Hansard Transcripts 1984-Jun-22 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) requested that I ascertain what authority the Speaker has to require ministers of the crown to table information that they have undertaken to present to the House as well as reports of various commissions for the production of which there is no statutory requirement.

I can find no authority in the standing orders, precedents of the House or anywhere in parliamentary law that gives the Speaker any means of forcing ministers to honour these commitments. Similarly, with respect to answers to questions, oral or written, the Speaker can only call the attention of a minister to the standing orders. It is up to the minister in question to obey the standing orders, but again I can find no authority or precedents by which the Speaker can force the minister to reply, other than pointing out to him that he is in breach of the provision of the standing orders. This is particularly so in view of standing orders 27(i) and 81(d), which expressly provide that the minister may, if he wishes, decline to answer at all.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) also made reference to the annual statement of members' expenses. I have endeavoured to find the authority or the requirement for tabling this statement of the members' expenses. At the moment the only reference we have turned up is on page 3769 of Hansard, July 8, 1975, which reads:

"Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day I beg to inform the House that as directed by the Board of Internal Economy, I have tabled the statement of the members' expenses for the fiscal year 1974-75."

The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the Speaker include in the statement the expenses that ministers incur as ministers. I know the House will realize that the Legislative Assembly accountant's office has only the record of the expenses of all members as members; it has no record of ministers' expenses as ministers. These are matters within the ambit of the executive council and, as you all know, the Speaker has no authority whatever in that area.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I thank you for the advice you have brought to this House today, but in response to your statement, when you canvass the options and what has transpired in this House, particularly in the last session, you will be aware that our party asked 248 written questions. Of those, 171 came back saying the governing party would not answer the question and telling us, "Look elsewhere. Go to the library. We do not have the information," effectively stymieing any effective search for the real information and facts.

Of those 248 questions, complete answers were provided for only 35. We asked questions on consulting contracts -- which automatically should be a matter of bookkeeping record -- advertising costs, communications staff and other things one would assume any bookkeeping system would be on top of on a daily basis. We asked for information about polls. We were given the costs of those polls, but those polls have not been forthcoming. I assume it would take no more than some simple photocopying to share that information with members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, you can understand the frustration we on this side of the House feel in asking your help as we did to try to extract information from this government, secretive as it is. We in opposition have no other recourse than to ask you to exercise a warrant to extract this specific information. I will give you and the table notice that we will be filing a motion today for your warrant to extract the specific information that is available but the government chooses not to share.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In the absence of the appropriate minister, I will address this question of privilege to you, sir.

It would be unfortunate to let the last days of this session pass without something appropriate being done to recognize the remarkable capacity of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) to keep the university system of Ontario in 10th place throughout her term as minister and in the basement of university finance in all categories.

I would like to send across to the minister this plaque with "10" suitably emblazoned on it.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I must point out that is not a matter of privilege, personal or otherwise.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the judgement you just read on the second point. I just want to be clear in my mind that what you are saying in that ruling is that the annual sessional paper will continue to issue unchanged in any particular, as it has over the past 10 years.

Mr. Speaker: As I made the point yesterday, it is done at the direction of the Board of Internal Economy. Therefore, as I understand it, that board has the authority to deal with it as it may see fit. That was the suggestion I made yesterday.

Mr. Conway: I take it from this that you would be quite prepared to release any information in whatever form the board agreed to in that particular. If the board in its wisdom agrees to alter or add to the material regularly contained in that sessional paper -- by "regularly," I mean the way in which the paper has been issued in the past 10 years -- then you, as the Speaker, would have no difficulty releasing it in that altered form.

Mr. Speaker: No. Obviously I am the chairman of the board and I act at the direction of the board.

10:10 a.m.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege that arises from a question I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) in the House on Wednesday, June 20. It was with regard to library grants across Ontario.

In her answer to me, the minister indicated she was under the impression the grants to various libraries had already been forthcoming. She said, "That point aside, it is my understanding that interim payments have gone out within the last two weeks, if I am not mistaken, to public library boards across the province."

I did not give any notice of the question to the minister, so I am not being critical of her not knowing the precise details, but I did read the following in the St. Catharines Standard the next day:

"Bruce Timms, president of the St. Catharines PC Association, said today the library will receive 80 per cent of its $266,630 grant in mid-July. 'The library would have normally received 50 per cent of the grant in May, but it was delayed because of uncertainty created before the release of the provincial budget,' said Mr. Timms.

