for example, that is dealing with the allegations against Sinclair Stevens, to compare the two processes, I would take the legislative committee process here far and away, from any perspective -- from the perspective of costs that the people of Canada are picking up, a huge legal bill on all sides of the issues for a federal royal commission, on a matter that is not yet decided and yet all the proceedings were televised and all the newspapers were full of stories. This week or next week, or whenever the federal government decides to, the final report will be tabled and it will all be done again. So the matter has not even been dealt with.

At least, warts and all, we dealt with the matters that were before our committee. In mine, as someone who chaired it -- again, a difficult role -- I felt it was important that whatever we came up with as an answer, as a decision, it would not hang together unless every member of the committee felt that was fair. I know that not all committees went that route, but for me there was no other way. If we could not convince our peers to come to a consensus decision on a matter like that, we contributed to the problem; we did not resolve it.

In the committee I chaired, to give the members their credit, they did the job no one wanted to do and they did it to the extent that they all agreed; the decision was unanimous. It did not mean they were all in love with that either, or even that they all agreed with every single word that we wrote. It simply meant they all felt in the end: “This is what’s fair. We may know a lot of things, and we may think a lot of other things, but this is what we can all agree upon.” That was the basis of our decision-making process.

I think it would have helped a lot if some of the aspects of this bill had been used in that situation. A committee of the Legislature, I think, is not a bad place to kind of say: “Here are the facts. Now you make the political judgement about whether your peer behaved or misbehaved.”

I think a commissioner could have gathered up those facts much better than we could, could have presented a report for a committee to deal with, and the committee could have done the sanctions part, if you like. I think that is conceivable.

I am not enthralled with the notion -- in here there is a proposal, for example, to fine people. This is not really one of those areas where fines seem particularly appropriate to me. Are we really saying that if someone was guilty of a conflict of interest and therefore can pay a couple of thousand dollars, or up to $5,000, the conflict does not exist any more? This is one of those “hang ‘em or let ‘em go” routines, in my books. I do not believe that the fine proposal is appropriate here.

I understand that for me, if you said to me, “You’ve got to pay a $5,000 fine, Mike,” that would hurt me a lot. That is $5,000 I do not have just now. I also know there are members in here that, if you said to them, “You’ve got to pay a $5,000 fine,” that is kind of pocket change for those folks.

In any event, I do not believe the fine mechanism is an appropriate one here. If a member behaved properly, he or she should be exonerated. If they did not, they ought to be out of here, and I call it in those harsh terms. I know that is a difficult judgement to make, and I know you may want to say, “Well, we’ll just say you were a bad person and this is a bad mark on your record; try to get re-elected with that one hanging around your neck,” and maybe that is acceptable.

I want to point out a couple of holes that I think are here; the Attorney General addressed one of them, so I think I want to start with that.

I do not believe this is one of those types of legislation where you can say to divest or not: “We’re going to make them all divest everything they have,” or “They do not have to divest anything.”

I do not see it in those terms. This is one of those areas where I think what is important here is that the commissioner must have the power to say to a member of the cabinet or the assembly, “This is a very serious conflict that you’re in, and there is no way that you can eliminate the perception of that conflict in the public’s mind unless you get rid of those assets.”

I do not think that should happen very often. It is kind of tough for me to envisage just when it would happen. But I do know that the judgement call cannot be left to the member. If we are to use a legislated approach here, which is the option that is being presented, the power to make that decision cannot be in the hands of the individual member. It must be upon the advice of the commissioner.

There are situations I can conceive of where there is no way to remove the conflict other than to require that the member divest his or her interest. I believe that is going to be true.

The minister can agree or disagree now or reject that notion now or when it goes to committee, but I will tell him today and he will hear it again: He either accepts that concept that some conflicts will be important enough that the commissioner should have the right to cause the divesting to occur or we are going to be right back where we were a year ago. That is fact. He can like it or not like it, believe it or not believe it, but it is not going to go away. There is no amount of filing, disclosing, putting together of pieces of paper or of yelling “Mea culpa” that will remove that, so hear the message:

I believe the commissioner, very simply, ought to be able to advise a member that he really should get rid of it, and ought to be able to say to some, “You have to.” That call should be the call of the commissioner. It should not be in the judgement of the member, although I quickly point out that there will probably be a lot of occasions when it would be sensible for the commissioner to say to a member: “Listen, there is going to be an ongoing conflict here of a large nature. In my view as a commissioner, it is not one which is really that serious but it is going to cause aggravation for you and you had better think about whether you want to just get rid of this store, this interest or this piece of property or live with the consequences of that afterwards.”

That is really political advice, not legal advice or anything else. It is somebody saying: “Listen, be aware that there is a problem here. If you want to live with the pain, fine.” But he should also be able to say, “This would be an intolerable conflict and you must divest that.”

Let me deal with one other area I did not hear the Attorney General say anything about, but l have heard him on previous occasions so I know he kind of believes this is a different ball game.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Can you flesh out an example, Mike, or a fuller example in that case?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. The government House leader has asked for a little fuller example. I will be as specific as I can and try to be polite. We cannot have a minister of northern affairs who has an interest in a large business concern in northern Ontario. He could say that is a political judgement call, but I am telling him that sooner or later it will be more than a political judgement call. If I were the commissioner in that situation, I would say: “You should be aware of this. Here are the situations where, if these fall into place, you are going to have to divest yourself of your interest in that firm.”

Just to explore it a bit further, we could say, “Well, it is full disclosure so everyone will know there is a conflict.” It does not remove the conflict. We could say, “Well, he has to get somebody in to manage it.” It does not remove the conflict. There is nothing we can do that will remove that fundamental conflict of interest while he has shares in that company.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Stay out of office.

Mr. Breaugh: Stay out of office, maybe; not assume a cabinet portfolio.

Some of what I think we are getting to in Ontario, in Canadian politics, is that some people are going to have to lose some of the old assumptions that you could occupy positions of great power in both government and business. I believe more and more that this is becoming difficult to do.

I remind members, to use the federal comparison, that much of what was in the nature of allegations against Sinclair Stevens was pretty common practice for many years in our federal Parliament. It was not uncommon for family members of a cabinet minister to be very prominent in the private sector, very aggressive in pursuing the formation of government policy and very aggressive in pursuing the actual use of taxpayers’ dollars to fulfil their desires in the private sector.

Just so we do not point the finger totally federally, I remind members that at the heart of the Caplan inquiry here, that was the gist of the allegations. That gets me to the next point.

I think that at the very least we have to establish the beginnings of a registry for people who would be, broadly termed, lobbyists. I do not mean to say that in itself does very much except it begins to say, “Here is an industry that is growing in Canada and needs to be regulated, even self-regulated, if that is the best we can do,” but first we need to identify that.

1620

Who are these people who move around the halls of power and represent the private sector and, sometimes, the public sector? We should be clear. We do not mean to talk about the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. That is not what we mean by a lobby group. We do not mean interest groups who come down here on the environment and stuff like that. We mean -- I mean -- people who are paid, who are professional, in-the-business folks, who consult, who lobby government, who act for the private sector and perhaps even for the public sector, and get large gobs of government money.

I am not interested in registering somebody who is in here to get $800 for the peach festival in Niagara. That is of no concern to me at all. I am interested in somebody who is full-time in business, getting millions of dollars in government funds to build whatever they are building these days.

I want to point out to the government again -- they can reject this idea now; they can kind of get it off the plate, they can pay no attention when it goes to committee -- that this is another one that is going to haunt them. This is another fact that is not going to go away.

Let us not dilly-dally around. The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) happens to be a very fine person who is married to a very prominent person in the building industry in Ontario. He builds big projects, lots of them with government money. The government is going to have to register or clarify that relationship in some way.

There are some things in here that in a sense come from another era. I listened to the Attorney General give his reasons for the definitions of spouses: for example, why children who are under age are included and why children who are over a certain age are not. This is a very difficult area to get into in a modern society.

Without casting any personal opinion on modern society and how it behaves, let members try to think in their own mind of a legal definition of a spouse that would apply in their communities. If we use the traditional concept that a spouse is somebody who is married to someone else, run that through your block and see how far you get. See how far in your own communities that definition will hold. Does it apply in this instance? Is it workable?

I have my doubts about that. I think we have to concern ourselves with that just a little bit and in a very old-fashioned, traditional sense. Are we interested in preventing someone’s wife or husband from functioning with the government, but the mistress would be OK? Is that what we are trying to say? I do not think so. The traditional definitions that we reach for here do not quite fill the bill.

One of the flaws, in part, I see in this act is very simply what I said initially. This is not something that really fits nicely into the legal definitions of all these things. The use of a law, which I support, is a little awkward here. I would say that in the broadest sense, the definition of conflict of interest is awkward and difficult for us.

Maybe that is not exactly where the problem is. Maybe it is not essential right now that we give the final definition on conflict of interest when we draft this bill. Maybe what is more important here is the principles that are involved, that there is a legislative process at work, that there is a commissioner at work, that there is a way that things have to kind of be made public and the disclosure provisions will work. That, I think, goes to the next little thing I want to talk about, which is the process of it all. Again, we are off on the wrong foot.

I wish it were true that we could all stand up and laud the appointment of John Black Aird as the interim commissioner. I really wish it were. I wish we had done that after the government had suggested his name, when we sent it off to a legislative committee, where everybody could get to say: “I think he is a real good guy. I know him. He is a very distinguished Canadian. He would certainly be great.” I wish we had the opportunity to do that. I think at some point we will all wish we had done that, because the commissioner who is envisaged in this bill is someone who gets a great deal of trust from the members of this assembly and from the people of Ontario, and it is absolutely critical that nothing can be seen really to be wrong with that appointment process.

The sad fact is that what has happened is that he has been appointed interim commissioner and the bill implemented before it was introduced in the Legislature of Ontario. We have the process backwards here, folks, and that is going to have ramifications on someone who is a very distinguished Canadian.

We have questions already in question period daily now about, “What ever happened to the disclosure provisions?” and people responding saying, “Well, it’s public disclosure but it’s secret for now.” I am sure that makes sense to the people who are responding. I am sure that when the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Attorney General have answered questions, they felt they were giving sensible responses.

Do you know what my constituents think about secret public disclosure provisions? They think they are real dumb. They do not believe you can have secret public meetings. They believe that if it is something to be publicly disclosed, it is done that way and you do not file them secretly and then make them public at your pleasure or when you think it is appropriate. That does not work.

They believe that when there is a disclosure provision in a bill such as this one, all you do is say, “This must be made public by this date.” It is not acceptable to say: “It’ll be ready when we think it is ready. It’ll be disclosed when we’re ready to do that.” The fact that you say “when we’re ready to do that” ruins the public disclosure part of it.

I think what is missing through all of this is the other angle, the public perception, which maybe members of the assembly can give it when we process this bill. In the end, I hope we are not trying to design a bill here that establishes kind of an insider’s guidelines on how to do things and that in the end is used as some kind of defence mechanism, because you cannot win that. Sometimes I wish you could. Sometimes I wish it were so that members of the assembly had the final word on all of this. They do not.

You can try as much as you can to convince yourself that you have done everything humanly possible, but in the end you have to realize it is not your call. You do not get to make this judgement. In their own weird and wonderful way, the people out there will do that for you, and they will resist mightily any attempts you have made to say, “We are without sin.” They do not believe you, they do not have to believe you and they will not. You can make an argument, as has been made in here, that while this disclosure stuff is all going to be made public some time and you may feel that is good enough, the public does not.

Let me close by offering an unfortunate prediction. I hope this really does not come to pass; I have some fears that it will.

It must be awfully tempting for a government that has a huge majority to kind of say: “Let’s give this a little song and dance here. We’ll whip this out to committee and whip it back in, but when the votes are called we’ll do what we want to do.” The Liberals can do that, and I do not deny for a moment that they can do that, but the public will kill them with it.

If this government, on a matter such as this, where its past is a little hazy, to be as polite as I can, just a touch hazy; not quite as clean as it would like to be --

Interjection.

Mr. Breaugh: I did not say we were without sin. I never make that claim.

An hon. member: The last time you said you were without sin you lost your job.

Mr. Breaugh: Nothing serious; do not worry. I appreciate the concern.

To get back to the little warning l was trying to give the government as gently as l could, it can exercise its majority, no question about that, but I want to go back to something that I said initially because I believe in it very strongly.

If this bill in its final form is not acceptable to everybody, it does not work. They can pass it, but it will not work.

I am concerned that may be where we are at. l am concerned that we would go through all this pain and aggravation and consideration and just plain hard work and in the end come up with a bill that does not really resolve the conflicts. It resolves them in the Attorney General’s mind, maybe even in my mind, but we may well have opposition questions -- and I will not be doing this. I guess maybe I can get it out today because I am not going to be the one. I cannot stand this kind of stuff, it is just not my bailiwick, but fortunately there are enough around who want to do it.

1630

I think the allegations of a conflict will come hot and heavy against our Solicitor General, the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). We can name them, who they are going to be, because the conflicts were there last time around and have not gone away, and this bill will not take them away.

Interjection.

Mr. Breaugh: Well, there may be some opposition members who kind of get popped in the head a couple of times on this. But I will tell members, the political reality is very simply this: You could yell all day long that somebody on this side of the House had a conflict of interest and it is not going to be such hot news at all. You might make the Toronto Sun, but I think you are going to have a tough time making the front page. But when it is in the cabinet, that is where the heat is.

Interjection.

Mr. Breaugh: The member is not even in his seat and he is heckling me; this is awful. He is usurping some more powerful person’s seat. The member should not sit in the seat of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon); he is the most powerful person in here.

An hon. member: You can take this and the freedom-of-information act.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, I know. To make the point: It is the kind of occasion when consensus-building ought to be the order of the day. The government will ignore it at its peril. I have some sense that perhaps, for whatever reason, the Attorney General is not going to be really amenable to a whole lot of amendments to the bill. I have some sense of how hard he has worked on the bill to fulfil it the way he sees things. That is fine for him, but it is irrelevant for a lot of the rest of us.

This is one of those areas where the best that we can do is to try to design a bill which is not a big legal pain in the rear, lower-back area. These bills can be that. We have all had a chance to visit other jurisdictions and talk about how they did this in a legislative form, and many of them report that all this really does is result in a tremendous filing of pieces of paper; it does not really do anything else. This bill has some measure of that in it. That would be a shame

I believe we need to try to make that consensus work. I believe we need to simplify in many ways what is in here and to make it something which is acceptable to members on all sides, because I believe that is important; something that has a kind of dispute-solving process at work, and that is important; and something which the public perceives to be a reasonable way to go, a reasonable law that the people in Ontario would expect and be happy to live with themselves.

It should not be based on the assumptions that the members of this assembly are in some way better than everybody else in Ontario, because the members here are not. We should understand that our traditions of saying that we are all honourable members are very venerable ones, ones that I personally like a lot, but they do not carry a whole lot of weight out in the streets of anybody’s community. They need a mark which they can understand and against which they can measure everybody’s performance.

The problem is that the mark will move around a little bit. They might think that something is really important today, and yet a year from now it is not important at all. A situation that could cause great conflict and that we were not able to think of when we processed this bill may emerge a year or two from now.

So I think we have embarked on a process that is important, perhaps more important than many of us would like. It is something which now clearly has to be done. I think we have learned in the last couple of years what not to do. I think we have yet to learn how to put it together in a way that is acceptable to everybody, that is reasonable to the members, that the public can understand and that takes into account the public’s perception of the political decision-making process.

I want to close by saying regretfully that I do not think this is going to go away, no matter what we do with this bill. Regrettably, I think there are going to continue to be allegations made of wrongful conduct. I do feel sad about that because many of the people who will be accused are people whom I know and whom I believe to be reasonable, honourable people. They do not mean to be caught in these allegations, but they will be.

I think that is unfortunate, but I guess it is now part of the political process that we are all involved in. There are allegations made about people in just about every level of politics now, and many in the media, in particular, seem to be fascinated with how far they can go with these allegations. This bill deals with the traditional question of who can make money off public office. The allegations are going far beyond that in many other jurisdictions.

We support the bill. I do not particularly think we need another great, huge debate on the matter, since we have had a couple of shots at it so far. We may have one or two other speakers, but by and large we have tried to make our position clear on the matter.

It will be critical that it go to committee, that it get a reasonable reception there, that we try to work out our differences and that we try to get a bill which, if not all members, then at least most members in most political parties find is acceptable to them. That is probably not the case right now, and I think we have our work cut out for us, because I believe that, in the broader picture of things, it is important that an act of this nature be put in place, that it follow roughly the principles that have been put in this bill, with one or two additions, and that the additions be important enough for the government of the day, even with a huge majority, to pay some attention to them.

With those few words, I will conclude my debate for now and look forward to participating in the construction work that will be done in committee.

Mr. Eves: I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to this proposed legislation on behalf of our party. I also would like to indicate that our party will be supporting the proposed legislation in principle.