"Library board representative Alderman Ken Atkinson complained at Monday night's council meeting that the city had to advance its $2.3-million grant for the library more quickly than anticipated to ensure there is no shortfall in the library budget. 'While the city is losing interest on money it would normally have in the bank, the province is probably gaining interest,' Alderman Atkinson indicated."

We have two representatives from the city of St. Catharines, the other being the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), who I know has at least an equal interest -- perhaps even more of an interest in some cases, but sometimes less, depending on the issue -- in the city of St. Catharines and its wellbeing. Yet we have the president of the Progressive Conservative association providing information that was not provided by the minister in the House. I think that is probably doing a little circle around the member for Brock, who aptly likes to represent St. Catharines in the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I must rule, of course, that is not a matter of privilege, interesting as it may be.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, to follow up on an issue I raised on two different occasions, there were answers to questions in Orders and Notices tabled in the House last night, but I still have not received even an interim answer on who pays Adrienne Clarkson for coming to Ontario to speak to the rural women of Ontario. I prevail upon you to enforce the standing orders and ensure that at the very least this government gives us interim answers on questions that were asked more than 14 days ago.

Mr. Speaker: I must draw the honourable member's attention to the statement I made first thing in the House this morning. I can only repeat I do not have the authority to force anybody to do that.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ANNUAL REPORT, PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that I will be tabling the second annual report prepared by Sidney Linden, QC, public complaints commissioner, evaluating the functioning of his office during calendar year 1983. The report is still at the printers, but it will be filed with the Clerk and made available to members of the House early this summer.

In my view, it is clear that this important project has been an outstanding success. It has brought about a great many improvements in the handling of public complaints of police misconduct.

Members who were present in this House throughout the 1970s will recall the almost constant controversy that surrounded this issue. Royal commissions and special investigations by such individuals as Arthur Maloney, Mr. Justice Morand, Walter Pitman and Cardinal Carter, among others, highlighted the controversial nature of the subject.

In contrast, the period of time since 1981 has been marked by an unprecedented level of public acceptance of the complaints process. Although improvements remain to be made, the dramatic change since 1981 is a powerful testament to the success of this project.

The success of the project has led to it being studied by a number of jurisdictions throughout the world, including the United States, Europe, Hong Kong, Bermuda, Jamaica, the Netherlands, Nigeria and Australia.

Lord Scarman, in his report on the Brixton disorders, stated, "The Toronto proposal appears to me to merit serious consideration as a possible model for reform of our procedure," referring, of course, to Britain.

Legislation modelled in part on the project has been implemented in jurisdictions as close as Manitoba and as far away as Western Australia.

A great deal of the credit for that success must go to Mr. Sidney Linden, QC, who designed the project and who has been its chief executive since its inception. Mr. Linden is in the Speaker's gallery at this moment.

Mr. Linden has brought to this most sensitive and difficult task a wide array of very special -- indeed, unique -- talents and skills. The people of this province and particularly the residents of Metropolitan Toronto, owe Mr. Linden a very substantial debt of gratitude for his selfless devotion to public service in an area as important, trying and as difficult as any I can think of.

I would also like to use this occasion to convey my appreciation to the retiring chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, Paul Godfrey, to the senior management and all members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force for their strong support throughout the life of the project.

I want to remind members of the House, and particularly members of the standing committee on administration of justice, that Mr. Linden has invited interested members to visit his office, meet his staff and see for themselves the ways in which the office is achieving its success. Members may wish to take advantage of this invitation over the summer, since when the House resumes in the fall I will be introducing legislation to make the office a permanent institution.

Honourable members will recall that the office of the public complaints commissioner was established in December 1981 as a three-year pilot project. The purpose of the pilot was to improve the level of public satisfaction with the handling of complaints about police misconduct. The approach taken was to inject civilian oversight and monitoring at every stage of the complaint resolution process, culminating in public hearings before civilian panels empowered to discipline officers.

I am convinced that Mr. Linden's office has demonstrated a remarkable achievement in this exceptionally difficult area. I believe there can be no doubt about the need to make it an ongoing part of the administration of justice.

Mr. Paul Godfrey, chairman of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, has observed its operations both as Metro chairman and as a member of the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police. He has indicated to me that he considers the office to be a most beneficial part of the police-public relationship and that he strongly supports its becoming a permanent institution.

In recent months, both the senior management of the Metro police force and the head of the police association have indicated their support for the continuation of the project.