I think this is a very important bill, because it sets forth a proposed new law in the very important area of conflict of interest. I am somewhat relieved the bill will now be going to committee for review and discussion, because I believe the bill is somewhat inadequate and perhaps, in a couple of respects, seriously flawed.

For years the province has operated under a set of premiers’ guidelines. For example, from 1972 until 1985, former Premier Bill Davis’s guidelines were in effect. I just want to review these guidelines for the benefit of members in the House because I think there are some important aspects to those guidelines -- not to say, of course, that they are the answer to everything. In fact, I think they need to be much improved upon, but in some respects they require a much more difficult onus than the proposed new law does.

These guidelines required that:

1. Members of the cabinet, their spouses and minor children publicly disclose their business and land holdings, whether they were direct or indirect, except for property that was occupied for their own personal residential or recreational use for themselves or their dependants;

2. During their time in cabinet, such members and their families were prohibited from purchasing, directly or indirectly, land or interests in land in Ontario or interests in land development companies carrying on business in Ontario;

3. No private company in which a minister or his family had an interest could become contractually involved with the government of Ontario;

4. If a matter involving a personal beneficial interest came before the ministry for which the minister was responsible, the minister was to have requested that a colleague be officially appointed to act for the ministry concerned for the purpose of dealing with that matter;

5. While holding office, ministers were to abstain from day-to-day participation in any business or professional activity;

6. Ministers had to disclose any change in their holdings of any types of property originally disclosed by them;

7. With respect to share interests in public corporations, ministers and their families divested themselves of such holdings or, as an alternative, placed all such holdings in the hand of a trustee, provided, in the latter case, that ministers exercised no control whatsoever over the investment decisions or management of the trust;

8. Land holdings were disclosed within a few days, all else within a month, and trusts were established and disclosed.

From 1985 until the fall of 1987, guidelines of the present Premier were in effect. They were the same as the Davis guidelines, with a few important exceptions. The exceptions were:

1. Companies in which the minister or his family had an interest could become contractually involved with the government of Ontario if the holdings had been placed in a blind trust;

2. It was now the duty of the trustee to notify the Office of the Premier that a matter affecting the interest of the minister had come before the ministry so that a colleague could be appointed to act for the ministry for the purposes of dealing with the matter;

3. As well as divesting or placing their interests in a trust, ministers and their families could, in instances of a closely held family company, establish frozen blind trusts. That is, the trustee simply holds the assets rather than invest them or dispose of them.

1640

The Bill Davis guidelines worked, and worked very well, for a great number of years. I believe they did because the Premier and the ministers of those days took their responsibilities in this regard quite seriously. A very high premium was placed on integrity and public perception of integrity. I think one only has to look at a couple of examples, of George Kerr and Frank Miller, to understand that that was the case. The Premier responded to his responsibility and acted on it.

The Peterson guidelines, over a much shorter period of time, did not appear to work so well, I believe because the Premier and some of his cabinet colleagues did not choose to take the guidelines perhaps quite as seriously they should.

The Premier did not pursue matters of alleged conflict. For example, in the case of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), he insisted right until the 11th hour that there was no breach of conflict whatsoever, despite the fact that an all-party committee of this House found there was. When the Premier was finally forced to admit that a conflict had indeed occurred, he labelled it as merely “a technical breach, nothing serious.”

The judge in the case of Réal Levesque said that politicians must realize that the breaching of such guidelines did not constitute mere technical violations, but that such breaches were indeed very serious matters which could cause grave problems, even lead to the commission of an offence by an otherwise law-abiding citizen.

The Premier has changed the guidelines so they correspond to the provisions of the bill before us here today. This bill is basically identical to the one presented to this House in the last session. Both our party and members of the official opposition would like to see the bill in some respects made much stronger.

Despite objections to the two previous bills, the Premier has changed his guidelines to match the flawed proposal and has even proposed to appoint a commissioner under a law which does not yet exist. I and my colleagues agree the time has come to move away from guidelines and pass a law, legislation, dealing with conflict instead.

Recent scandals at both the federal and provincial levels of government have resulted in increased cynicism towards politicians on the part of the public. I believe that the level of integrity and public morality of elected and appointed officials can no longer be seen to be a political game, one in which the standards upheld by public officials are left to the whim of the elected government of the day.

Recent experience has shown us that guidelines work well when the government of the day has a commitment to upholding and enforcing them. When the government is indifferent to guidelines or takes them lightly at best, the whole system falls into disrepute.

It can no longer be a game in which discovery of abuses is left exclusively to the vigilance of opposition parties or the media, a game in which happenstance and circumstances often dictate which abuses will be discovered and which will not, and a game in which such discoveries of abuses provide points for the opposition parties and the press, becoming just so much ammunition in a war of political words.

We must focus very clearly, I think, on what the public fears. The bill should not just be a scattering of ideas on conflict of interest. It must clearly and concisely address those areas which the public wants addressed. What is the public concerned about? What the public fears most is that an individual charged with making or influencing government decisions, mostly on matters of finance, grants or contracts, could use his position to derive a financial benefit. My party will be thinking about moving amendments to ensure this objective is more closely realized in this piece of legislation.

As well, in order to lessen public cynicism, there is a need to ensure that the conflict process itself is seen to be free of conflict. For example, as my colleague the member for Oshawa has pointed out, we have a commissioner appointed by the Premier. I believe it is very unfortunate indeed that the commissioner could not have been appointed by this Legislature. His independence immediately becomes suspect. I am not questioning for a moment the integrity of Mr. Aird. In fact, I think he is an outstanding individual and a good choice. But the problem already is that it was not done properly, that the government of the day did not care enough to do it right.

How can it appoint a commissioner under an act that does not even exist? We may as well all go home. What are we here for? What did we get elected for? We are here to make those decisions and not for the Premier and his adviser to make them behind some closed doors and shove them down the throat of the Legislature a few weeks or a few days later.

I think the commissioner in this act is being placed in a very difficult if not totally untenable position. He is expected to be lawyer, policeman, judge and jury in conflict-of-interest matters. He is expected to advise members on conflict, but then the same person turns around and investigates complaints of a breach. This is somewhat akin to discovering that the lawyer whose advice you have taken will now become the police officer investigating the alleged crime which results. He then also is expected to become the crown attorney and decide whether or not charges should be laid. If charges are brought, he then becomes the judge and jury deciding guilt or innocence and recommending punishment.

I think they are placing the commissioner in a very untenable position indeed. Perhaps some amendments should be considered to ensure that there are diverse roles and responsibilities not falling to just one individual.

Under the current bill, I think members have a set time in which they must file their disclosures with the commissioner. That is fine. There is, however, no time limit on when the commissioner must make these disclosures public.

The peculiar nature of the executive council is not adequately recognized by the bill, either. The members of cabinet, unlike members of the Legislature, are not elected to those positions by members of the public. They are chosen and appointed to those positions of power and influence by the Premier. I think we should at least consider amendments to ensure that the bill reflects this very important point.

This is the third bill on conflict of interest which this government has introduced. While my party will be moving some amendments to try to improve this piece of legislation, as I am sure the official opposition will as well, I am made somewhat cynical by the fact that the government has agreed to send this bill to committee for review and amendment only after obtaining a majority and when the likelihood of opposition amendments passing is very remote. I want to make it very clear that in the last parliament this same government absolutely refused to send this bill to committee. The only way it went to committee was with the combined opposition and dictates of the New Democratic Party and our party as well.

I think we should reflect for a moment upon what has happened in instances of alleged conflict under the Bill Davis guidelines and the action the Premier of the day took then in the cases of Mr. Kerr and Mr. Miller. Compare that with the current government and a Premier either unwilling or unable to enforce his own conflict-of-interest guidelines.

One minister took months to file a statement. Two were found by an all-party committee of the Legislature to have a conflict. Under the Davis guidelines, you had to file within 30 days. Under the new act, Bill 1, it is proposed that you have 61 days to file and there is no time limit set for public disclosure.

Under the Davis guidelines, no private company in which a minister or his family had an interest could become contractually involved with the government. I think that is very important. Under the proposed legislation, you do not have to divest; you just have to disclose your conflict and then carry on with it. You do not have to do anything about it. You can still make money from the government that you are a member of.

One has to ask this question: Is this government really serious about improving existing conflict-of-interest legislation and guidelines or is it not? If so, is it not fair for members of the public to assume that the conflict requirements will be strengthened, not weakened, by new legislation?