I want to advise the House that the legislation I will be introducing will continue to apply only to Metropolitan Toronto. I think it is obvious that the Metro police face challenges which are unique in Ontario. No other community police force has a population of more than 2.5 million to safeguard; no other force works in an environment as racially and culturally diverse.

I am aware that my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) is in the course of a very extensive and important process of preparing revisions to the Police Act, including the matter of public complaints. Any consideration of extending the Metro project to other jurisdictions which may wish to come under it should, in my view, await the completion of that process.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) made a statement in the course of answering some questions on Tuesday, June 19, and I will simply quote it and ask you whether I have a point of privilege, because it is a matter that affects the minister's good faith.

She said very clearly: "I shall be pleased to make a statement to this House this week about that situation" -- referring to the number of technical courses being dropped and the number of teachers being declared redundant -- "and it will provide all of the facts that are available. I have not stonewalled anything."

What do we do now, Mr. Speaker? This week is this week. She has not kept the promise, very clearly. The wall is still there.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the problem is. The minister is not here, obviously. I am not sure she was here yesterday either.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: She is sick. That is why she is not here, and everybody knows that.

Mr. Speaker: All right. We do now.

Mr. Foulds: Does the Speaker not think the parliamentary assistant could have made a statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

10:20 a.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer, who I think is hiding under the gallery.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: My question deals with youth unemployment programs that the Treasurer has recently rejigged and renamed. We note with some interest he is now advertising with a vengeance. He has invented a new way to rearrange young people in the form of a trillium, and through that mechanism he is advertising his Ontario Youth Hotline and asking people to phone the hotline for information.

Is the Treasurer aware that as late as yesterday, after the start of his advertising campaign -- and, by the way, he will not share the advertising figures with anybody; those figures are available, according to his Treasury officials, but they are waiting for clearance from him to tell us how much is being spent on advertising -- the Ontario Youth Hotline people still had no idea what the programs are, still were not giving out any information and there is nothing happening with respect to his new programs?

Is the Treasurer aware that as late as yesterday his much-vaunted programs are still producing no new jobs for our young people?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, he is wrong.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer is wrong consistently.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: He was wrong about the conversations with Tourism Ontario. Mr. Rolly Michener is too charitable to use the appropriate word for him --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- but the Treasurer was misinformed in this House when he said he had had meetings. He confirmed later that he had not had a meeting until at least a week later, after discussions in this House when he said he had had meetings. Is the Treasurer aware of that? Why is he consistently misinforming people in this House?

In addition to that, is the Treasurer aware -- perhaps he is not -- that the Ontario youth employment program, which he announced with new twists and features and said is now in place on June 7, is running exactly the same way this year as it did last year? He is the one who announced the new twists and features that are now in place, and they are not.

Is he aware that on May 17, 1984, he promised youth employment counselling centres? He said he would be starting 67 new ones, and I will quote him, "Many of them will be up and running in months, some in weeks." It is five weeks since the budget and there are no new centres open.

The Ontario Youth Corps was supposed to be up and running this summer. According to the government's spokesperson, it should be on line some time in the fall.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Why has he done nothing except advertise?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I point out once again that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) is incorrect. I wrote down these words very carefully as he used them. He indicated that I was "consistently misinforming" members in this House. I suggest that is simply something he ought to withdraw, an accusation that I am consistently misinforming members in this House.

Mr. Speaker: I very clearly also heard the words, and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw his words.

Mr. Peterson: If the Treasurer wants to use that to evade the question, what is appropriate? "He gave incorrect facts"? "His facts are incorrect"? I would never use "Spoke with a forked tongue." "Inexactitude"?

The information he is giving this House is incorrect. I will withdraw whatever you find offensive, Mr. Speaker, the point having been made. But I want to know from the Treasurer why he is doing nothing except advertising. Why is he involved only in a program of self-aggrandizement at the expense of our young people?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Graceless as always. Letters are going out to all the municipalities in Ontario with regard to the Ontario Youth Corps. Those letters are on their way out this week -- they were signed yesterday or this morning by my colleague and me -- indicating that the followup will be done by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett).

Second, with regard to the youth employment counselling centres, I know that seriously, even in the member's most panicky moments in the days following the budget, when he was seeking something to criticize, he did not expect that youth employment counselling centres, which are major investments and for which much work has to be done with community groups, would be operational five weeks after the budget.

My colleague the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) has already had many requests for those centres. Those requests are being processed and we are well under way to finding and funding those additional youth employment counselling centres. We will be right on target in terms of the numbers we indicated in the budget, and some of them will be opened in the next few months.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Treasurer could tell us precisely how many jobs for the unemployed youth of this province have been created thus far, and how many he expects to have created by September 1 through his whole plethora of programs.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, by that date, a minimum of more than 100,000 jobs.

Mr. Foulds: I do not believe the minister. He has more chutzpah --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, the minister --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have asked your question, now it is up to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, the minister just made reference to the funding of new youth employment counselling centres. May I draw specifically to his attention that in the city of Kitchener the Lutherwood Community Services youth employment counselling centre had been in operation for two years, the first year funded by the board of education and the second year funded by the federal government through one of its grants, and that counselling centre had to close down because there was no other source of funding.

It has recently reopened through funding from the Lutherwood board itself. It has a 50 per cent success rate with young people who have emotional and behavioural problems. The minister well knows these are the most difficult young people to place in the employment scene. Very specifically, can he give me any assurance, with regard to the Lutherwood centre in Kitchener which is the only one in a very large metropolitan area, that his program to fund youth employment counselling centres will assist in funding this youth employment counselling centre?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot speak about each of the prospective youth employment counselling centres, except to say the program has worked extremely well. I do not know why that particular one has not been one of the 33 already funded by our government since we took over the program in 1981, but I know my colleague the provincial secretary will be reviewing that one and the others very carefully.

I am delighted to receive the member's endorsement of that program. It is as successful as the member has indicated, and the increase from 33 to 100 will no doubt be able to cover his area, be it through that group or others. The experience of the government is that when we can deal through an existing infrastructure, an existing agency, that is always the preferred route to go rather than seeking to start up a new one.

Given that experience and the success going that route, that project should receive very careful and excellent consideration. My colleague will report back to the member on the specifics.

[Later]

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I hope the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) is listening to this. A couple of moments ago I phoned the Ontario youth employment office telephone number and asked them to send me an application form for employment purposes. I was told that they will not send out any more application forms, that the program is finito and there is no sense in anyone applying for it. I wonder whether you think the minister is being straightforward and honest with the chamber in response to questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member does not have a point of privilege, as he well knows.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), with respect to the Campbell Grant inquiry and the Harold McNamara diaries. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has absented himself for some reason, but I assume he is coming back. With your permission, I will wait until he returns before I put my question.

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis). It concerns the resolution, that was accepted by this Legislature and voted on by seven out of his 13 cabinet ministers who were present, in favour of the Ontario health insurance plan covering what is probably the most expensive and extensive user fee in all Ontario. That is, of course, the extraordinary amount of money northerners have to pay out of their own pockets for transportation.

10:30 a.m.

Given that it is the opinion of this House that OHIP should cover that kind of cost, and given that a majority of his cabinet colleagues supported that concept, why has the government delayed for as long as it has in implementing the basic opinion of this Legislature that northerners and others who have to pay high transportation costs should not be discriminated against? Why has it taken so long to implement the commitment of this House?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Health is in his place, I think that question should be referred to him.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, that question has been raised in the House before and I have responded before. It is becoming a little repetitious. I do not think the answer has changed. The member who raised the question is well aware that there is a difference between endorsing a principle in a resolution and facing the pragmatic issues of implementing such a principle in the form of policy, with all the fiscal and other ramifications. Therefore, I will stand on the basis of my previous answer.

Mr. Rae: If the minister is not aware, we could give him reams of examples from all over the north. I would like to give him just one.

The Marriott family from New Liskeard has brought its daughter Joy to Toronto twice a year over the past 15 years for consultation with a heart specialist because of a congenital heart defect. Last month, she also needed surgery by a dental surgeon at the Hospital for Sick Children.

Despite limiting their costs by using modest motels at off-season rates, driving their own car and eating in the hospital cafeteria, the Marriotts paid more than $150 in travel expenses just for that one trip, let alone all the other trips they have had to take over the past 15 years. What is the minister going to do for the Marriott family?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would suggest that if the Marriott family, or any other family in circumstances similar to the ones the member described, is faced with financial hardship in paying $150 in travel expenses for the treatment required by a member of the family, there are two possibilities.

They might wish to bring it to the attention of the board I have indicated before in answers in this House. They could then review the case and, if there are indications of financial hardship that might present some barrier to access to the appropriate health care, it could be dealt with by way of a decision by the board. The other alternative is to approach the Ministry of Community and Social Services for such assistance.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, access to health care in this province is not a welfare issue. I believe the minister should be aware that the Canadian Cancer Society was originally structured across Ontario for the purpose of research and public education. He will also be well aware that in Sault Ste. Marie, 55 per cent of the budget of the Sault Ste. Marie cancer society is spent on transportation costs to Toronto for people who need medical assistance. Likewise, 39 per cent of the budget of the Sudbury cancer society is spent transporting people to Toronto for treatment.