This legislation appears to lessen the requirements for cabinet ministers and certainly lessens them for parliamentary assistants while increasing requirements for ordinary members. Does this government feel that the Bill Davis guidelines were too strict and it has to water them down for parliamentary assistants and cabinet ministers?

1650

One cannot help but be left with the impression that the Premier is trying to absolve himself of some sort of responsibility for the positions that he appoints. Should he not be somewhat responsible for the people he appoints to cabinet or as parliamentary assistants or deputy ministers and for ensuring their compliance with these guidelines? He claims that he is. He told the Windsor Star on September 18 that he personally planned to review the disclosure statements made by all cabinet ministers and satisfy himself about them. We would like to know whether he has done so.

Could the Premier tell this House whether he or any other members of his cabinet would have had to divest themselves of interest in companies doing business with the government had the old Bill Davis guidelines been in place? If so, who are they, how are they in conflict and will he ensure that they are either removed from cabinet or change the legislation to put that onus on them?

Can the Premier explain why he believes it is appropriate for a member of the government’s executive council to retain an interest in business benefiting from taxpayers’ and public money so long as everybody knows the member is benefiting from it? Is this the new, tough conflict-of-interest legislation? Public perception in these matters is very important, as my colleague the member for Oshawa has mentioned The very least that should be happening right now is that this government and this cabinet should be complying with existing guidelines, until Bill 1 becomes law in whatever form.

The government’s whole attitude and approach to dealing with Bill 1 is the epitome of arrogance and disregard for democracy in this process and this Legislature. There is an assumption that the bill is going to pass without amendment. We do not need public participation; we do not need public hearings; we do not have to have a comparative analysis of the jurisdictions elsewhere that have conflict-of-interest legislation and guidelines.

Surely there should be no member of the executive council who could meet the new bill requirements but could not establish guidelines set in 1972. Is that desirable? Surely these members of the executive council, if they have such interest, should be made to divest them. Why are parliamentary assistants not treated the same as cabinet ministers under the proposed new rules? They have the same access to information that cabinet ministers do, unless parliamentary assistants over there today are a lot different than when we were in government.

Unless a member is nothing but a bumboy for his minister, if he has some real meaningful input into the ministry of which he is the parliamentary assistant, he should be offended by this piece of legislation. He has access to documentation and decision-making and he should be subject to the same sort of criteria that cabinet ministers are, as indeed should senior civil servants and confidential staff members, some of whom have a lot more influence, as I am sure those in cabinet have already discovered, than a lot of cabinet ministers themselves. They are not just ordinary members of the Legislature; they are privy to confidential information.

I have already indicated that I feel that the commissioner should be chosen by the House, not by the Premier. I think that is very important. We have a need for a commissioner as a watchdog for conflict of interest, as an auditor of public morality. We cannot expect one individual to act as adviser, judge and jury. It is not fair to that person and it is not fair to the system or the public. You cannot advise people, then rule on the advice that you have given. There is some need for an advisory body, individual or group of individuals, perhaps even in the Ministry of the Attorney General, who could perhaps forward to the Premier advice and statements and, when he is satisfied, forward it on to the commissioner to ensure compliance.

If a problem is perceived, I think we should in committee at least give some thought to a committee of the Legislature reviewing proposed conflicts or perhaps conflicts of interest that individual members may have. I think time limits are definitely needed for filing public disclosure statements. Right now we are operating in a sort of Never Never Land, as indicated by our leader’s question in the House this afternoon. Disclosure statements should be in the hands of the commissioner within 30 days and should become public within 60 days. Now the legislation is very open ended, “as soon as practicable,” whatever that means. Pardon members of the public if they grow cynical.

Ordinary members are not the same as members of the executive council. One only has to sit in the back rows of government benches or in the opposition for a few weeks to understand that. They are not privy to the same types of confidential information. The onus should be somewhat less for private members than it is for members of the executive council or parliamentary assistants. Members are not appointed by the Premier; they are elected by their constituents.

I have mentioned the need for senior civil servants and confidential staff to be included in this legislation. Their onus too, in many instances, is much greater than that of back-benchers. They too are appointed, not elected.

One has to wonder why statements of disclosure have not been filed with the Clerk of the House within the 61 days. I would say to the Attorney General that we can read and have read the bill and wonder why there is no time limit set. I wonder why now we are looking at two weeks, coincidentally when we are about to adjourn, before we are going to get this information.

I think this bill should indeed have public hearings and we should have a comparative look at other jurisdictions with respect to conflict of interest. I want the Attorney General to know that I am approaching these committee hearings with an open mind and I hope he is as well, because I have some serious concerns which I have expressed here today. There have been some very serious concerns expressed by the member for Oshawa as well.

I think enough has been said on the proposed changes or amendments that could be made to the bill. I look forward to participating in the committee process in the spirit of co-operation. I hope the Attorney General will seriously consider some of the suggestions made by myself and my other colleagues. I am happy it is now going to committee and I look forward to participating in that open, public process.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any comments pertaining to the member’s statement? I should have asked that before the last speaker but I did not. I apologize. If no comments, does any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to have this opportunity to review my thoughts on Bill 1, the conflict-of-interest act. Right off the bat, I want to say that I am puzzled by the thought of calling this a conflict-of-interest act. As far as I am concerned, I think this bill will not put an end to ministerial conflicts and it is certainly not very interesting.

The government says this bill will replace existing guidelines for legislative standards. It is supposed to establish a code of conduct for all members of this Legislature; it is supposed to create a broad disclosure rule for all of us here in the Legislature, our spouses and children; it is supposed to lead to the establishment of a system that provides advice on compliance available to members; it is supposed to create a method of determining and sanctioning breaches of the act, and it is supposed to establish the Legislature as the body responsible for sanctioning members found to be in violation of the act, with those sanctions to be recommended by a commissioner who will administer the provisions of the conflict-of-interest act.

That is what this bill is supposed to do; however, this bill will not apply to confidential staff; it will not apply to senior public servants; it will not apply to parliamentary assistants unless they are elected members, and it will not apply to lobbyists.

I noted earlier that this bill will require all private members to disclose their interests. I do not think this is necessary. Rather, private members should be required to abide by the provisions regarding bribes, undue influence, gifts and having to disclose a conflict of interest if a matter is brought before a committee of which they are chairman or a member.

1700

These are rules that we have lived by for years in this province under the Legislative Assembly Act, and I believe those rules have served the people of Ontario well. The problem of conflict of interest did not come along because private members violated the Legislative Assembly Act or the conflict-of-interest guidelines. This controversy came about because two members of this government’s executive council failed to comply with existing legislation or guidelines. Why penalize private members for the failings of this government’s executive council?

Private members like myself are not privy to the same confidential information that ministers are, nor are we apprised of government policy that is being considered. Therefore, the need for disclosure by private members is not a real one. Instead, it is a red herring to mask the failings of this government’s ministers or members of the executive council.

The bill removes the responsibility for overseeing compliance and determining enforcement when the act is breached from the Premier, where it rightfully belongs, and places it squarely on the shoulders of a commissioner and this Legislature. The Premier has shunned his responsibilities with this bill, which places on the commissioner the responsibility for investigating possible breaches.

This is completely wrong. The proper forum for the investigation is an open legislative committee and not behind the closed doors of a commissioner’s office. This bill does not include confidential of staff who are currently covered by the Premier’s conflict-of-interest guidelines. Why have they been deleted from this bill? They should be added to those covered by this conflict-of-interest bill. Since senior public servants are also privy to confidential information and can influence government policy decisions, they too should be included under this act but, as it stands now, they are not.

I find it extremely interesting that the government chooses not to include persons of the same sex who are living together under the government’s definition of “spouse.” Is this just an oversight? I propose that they too should be brought under this act.

Despite the political resurrection of two former cabinet ministers who were involved in scandals last year, this government has decided to appear as though it is tackling the thorny issue of conflict of interest. The government points to this bill as evidence of its commitment to squeaky clean government, but I say this act is not really as tough as it should be. In fact, this act is considerably weaker than guidelines that were set in place approximately 13 years ago.

How is it weaker? Under the old guidelines, private companies in which cabinet ministers had an interest were not allowed to receive government contracts. But under this bill we are discussing today, such companies will be able to receive government contracts as long as the minister has placed his or her interest in a so-called management trust that is administered by a trustee operating at arm’s length. From that, I can only assume that it will now be possible for companies in which cabinet ministers have a substantial interest to carry on doing business with and for this government. That alone makes a mockery of this bill.

The old guidelines obliged cabinet ministers to sell their interests in companies to allow those businesses to apply for government money. I maintain putting cabinet ministers’ interests in blind trust or in management trusts will not eliminate a conflict where a private company is involved, because the minister still owns the assets in that trust.