What answer can the minister give, for example, to the family of an 11-year-old Thunder Bay child who has to come to Toronto every three weeks for cancer treatments? Over the last two years, more than $10,000 has been spent for transportation costs from Thunder Bay to Toronto. Does the minister think they should also be referring their case to welfare -- more than $10,000 -- to have access to cancer treatment?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think that rather scattergun question had two or three questions in it.

Mr. Speaker: Basically one.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will try to find what the basic one was and respond to that.

The question is not one of welfare for transportation costs at all, for goodness sake. The matter is surely identifying whether a need exists in individual cases and trying to address that. The question of the provision of high quality health care is being handled very well in Ontario and access is something everyone has at present.

If the member is suggesting there are cases where that is not so by virtue of financial hardship, then I have suggested ways that might be addressed on a case-by-case basis, as opposed to committing yearly health care dollars in the magnitude of between $50 million and $75 million to providing transportation and accommodation.

At this point in our history, I do not think that is a responsible expenditure of health care dollars when people have, by and large, managed very well to pay their own transportation costs. If they are not able to continue to do that in some individual cases, then let us deal with those, but let us not commit huge expenditures of health care dollars that would be better spent on direct care to patients.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying the people of northern Ontario should subject themselves to a means test in order to get equal access to health care as people in Toronto?

Second, does he not feel some responsibility as a minister, the resolution having been passed and the Deputy Premier having voted for that resolution, at least to bring it before his cabinet for consideration? Will he not do so?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no and the answer to the --

Mr. Foulds: That is what the minister is saying.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, that is not what I am saying.

Mr. McClellan: Go to social services.

Mr. Rae: That is what he is saying.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That could very well be a source of assistance if someone is facing financial hardship. All I am suggesting is that in most cases that is not the situation. There is no point in introducing a universal plan to deal with a situation that is an individualized one.

The answer to the second part of the member's question is also no, because I think my colleagues are well aware of the resolution.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the Premier (Mr. Davis) would be here this morning and I was advised he was going to be, but he is not.

In his absence, I would like to ask a question of the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague). It concerns the expenses of cabinet ministers and the comparisons we are supposed to make between those expenses and the expenses of the average member that were published earlier this week.

On December 12, in answer to a question from the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), the Premier stated, "I will talk to the people who keep the books to see whether we can do it in some other fashion." Has the Premier discussed with the minister or any officials in his department the discrepancy between the accounts? Why do we continue to have inaccuracies in the comparisons contained in the statement released earlier in the week?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the complete text of what the Premier said and I would have liked to have had that. I think the Speaker answered the question himself this morning, however, when he said the report tabled in this House by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is one that includes the expenses of all of us as individual members.

As the member knows, the expenses of ministers are shown in the Public Accounts of Ontario and he is concerned that they are not incorporated in the Legislative Assembly report. I think it would be inappropriate to include them there. They are in the public accounts.

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Rae: I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that what the government is doing is fundamentally misleading. It is deceptive and it means information is being buried that cannot be truly compared.

I would like to give the minister some examples. I heard him say in his answer that it compares what each one of us spends in terms of legislative expenses. I do not want to single out any one minister particularly. but I would like to point out to the minister that, according to this account, under the Office of the Assembly, members' legislative office expenses for the fiscal year 1983-84, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, the member for Oakville (Mr. Snow), spent $54.06 on printing and stationery, $16 on mailing expenses and $11.49 on something called miscellaneous, for a total of $81.55.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: This is the Minister of Transportation and Communications who spends a total of $16 communicating with his constituents. I cannot believe that and I do not think the minister could seriously expect us to believe that.

All we are asking on this side is to have some way of comparing that. Is the minister saying we should go to the public accounts document? If we do, we find that in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications the total for transportation and communications was $82,000, the total for services was $162,900, and the total for supplies and equipment was $55,200, which would mean a total in the minister's office, the main office of the ministry, of $300,100. That is the only breakdown we can get.

Is that what the Chairman of Management Board is saying? Is he saying his colleague is spending $300,000 or saying he is spending $81.55? Which is it?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the report of the public accounts in front of me. The member knows the format of those accounts and that it is the minister's office vote and item. It is in every set of estimates that come before this House.