This bill will require members and their spouses to disclose their interests or holdings to the specially appointed commissioner, who would then make that information available to the public, subject to certain restrictions, of course. But I believe that paints all members with the same brush. That is being used because executive council members went astray in the past, but we are not all the same. I certainly do not want to be lumped into the same category as executive council members who failed to live up to their responsibilities and I do not think any other private members in this Legislature want to be either.

We in this Legislature should stop the passage of this bill dead in its tracks, right now, and have it sent to public hearings so we can hear from provincial legislatures across Canada on their experiences with this kind of legislation. There are two sides to every argument: there are good points and there are bad points. Let us hear about the good points and adopt them. Let us hear about the bad points and discard them. I am committed to public hearings on matters such as this bill and I believe a failure to do so could very well result in legislation that is not workable, not fair and not without flaws.

In the final analysis, the thought that we are even considering a bill of this nature is a sad commentary on this government. If this government had been able to comply with its own guidelines in the first place, if this government had cared about the guidelines, if the Premier had carried out his responsibilities in the first place with respect to enforcement, we would not have to be looking at this legislation to ensure that all members remain honourable members.

The sins of this government are being visited upon all of us in this Legislature today, and I do not like that. I feel extremely uncomfortable with this bill. I find this bill to be weak, distasteful, degrading and seriously flawed. If we do anything in this Legislature about Bill 1, it should be sent to public hearings where it can be thoroughly aired. Believe me, this will need some airing; in fact, it needs a great deal of fresh air.

The Premier is hiding behind the commissioner, whom he intends to call upon if there are any conflicts. He does not intend to take any responsibility for his leadership, with his executive council. I am very concerned about this legislation and I hope it gets a good airing in committee.

Mr. Pope: I was moved to rise to participate in this debate because I accept neither the mental gymnastics of the Attorney General in his presentation of the bill in the Legislature this afternoon nor his selective rewriting of history that led to the development of this legislation in this House.

The Attorney General in his opening comments indicated that conflict was like obscenity: difficult to define, but you know what it is when you see it. We are at this stage today, in this issue, in this Legislative Assembly, precisely because the Premier and the Attorney General and the Liberal Party of this province did not know what conflict of interest was and could not accept the reality of it when it was staring them in the face.

The Attorney General also advanced in his opening comment the proposition that the only method of determining if conflict exists under the current situation is to have a committee of this House meet to determine that subject matter and that because we are now in a majority government situation, that committee would be controlled by the government and by its members and, therefore, there would not be the public perception of fairness or adequacy given to a review of whether a conflict of interest exists.

I also reject that notion because it is factually inaccurate. Since the first conflict-of-interest guidelines were introduced in 1971 by the then Premier Davis, it has been the Premier of this province who has had ultimate responsibility and authority in matters of conflict of interest. It has not been left to a committee of this Legislative Assembly to determine; it has been up to the Premier, using his best judgement, for which he is accountable to the members of this assembly and the people of Ontario.

The Attorney General may not have realized that, as he only joined this body in 1985, but that is fact. It has always been the Premier, accountable to the Legislative Assembly and the people, who is the ultimate judge. It is the Premier and premiers right back in our legislative history who have had to answer to the opposition in question period and in debate for the conflicts of interest of the members of their executive councils. It has always been the Premier who has been answerable to the press and to the people of Ontario for the breach of conflict-of-interest guidelines by the ministers.

1710

That system worked prior to 1985. I had been here eight years before that, and other members have been here longer than I have before 1985. Allegations of conflict of interest were treated seriously by the Premier of the day. They were addressed immediately. Resignations were sought and obtained, and resignations were voluntarily given when the Premier made a determination, based on all the facts and information at his disposal, that indeed a conflict of interest existed.

This Premier had a unique understanding of the conflict-of-interest guidelines and he had a unique understanding not in keeping with parliamentary tradition or history. He had a unique understanding of his responsibility and authority in matters respecting conflict of interest.

I was on the committee that looked into the alleged conflict of interest of the member for Oriole (Mrs. Caplan), now the Minister of Health. We had the Premier before us, and it was a sorry spectacle of a person who had ultimate responsibility in the tradition of our parliamentary democracy, trying to be flippant. At eight o’clock in the evening, he tried to be flippant as he was on his way out to the airport to head west, saying that he really did not take too much time to examine the issue. In retrospect maybe he should have, but he really did not want to be bothered then or in the future, exercising his responsibilities and obligations to all of the people of Ontario for the conduct and the conflicts of interest of the members of his executive council. True to his word, he did not accept his responsibility and authority.

Today we have this piece of legislation which embodies in legislation that attitude so clearly expressed in the summer committee hearings on the allegations of conflict of interest of the member for Oriole. So let us be clear on the genesis of what is being proposed today by the Attorney General.

The genesis is the failure of the Premier of this province to accept his traditional parliamentary responsibility and the failure of the Attorney General of the province of the day to make sure there was proper advice given to the Premier of the province when there were conflicts of interest. That is the genesis of this legislation, and none other. It is rooted in the unanimous findings of fact of two committees of this Legislative Assembly, unanimous findings of fact by members of all political parties, over what was going on in the Peterson cabinet after the election of 1985. That is the genesis of the bill, and none other. It is rooted in the embarrassment, political and otherwise, of this government through the fall of 1985 and all through 1986.

Just how this government and this Premier have played out this piece, I think, is rather revealing. When the former member for Brantford first raised allegations in this Legislature of conflict of interest involving Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc., Damaza Consultants Ltd. and the spouse of the member for Oriole, there was a mad scramble over there -- and the Attorney General was involved in it -- to prepare statements. In fact, the Attorney General was at one meeting -- briefly, he says. There was a mad scramble to prepare a statement for the Premier of this province. The Premier of the province stood up and said: “All of these issues are troubling to me. They are of great concern. I think it is time that the Davis guidelines of 1971 were reviewed.”

What the Premier just happened to forget to inform the members of this Legislature or the public of Ontario was that, nine months before that, he had already done the review of the Davis guidelines and had a set of his own -- that was not common, public knowledge -- that was delivered -- and this was found unanimously even by the Liberal members of the committee -- to parliamentary assistants and to ministers, and to no one else. He had already watered down the guidelines from Premier Davis’s days and was embarked on administering a new set of watered-down guidelines. But the Premier forgot to mention that little fact in his first full and complete statement on the matter concerning Wyda Systems and IDEA Corp. He just managed to forget that very important item. That is the genesis of where we are today in conflict-of-interest legislation.

It is clear that from the outset in 1985, this matter was not treated in the traditional sense by the Premier of this province and by the employees of the Attorney General, who have a responsibility to administer the guidelines of 1985 and, before that, the guidelines of 1971. It is clear that this proposed legislation, which will be carried with the majority of the Liberal Party in this Legislature, is really here to regularize what it has already decided to do anyway. It is all so clear that this government has already embarked on a course of action that breaks and defies the spirit of its own legislative proposal.

It has been almost three months since the events of September 10, 1987, and we still have no public disclosure of the holdings of the members of the executive council of this province; this from a government who made this the number one bill in the Legislative Assembly -- surely a token gesture when you see what has happened since September 10 in terms of public disclosure under the old guidelines, the 1985 guidelines or the spirit of Bill 1. I would have thought, just in passing, that the government would have taken this opportunity, in introducing this piece of legislation for second reading today, to table the public disclosures of parliamentary assistants, ministers and members of the executive council to start with a fresh face on conflict-of-interest matters.

I would have thought that, after two years of delay, it would have filed the Ontario Securities Commission investigation into PEC Financial Corp. I would have thought that, a year and a half after they were started, it would have tabled today the results of the Ontario Provincial Police investigations that have gone on over the past year and a half concerning conflict of interest and what was alleged to be, by the chairman of the Ontario Development Corp., criminal fraud. I would have thought that the government would have wanted to put all of this information on the table and finally close the book on this sorry chapter of Liberal irresponsibility with respect to conflict of interest in this Legislative Assembly. But no, we have none of that.

Instead of that we have an attempt by the Attorney General to rewrite history, ignoring all of this. We have an attempt at mental gymnastics to try and justify what cannot be justified, given the history of this. I think it is important because there are some members here who were not present in the last session of the Legislative Assembly, who were not elected before September 10, 1987. I think it is important that we really give some detailed context for this Bill 1, introduced by the Attorney General of the province.