I do not know why he does not spend more of his Legislative Assembly account money on transportation and stamps and so forth, but I do not think there is anything inappropriate.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Management Board will be aware that there can be misleading information based on these reports. He would be aware that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), for example, in his constituency mailout compared the cost of private members with himself and with his cabinet colleagues for the area around Ottawa.

If that is going to be allowed to happen, then surely the Chairman of Management Board must take the same lead the chairman of the Board of Internal Economy has taken, and that is to get these figures together for his colleagues and report them to the House in the same way the chairman of the Board of Internal Economy has done. This way, once and for all, the cost for individual members and the cabinet would be released to the public at the same time and the public can draw whatever conclusions it sees fit.

As long as there is this skewing of the figures, then we are going to be treated to the kind of coverage in the press which I believe is unfair and misleading itself.

Hon. Mr. MeCague: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows full well that he has an opportunity to ask these questions of a minister at the time of estimates. The minister's office expense is printed in there. I do not make the rules as to when the report we got two or three days ago is passed. I do not publish the public accounts; it is the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) who does that.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Management Board should know that last year the Premier said he agreed and that he would look into it. I am quoting the Premier, and it may take a little while to get the flavour of what he is trying to say because that is the way it was, but he said:

"It is never my intent to embarrass members opposite or those in our own party -- certainly in the latter case -- and never intentionally on matters of this nature. I might do so in terms of policy and inconsistencies on positions, but certainly not in an area such as this. I will take a look at it." He said that in December 1983.

In going through the public accounts, our figures show that members of the cabinet, if one includes what we call the main office expenditure items on transportation and communications, services, supplies and equipment, spent a total of $15 million. If the minister is going to stand up in his place and say that is an unfair figure to use and we are not comparing like with like, all I would say to him is that he should give us like with like. There is a $15-million figure there that I think the government has to respond to in terms of a comparative figure.

If he wants to do justice to his openness with the public, it is time he came clean and said exactly what our ministers are spending in a way that is comparable with what other members are spending. We do not mind our lives being an open book. Why should their lives not be an open book as well?

Hon. Mr. McCague: All the member has to do is open the Public Accounts of Ontario.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I have a question for the Attorney General. In trying as we are to extract the truth in information from this government, he will no doubt be aware that seven years ago the Premier promised to make public the report he commissioned personally, or through his office, by Mr. Justice Campbell Grant into the McNamara diaries and the suggestions that emanated therefrom that there were some, shall I say, untoward connections with the government at that time. In response to the public pressure, the Premier made that solemn promise.

It has been raised in this House at least 10 times by my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and others as well. We were promised in April 1982 that the Premier would confer with the Attorney General and, hopefully, there would be an answer. I am asking him now, after all the time that has passed, is he prepared to make that report public and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier made it clear to the Legislature, to this House, that the report would not be tabled before the Supreme Court of Canada came down with its decision in relation to the appeals that are still pending in this matter. The Premier's position was taken on the advice of the senior law officers of my ministry.

The appeals were actually argued in February 1983, but we have not had a judgement from the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the fact that the appeals were obviously argued some time ago. I must concede that a delay that long is somewhat unusual, but that is a matter for the Supreme Court of Canada. As long as those matters are pending before the courts, the report will not be tabled. When the matters are no longer pending before the courts, the report will be tabled.

Mr. Peterson: The Attorney General must be aware that the nature of those appeals is not germane to the central issues. In reality, the people involved have been tried, have gone to jail and have now been released and are out and free.

Would he not agree with me that there is clearly the perception that he is hiding something by hiding behind this sub judice rule or whatever he is invoking to protect his own interests? Clearly, the perception that exists in the community is that there is something there that he and the Premier or the government is hiding and is not prepared to make public and that the pretext used is so thin as to be transparent.