I am not even going to quote from the second Report on the Allegation of Conflict of Interest Concerning Elinor Caplan, MPP, by the standing committee on public accounts. I will not even quote that, because there we had a division on partisan lines. I am just going to quote the unanimous factual findings of the standing committee on public accounts, the first Report on the Allegation of Conflict of Interest Concerning Elinor Caplan, MPP, because I think it is important to put this into a context for the new members.

First of all, I refer the members to page 12, paragraph 1. This is a unanimous finding of fact:

“On September 14, 1972, the Honourable William Davis, Premier of Ontario announced the guidelines. These guidelines were identical to those issued by Premier Peterson in September 1985...save and except the following.”

This gets to the principles of the bill, which is why I want the members to understand this. The Premier’s guidelines were the same as the Davis guidelines except:

“(a) the ‘blind trust’ provision did not permit a private company in which a minister or his or her family have an interest to become contractually involved with the government of Ontario; and

“(b) they did not contain a ‘contractually involved’ exception clause permitting a minister to enter into a contract with the government which is provided for by legislation or regulation and which, by the terms of the legislation or regulation is available ‘evenhandedly’ to all members of the public.

“(c) there was no option of a ‘frozen blind trust.’”

I think it is clear -- and the committee unanimously found this -- that the Premier’s guidelines of 1985 were not as strong. In case someone jumps up and takes exception, we did not use the word “strong.” I think the member who is just walking into the chamber will correct me.

But they were different from the Davis guidelines. Our perception was that there were more exceptions to the conflict-of-interest provisions and more ways of putting assets into a variety of legal mechanisms or frameworks so that you did not have to divest. The hallmark of the Davis guidelines, of course, was divestment.

I would then refer the members to a unanimous finding of fact, paragraph 4:

“At the end of April 1985 Wilfred Caplan terminated his association with PEC Financial Corp.” That is the same PEC Financial Corp. that I alluded to earlier as being subject to an Ontario Securities Commission investigation which has now lasted two years without a report being issued. This has been raised time and time again in this Legislature by members of this party because the report has not been issued.

He “terminated his association with PEC Financial Corp. as its secretary-treasurer and chief financial officer. Mr. Caplan had had an association with that company from 1978.” Unanimous finding of fact.

“8. During the latter part of May, Dobzinski was introduced to Wilfred Caplan by Wyda’s legal counsel as a suitable choice for Wyda’s financial adviser. At their first meeting, they discussed Mr. Caplan’s experience, IDEA,” which is a crown agency, “as a potential investor in Wyda, and in general terms various alternatives to Caplan’s retainer. The evidence is unclear as to the precise date when the initial retainer was finalized. It was, however, concluded some time prior to June 16, 1985.

“The terms of the initial retainer included the following.” I cite this because there was some indication at some point in time that there was no economic benefit gained out of these arrangements. The terms of the retainer, as unanimously found by the committee, including the Liberal members on the committee, were:

“(a) $2,000 per month in full satisfaction of expenses incurred;

“(b) five per cent of the equity of the corporation plus $50,000 upon the closing of second-round financing obtained by or through the efforts of Mr. Caplan.”

By the way, it is clear later on in the evidence that no second-round financing was obtained through the efforts of Mr. Caplan and, therefore, the five per cent of equity plus the $50,000 never kicked in. But the initial part of the retainer is for $2,000 per month on account of expenses. By the way, that is subsequently altered, as the committee unanimously found:

“The percentage equity and lump sum payment components of the retainer were subsequently changed as a result of negotiations between Dobzinski and Wilfred Caplan culminating in the retainer evidenced by the January 31, 1986 agreement.... In all the retainer was changed at least five times. At all material times Damaza billed Wyda on a monthly basis for services rendered and was paid accordingly.”

So there was a transfer of funds.

The next important and salient fact, I believe, for the understanding of the history of this legislation is paragraph 12:

“On June 2 and June 6, 1985, Elinor Caplan had, respectively, lunch and a telephone conversation with Fleischmann, during which he congratulated her upon her election to the assembly and offered his assistance as an old friend of the family. There is no evidence that either of these discussions included particulars of Wyda or IDEA. Following these events, Fleischmann both organized and sold tickets for Elinor Caplan’s fundraising breakfasts.”

That is a unanimous finding of fact, and I want to read the whole paragraph again so you see the balanced point of view. I want to repeat: “There is no evidence that either of these discussions included particulars of Wyda or IDEA.”

“13. Wilfred Caplan, through Damaza, started work for Wyda around June 14, 1985. From that time through to June 16, 1986 he performed,” Wilfred Caplan, “all required financial and related administrative services for the company,” the company being Wyda; and Wyda, by the way, subsequently obtained from IDEA Corp. $3.1 million of taxpayers’ money. “He was designated as Wyda’s vice-president of finance and administration and was so described in business cards...correspondence issued in the ordinary course of business, and documentation issued by Wyda promoting investment. Throughout this period he conducted company business on Wyda’s behalf with numerous individuals, including Wyda’s accountants, lawyers, bankers.

“14. On June 17, 1985 Damaza issued its first invoice for consulting services to Wyda for the period June 17 through July 16, 1985 in the amount of $2,000.... In fact for all of the following months up to and including April 16, 1985, invoices were issued monthly for the same amounts and were paid by Wyda.” By the way, that should be April 16, 1986. It is an error in the transcript.

“During the period of his retainer, Wilfred Caplan incurred certain out-of-pocket monthly expenses averaging $1,700.

“15. On June 24, 1985 Eberts” -- Mary Eberts, referred to in this paragraph 15 as Eberts, who was a member of the Peterson transition team -- that was unanimously found to be the case -- “and Wright” -- Blenus Wright, an employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General -- “met with Wilfred Caplan to review the circumstances of his previous and current business activities, the Damaza retainer with Wyda, and Wyda’s potential involvement with IDEA or ODC.

“Eberts’ notes...taken at this meeting record the following:

“‘Arrangement with present client -- receiving equity might be sensitive -- ’

“‘Clearly -- withdrawal his only option’

“‘ -- prepared to do whatever is necessary -- Elinor to sell -- ’”

That related, by the way, to the member for Oriole’s shareholding position in Damaza, which she did sell, and immediately, from all of the information we have.

“Eberts, in the presence of Wright, clearly advised Wilfred Caplan that the retainer with Wyda as it then existed and, particularly, the equity and lump sum payment contingencies as they might relate to funding from provincial sources, would violate the guidelines and that the only remedy was not to continue his association with Wyda.

“She clearly advised him that he could not under any circumstances, be on the ‘front line’ of any negotiations on behalf of Wyda or any company with whom he or Damaza had similar arrangements in respect of any efforts for provincial funding.” A little while later in this report we find unanimously, including the Liberal members of the committee, that in fact he had been present at meetings with IDEA Corp. personnel at which not only the final investment sum but also the payout of investment dollars to debtors of the companies was ultimately finalized. “It is significant that she did not distinguish at all” -- “she” being Mary Eberts -- “between any services performed by Wilfred Caplan personally or through his corporate vehicle, Damaza.

“It does not appear that Eberts or Wright were advised at this meeting nor at any time thereafter that Wilfred Caplan was held out as Wyda’s vice-president of finance and administration nor were they aware of the nature and extent of his duties and responsibilities in that regard.” In other words, there was no disclosure. “It also does not appear that they were ever made aware of or ever asked to give advice on the extent of Wilfred Caplan’s dealings with IDEA representatives.”

1730

Mr. Fleet: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I am trying to follow what is being provided by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). I have a hard time relating it to the rules of this House, the standing orders, and specifically 19(d), rule 4, about unnecessarily reading verbatim from any documents.

This is a matter which is supposed to be dealing with a bill before this House. We are hearing history read to us from a document which does not appear to be relevant to the current bill. It would appear that if the point was to be made, it was made perhaps in the first couple of sentences. The reading of the report itself is not relevant to the bill.

The honourable member is perfectly entitled, as I understand the rules, to make his point but not to read on unnecessarily. There does not seem to have been any point in the latest ramblings of the member.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): I appreciate the honourable member’s position with respect to this, but I ask the member for Cochrane South to continue.

Mr. Pope: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I can understand why a Liberal member of this Legislature, the Liberal member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet), thinks that the conflicts of interest unanimously found to be so by this Legislature with respect to one member and found by a majority to be so with respect to another member have no relevance to the conflict-of-interest legislation. I can understand why the Liberal member for High Park-Swansea feels that the conduct from 1985 that led to two parliamentary committee investigations has no relevance to the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. That is precisely the point we are making, that they are of relevance.

Mr. Fleet: Just don’t read for ever about something that doesn’t concern this bill.

Mr. Pope: You have been here since the early part of November and you are already an expert. It is interesting to see that.

Mr. Fleet: You can read the relevant parts.

Mr. Pope: In any event, I am not quoting unnecessarily from the record, in my opinion. Obviously you do not understand what has happened in the past two years, so your opinion is not relevant either, I might add.

I might further add, given the fact that I have the floor, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, you have the floor but you will also address the chair, please.

Mr. Pope: Frankly, given the length of my speech, my quotes will not be unnecessary nor will they be the majority of my speech. They will be quite in context because I think it is important. Particularly based on the point of order by the member for High Park-Swansea, I think it is even more important that the new members who are just elected understand the context and history of this bill.

The member has proved the point I started to make when I stood up, that the new members have not understood the conflict-of-interest problems of the Peterson government and the failure of the Premier to act on the matter. They have not understood the mental gymnastics of the Attorney General on this matter. It is important that they understand that to give this a context and, therefore, I stand by the point I make and I think it is rather relevant.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Nobody knows more about conflict of interest than the member speaking, so listen to him. He knows more about conflict of interest than anybody in the House.

Mr. Pope: I have always looked to the Attorney General being able to prove what he says and I have yet to see it.

Paragraph 21: “On July 8, 1985, Eberts sent a letter to Elinor Caplan enclosing certain conflict-of-interest forms completed during the transition phase and confirming certain discussions with and advice given to either or both herself and Wilfred Caplan.

“Particularly, Eberts confirmed’’ -- I quote and this is very important:

“‘As you are also aware, Blenus Wright and I have advised Wilf that contact by Damaza with agencies of the Ontario government looking for investment capital would present difficulties, even if he were not to take an equity in the clients benefited or sought to be benefited. He has advised that he will sever the relationship between Damaza and its present client Wyda, for whom he had planned to seek Ontario government funding.’

“Elinor Caplan did not recall receiving this letter. Further, prior to the commencement of this committee’s hearings, she was not aware of the substance of the advice given therein by Eberts.

“Eberts confirmed in her testimony that she intended to include in her advice that Wilfred Caplan not under any circumstances be a ‘front man’ in any dealings between Wyda and the provincial government, and that the relationship between Wyda and Damaza as described by Wilfred Caplan in the June 24th meeting not continue.

“During her testimony, she” -- and that is referring to Mary Eberts -- “offered the committee certain definitions of the phrases, ‘present difficulties’ and ‘sever the relationship’ which were unique at best.” This is the unanimous finding, including the Liberal members of this committee. “She offered the committee certain definitions of the phrases...which were unique at best.” At best.

“The committee notes that this letter was written by a qualified professional giving advice to a client in respect of an extremely important matter. The committee concludes that at the time the letter was written, Eberts intended that the phrases in question be understood by the Caplans to have their ordinary meaning.”

“Their ordinary meaning,” “sever the relationship” between Damaza Consulting and Wyda, do not be a “front man” in the negotiations on behalf of Wyda for provincial government funding from IDEA Corp.: that was the advice given by a member of the Liberal transition team specifically assigned by the Premier to enforce conflict-of-interest matters and to give advice to the Premier of this province on conflict-of-interest matters.

You will be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that I only have four more paragraphs or sections to quote from.

Mr. Harris: In that report.

Mr. Pope: In that report.

I heard someone say, “Why don’t we just file it?” I think that is indicative of the attitude of the Liberal government in bringing in this conflict-of-interest legislation: “With respect to all the past problems, let’s just file it. Let’s pretend it did not happen. Let’s pretend there were no findings of fact about conflict of interest. Let’s just file it. Let’s forget about it.”

I would say: “Fine. Let’s forget about it, provided the Premier of this province accepts his responsibility, and his alone, for implementing conflict-of-interest guidelines. It is his responsibility alone to answer questions in this Legislative Assembly from the members of this House and from the people of Ontario for the failure of his members, of his executive council to abide by the guidelines on conflict of interest that he put in place or that were in place under Premier Davis.”

If he will accept that ultimate responsibility, which is traditional in the English parliamentary system, if he will accept that responsibility which is expected and required from a leader of the government in British parliamentary democracy, if he will accept that responsibility, then we can file it and, in doing so, we will also file this bill that is nothing more than a protracted attempt by this government to evade its responsibilities in the same way it has evaded its responsibilities since 1985 with respect to conflict of interest.

The sad story continues. In the unanimous findings of facts, in report number 1, not report number 2 -- I will not even refer to that, I will not quote from that report at all on the unanimous findings of fact that even the Liberal members of the committee found to be true. Let us continue with some of the background because it is important to understand what ultimately happened here to $3.1 million of the taxpayers’ money.

The matter that was under the Ontario Provincial Police investigation starting at the beginning of this year, an OPP investigation that seems no longer to be current, or seems to be in limbo, or seems to be still under investigation or study, something like the Ontario Securities Commission investigation of PEC Financial Corp., something like that investigation --

Hon. Mr. Ward: This is the only speech you have delivered in the last year and a half.

Mr. Pope: I know the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) thinks that this is something I have talked on before. Perhaps he feels that we have talked about this too much. I guess it gets back to a difference in attitude between the minister and myself. I do not think there is anything more fundamental to parliamentary democracy and the confidence of the people in the cabinet and the executive council of this province than adherence to the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

1740

I do not think anything is more important than public trust and confidence in our parliamentary system and I intend to speak on it again and again until this government understands the importance of this issue and understands the sacred trust it holds on behalf of the people of Ontario. The Minister of Education may not like that. The members of the Liberal Party may not like that, but fortunately I have that right as a member of this Legislative Assembly.

That happened to be $3.1 million of the taxpayers’ money. That happened to include some money that was paid by the taxpayers of this province, including those of Cochrane South, and we are entitled to know what happened to that money and who was involved in it. I intend to tell the members of the Legislative Assembly who was involved in it, unanimously found to be so by the members of all three political parties, because I think it is important to understand not only the context of the introduction of the bill itself but the context of the provisions contained in the bill. I think it is very important.

Mr. Haggerty: Back to page 13.

Mr. Pope: I thank the member very much. Back to page 21, paragraph 24.

“On August 6, 1985, a letter for the signature of Wilfred Caplan was typed in the offices of Elinor Caplan addressed to her on the letterhead of Damaza. The committee has been unable to determine who drafted this letter although it is clear that it was not prepared by Joyce Bryant, Elinor Caplan’s personal secretary, the person identified as the author by Wilfred Caplan.

“Regardless of who actually drafted the letter, its content could only have originated from Wilfred Caplan. Further, there is some confusion about whether the letter was ever sent to Elinor Caplan since she has no recollection of its receipt or its contents and Wilfred Caplan indicated to the committee that he eventually decided not to send it. That notwithstanding, a copy of the letter was sent to and received by Mary Eberts, who retained it in her file. The letter was the last contact Mary Eberts had with the Caplans prior to June 10, 1986.

“The letter confirms advice understood to have been received from Eberts and Wright on June 24th that:

“‘...I would not violate the guidelines if Damaza Consultants Ltd. was not involved in contacting or negotiating with any Ontario ministry or agency seeking Ontario government funding on behalf of its clients.’”

Of course, that is exactly what happened.

“In describing Wilfred Caplan’s efforts to terminate the retainer, the letter stated that:

“‘When Damaza attempted to withdraw from its engagement with Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc., Wyda requested that Damaza continue its consulting relationship with Wyda on an internal basis only, with no contact whatsoever with any Ontario government body...Damaza has continued its client relationship with Wyda on this new basis since mid-June.’

“It is clear that Wilfred Caplan attempted to follow Eberts’s advice by taking the safest course of action: ‘to withdraw.’ However, he ultimately chose the alternative course which, although riskier, was believed on professional advice not to ‘violate’ the guidelines: to continue on an ‘internal basis only, with no contact whatsoever with any Ontario government body.’

“It is also clear that this represents the last advice he received from Eberts and Wright on the subject of his involvement with Wyda.”

There are findings on page 24, which I will not quote from, but I will refer to the paragraph numbers for the benefit of the members, because I understand they may not like to hear all of this detail thrown before this Legislative Assembly today.

Mr. Haggerty: This is the second round for it.

Mr. Pope: Then I will read it. I think the member is right. I do not want anyone to lose the context.

“33. Fleischmann telephoned Cannon at IDEA on August 16, 1985, to inquire about Wyda’s application.