As the chief law officer of the crown, would he not agree with me that the cause of justice in this province would be better served if he and the Premier honoured the commitment made seven years ago by letting that document become public now?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect, I think the cause of justice in this province would be better served if the Leader of the Opposition would cease to make, in effect, unfounded and scurrilous attacks on senior public servants in this province because, as I said to him before, the Premier is acting on advice of the senior law officers in this province, none of whom has anything to hide, none of whom has any partisan political considerations whatsoever to concern himself about.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, does the Attorney General not agree that his response is preposterous? How many times have we debated this? It is such a thin excuse. The issues before the court are ancillary at best. They have been described to him on many occasions. Is it the Attorney General who is giving the Premier advice? Is he prepared to take the blame for this coverup?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, again the Leader of the Opposition is making wild, unfounded allegations that really demonstrate no sense of responsibility at all. When it comes to preposterous statements, he is a master because he is making them every day.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General concerning the judgement of Mr. Justice Ewaschuk released on Tuesday concerning the justices of the peace in Ontario. Would the minister care to tell us here in this Legislative Assembly what he plans to do to alleviate the delays that are being caused by the uncertainties spawned by the judgement? Is he going to introduce legislation that will clear up the difficulties surrounding the interpretation of those items that were not addressed in the judgement of Mr. Justice Ewaschuk?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I certainly regret very much the situation that has developed. I personally have some difficulty with the position that has been taken by a large number of the justices of the peace in this province with respect to the so-called uncertainty. I would just like to quote to the members from the last paragraph of the decision of Mr. Justice Ewaschuk, which states:

"I have purposely made no comment as to the new status and conditions of justices of the peace. Their judicial independence in relation to provincial prosecutions heard subsequent to May 1, 1984, must be determined in light of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Act, 1984. Its effect on the judicial independence of justices of the peace in this province remains, therefore, for determination by some other judge on some future occasion."

This seems to be a pretty clear statement by Mr. Justice Ewaschuk. In so far as his judgement is concerned, given the fact that this legislation was passed after this matter was argued before Mr. Justice Ewaschuk back in October 1983, in my view it would be quite proper for the justices of the peace to continue to sit until some higher court had ruled that, subsequent to the passage of this legislation, there is some issue as to independence.

I regret very much that tens of thousands of people in this province have been seriously inconvenienced by the actions that have been taken. But it has happened and, as we have indicated, we are launching an appeal immediately in so far as Mr. Justice Ewaschuk's judgement is concerned. With respect to the refusal of justices of the peace to hear these matters, I have checked with my office within the last half hour and mandamus proceedings will be taken and, I hope, heard next week, which I hope will assist in clarifying this matter.

Mr. Elston: I think the Attorney General would also like to comment on the comments the learned justice made in his judgement with respect to section 5 of the amendment act that was passed in this House specifically suggesting he would like to have addressed further questions. It has also come to the Attorney General's attention that Mr. Manning, speaking to the press, had indicated as well his concern that section 5 might not stand up under further scrutiny.

Why would the Attorney General not use the opportunity now to eliminate once and for all the uncertainty and difficulties, rather than turning this issue into an adversarial situation, and bring in legislation that would clarify and prevent the delay and inconvenience about which he expressed so much concern?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There are a number of serious issues that will have to be addressed with respect to the justices of the peace system as a whole, quite apart from this particular issue. The most expeditious way to proceed in the public interest is to have the matter reviewed by a higher court as soon as possible.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, since we did get in just under the wire prior to Mr. Justice Ewaschuk's judgement, with the piecemeal amendments we passed in May, is it possible for the Attorney General to give us a firm commitment that when the session resumes in the fall, he will introduce a complete revision of the Justices of the Peace Act, based upon the policy decisions arising out of Mr. Mewett's report?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, there will be a complete revision before the end of this session. Obviously, the review of these matters by the higher courts may have some influence in the shaping of this legislation. I would concede this is a very high priority and I hope such legislation will be introduced soon after our return following the summer adjournment.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour relating to carbon monoxide problems that are causing nausea, eye irritation and headaches at the Robert Hunt Corp. in London, a manufacturer of storm windows and doors.

Repeated tests by the ministry showed levels of carbon monoxide at that plant were about five times the accepted level. Those tests have been taken since this matter was first raised by Mr. Frank Stilson of the joint health and safety committee in that plant in November 1982. The ministry ordered the company to meet the accepted level in May 1983 because of inadequate ventilation. Can the minister explain why ventilation still has not been improved in that plant?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I get at least 20 reports on my desk every day on various occupational health and safety matters across the province. I regret that one has not come to my attention. I will be happy to look into it, follow up on it and provide an answer to the honourable member.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the response of the minister.

When he is looking into that, would he also make himself aware of the fact that in January 1984, four days after Mr. Stilson and the joint committee complained, he was suspended for three days? In April 1984, nine days after Mr. Stilson wrote to the joint health and safety committee about worker complaints regarding carbon monoxide, he was again suspended, this time for five days. On June 1, 1984, Mr. Stilson was demoted with loss of pay a few weeks after he had complained to the ministry. Subsequently, he launched a complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 24 of the Labour Relations Act.