“34. On August 19, 1985, Blakley met Fleischmann wherein they discussed the business operation of Intercorp, IDEA’s mandate and funding availability. Wyda’s application was mentioned during this meeting particularly to confirm that the product outline and business plan had been received. Fleischmann did not disclose to Blakley during that meeting, or at any time subsequently, the terms of his retainer with Wyda and specifically that he would receive one per cent of any moneys invested by IDEA.”

Fleischmann, by the way, described himself as -- and the committee so found, as it quotes -- “a Liberal hack.”

“35. Elinor Caplan met with Fleischmann in her office at Queen’s Park on August 20, 1985. Both testified that Wyda was not discussed at this meeting.

“36. Fleischmann again called Barnes on August 23, 1985, to follow up with the progress of Wyda’s application to IDEA.

“37. Wilfred Caplan informed Elinor Caplan on August 26, 1985, that Wyda had made application to IDEA Corp. for funding.” That is contrary to the advice he received, by the way. “Although Wilfred Caplan did not describe the extent of his involvement with IDEA on behalf of Wyda, he did inform his wife that he had received advice from Wright that he was in compliance with the guidelines.”

There was a unanimous finding of fact by all members of the committee referred to in paragraph 40. Basically, it is that from the very beginning government personnel, personnel of IDEA Corp., a government agency, “were aware of the association of Wilfred Caplan with Wyda and that he was the husband of Elinor Caplan.” The committee unanimously found that to be a fact. In this paragraph, which I will not read verbatim, there are references to memoranda that were issued by Pat Parikh, who was an employee of IDEA Corp.

In October 1985, there were a number of meetings which are chronicled in paragraphs 45 and 46. Those were the unanimous findings of fact of the meetings held between IDEA personnel and representatives of Wyda Corp. at the IDEA offices in October 1985. As well, there are numerous references -- this is an important finding of fact. It is paragraph 48 for those who are following this:

“48. As at the end of December 1985, Wilfred Caplan had no direct contact with any IDEA personnel. His function until that point had been to prepare certain aspects of Wyda business plans and financial projections” -- they were the basis upon which IDEA Corp. decided to fund Wyda Investments and all these matters are under investigation at this time -- “which were provided to IDEA to assist in its assessment of Wyda’s application.”

On page 30 of the report, I will just refer members specifically to paragraphs 52, 53 and 54. It is clear that Wilfred Caplan met with IDEA Corp. personnel in January 1986 and thereafter as the more intensive negotiations on this loan proposal or investment proposal from IDEA Corp. were finalized.

I want to draw to the members’ attention the initial position of IDEA Corp. It was that there would be a $1-million investment in Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc. After negotiations, some of which involved Wilf Caplan or at which he was present, the amount of that investment was increased to over $3 million.

As well, the essential nature of the transaction changed during the course of those negotiations, and the committee unanimously found that the essential nature of the investment changed. In fact, some of the long-term and short-term debt was paid out using the investment of IDEA Corp., using the $3 million. This committee unanimously found that between April 12 and April 30, 1986, over $2 million of the IDEA Corp. investment moneys were paid out to debtors of Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc., including over $400,000 to the president of Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc. personally, who is no longer in this country. So in 18 days we had a wholesale dispersal of the public’s money through Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc. to various debtors of the company, and we still have never seen any substantiation or proof of that long-term debt.

1750

There still is no documentation of the money or the debt owed to Grancom or Budgrove that led to the payment to those companies of hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money. We still have nothing more than accounting entries in the general ledgers of Wyda Systems Inc. to substantiate the shareholders’ loan from the president to the company that was paid out, in part using the funds of IDEA Corp. We still have no documentation as to the payments made for equipment allegedly purchased at what we now know to be 20 and 25 times their fair market value-computer equipment. We still have no answers from the auditors of this government, from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), from the Ontario Development Corp., from the Provincial Auditor, from any external investigation or any internal investigation. This company now no longer operates. It has no assets of note.

There is an argument about whether it has the technology still, I will admit that, and whether they are protected by patent or copyright law with respect to the technology; but in terms of fixed physical assets, there are none. And guess whose money is gone? Yours and mine: $3 million of the taxpayers’ money is gone. The investment was based on financial plans and projections supplied by Wyda to IDEA Corp., and Wilf Caplan, a spouse of a cabinet minister, had a role in preparing those financial projections and plans.

So members may not like to hear about all of this background to this piece of legislation and the specific provisions in it, I say to the member for High Park-Swansea, but he should hear about it because I do not think it is anything of which a member of the Liberal Party should be proud. Yes, it did lead to some concern in the cabinet of the day about bringing some control over the activities of those who tend to associate themselves with governments in power from time to time. Yes, it did bring about some concern in the cabinet of the day about getting a handle on the matter, investigating the matter and making sure it did not happen again.

No one is saying anything about the role of the cabinet ministers of the day who, I know, were concerned about the matter. What we are trying to say is that the background to this bill is not as it is made out by the Attorney General. In the background of this bill are two investigations undertaken in the Legislature of this province, from 1985 on, with respect to two members of the executive council. The background to this bill is the failure of the Premier of this province to accept his responsibilities, the fact that he sloughed it off in front of the standing committee on public accounts and said, “Someone else should really do it” -- the first Premier in the history of Ontario to take that attitude and that approach towards the conduct of the members of his executive council.

What it is about is the fact that this Premier made sure that this bill did not proceed until after the election on September 10. It will now reflect the solution to the issue of the Liberal Party of Ontario as opposed to a three-party solution. I want to say that I was one of the ones, when this matter first arose, who suggested through two intermediaries to the Liberal Party of Ontario that issues like this, until we come up with a combined resolution of it, be looked at by the longest-serving member of each caucus in the Legislature of Ontario, who would assess the normal business activities of members of the executive council and determine whether or not there is anything unusual in a normal relationship with the government of the day.

That suggestion was rejected by the advisers to the Premier, and so we had the unfolding all through the fall of 1985 and all of 1986 of this sad spectacle. The only response of the Premier of the day was to introduce legislation removing his responsibility in law for the conduct of his ministers. The only response was that he did not want that responsibility. He wanted to give it to someone else whom he would designate -- not the Legislative Assembly, not all three parties equally, but a person whom he would designate.

For the member for High Park-Swansea, I have not gone into the detail of some of the other studies on filings of the ministers of the day by law firms in this community. I have not gone into the spectacle of the Premier of this province giving his interpretation of two of those reports and not releasing them to the public, and then when they have become public some weeks later we find the interpretation can be totally different. There is a whole story that is yet to be told to the new members of this Legislative Assembly about the attitude of this Premier and this Attorney General with respect to conflict of interest.

I know members would like me to talk at further length on this matter, particularly the member for High Park-Swansea, who has been intent, on the edge of his seat listening to my discussion.

Mr. Ferraro: Read some more.

Mr. Pope: In fact, now that I think about it -- no.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I thank the members of all parties for their indulgence and I refer them to the report of the standing committee on public accounts with respect to this matter. I think the new members should read it. They also should read the work of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, chaired by the member for Oshawa, with respect to this matter to understand the political background, the legislative background and the really historical perspective of what we are about to embark upon.

I think the fundamental responsibility of the Premier should remain. That has always been my misgiving with the legislative solution. I would be the first to admit that that position is not the majority opinion on this matter, but I think it is so fundamental that the Premier of this province accept the responsibility and the authority that has always been vested in him to deal with these matters.

I would hope the members of the Liberal Party and all members of the assembly, when they examine this specific piece of legislation, might think back to the guideline days, might think back to the history of conflict-of-interest matters in this assembly, where members of the opposition exercised their traditional roles in bringing these matters to the attention of the Premier and exerted pressure on the Premier.

We can go back to the days of Darcy McKeough and his problems as Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. We could go back to a Solicitor General who had a problem arising from a phone conversation made out of his constituency office to try to help a constituent. We can go back to the concerns of the members of the Liberal Party of Ontario and the New Democratic Party about the Minister of Education of the day and a certain municipal board approval in north Toronto and the way in which that matter was carefully examined and questioned from day to day.

I wanted to indicate that conflict of interest does not just involve two members of the Liberal Party of Ontario. Traditionally over the years it has unfortunately involved members of the Conservative Party, which was the government of the day, and in those circumstances the Premier of this province accepted his responsibility and authority: they were no longer in cabinet. There was no great investigation if he was convinced there had been a violation of the spirit or the wording of the guidelines. They were gone; that was the end of it.

I ask the Liberal members to consider that history of conflict of interest. It involves all three political parties exercising traditional roles in opposition and in government, and I think the Premier and all members of this assembly should spend more time considering those traditional responsibilities and authorities.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

1 décembre 1987