As a defender of the so-called internal responsibility system, what is the minister prepared to do to ensure that the high levels of carbon monoxide in this plant are lowered to acceptable levels and that this company desist from reprisals and intimidation of workers who attempt to protect themselves under the act?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: First of all, to answer the question directly, I will look into those other concerns as well. I was disappointed the honourable member referred to the internal responsibility system as the so-called internal responsibility system.

There is an editorial in the Toronto Star today headed "Worker Safety Pays Dividends." It says:

"In 1981 the Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. decided to work with the steelworkers' union on reducing the high number of accidents and deaths at its Sault Ste. Marie plant. A joint committee was set up to produce a safety manual and a report, to investigate and follow up on accidents. Since then, the accident rate has been cut by as much as half, and there hasn't been a death in two years."

There is a case of the internal responsibility system working, and it is right in the member's backyard.

11 a.m.

CUPE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Municipal services continue to be disrupted in the city of Thunder Bay. Contract talks to settle a week-old strike by Local 87 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees broke down on Tuesday. This strike has affected garbage collection, parks, cemeteries, public works and road maintenance in the city of Thunder Bay. Will the minister intervene to get management and the union back to the bargaining table as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the parties met in mediation on April 25 and again on June 6. Strike action began on June 14. Direct talks were held by the parties themselves on June 18, and a mediator from our office met with the parties on June 19. Regrettably, no settlement was reached at the time of that mediation attempt. The mediator is in constant contact with the two parties, and he will convene further meetings as soon as it appears that his involvement can lead to a resolution.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the mediator report to the minister that management in this case has made an offer that amounts to one per cent? Does he think that is a fair offer for management to put on the bargaining table? Does he not think he should have some talks with his colleagues about the limits they are giving to the municipalities to negotiate with their employees at the local level?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the details with respect to the mediation efforts. I am kept informed on what is going on. As the honourable member well knows, I have made it a policy not to comment on offers or rejections that have been made or turned down by the respective parties. That would be inappropriate on my part.

REAL ESTATE OFFICE CIOP

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning the real estate scam of last year known as Real Estate Office CIOP Ltd.

The minister will remember that approximately 250 people in the Ottawa area had invested funds in that scheme. About 75 per cent of them have received at least some money back, and some of them have received all their money back, but at least 25 per cent of them have not yet received a cent.

Can the minister explain how it has come to pass that, according to an article in the Ottawa Citizen of last Saturday, a number of people who were given their money back will now have to return it to the receiver acting on behalf of the Ontario Securities Commission?

Mr. Martel: Is the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) going out to check his telephone?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am just going to call the member's psychiatrist.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer is showing a lot of grace today.

Mr. McClellan: He has gone to run and hide.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order; the minister.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I hesitate to interject.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Are you a psychiatrist?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not even a psychiatrist; so I do not pretend to have those skills.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know the member will not, but I have something I can do for the member that will help a lot.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Is it called a lobotomy?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Why do we not have a trivia quiz today? Who needs what operation done?

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Does the member want me to buy him a scalpel too?

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question, I am prepared to go into the lengthy details of the whole process, but I am sure he will agree that we have endeavoured to keep him pretty well informed of events, so I will not take up the time of the House to do that.

The member will recall when the Ontario Securities Commission in September 1983 intervened in the CIOP issue and made a determination, that it was then involved in a matter relating to that commission. Cease and desist orders were released, and the securities commission then carried out an extensive investigation which subsequently led to negotiations to return funds to approximately 75 per cent of people who had placed money with Mr. Tellier for investment in real estate he owned.

In the midst of that process the OSC was involved in, the member will also recall the Quebec Securities Commission and the Canada business corporations personnel under the Canada Business Corporations Act took steps to appoint a receiver. That ended the activities of the securities commission in its endeavours to facilitate the return of funds to those people who had placed money with Mr. Tellier.

I was not aware that there had been any request for any return of those funds that had been delivered to the 75 per cent. I will certainly make inquiries and get back to the member. I can only speculate, and it is pure speculation, that someone may be claiming that other individuals received a preferred position in relation to the disposition of properties. I have not confirmed that, and it is merely speculation on my part. I will be pleased, however, to look into the matter.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. The minister will be aware that the hearing officers reported to his ministry more than 16 months ago on the Niagara Escarpment plan. It is now one year less a few days since the Niagara Escarpment Commission itself submitted to his ministry the final draft plan on the escarpment.

Does the minister not think that one year is more than sufficient to make his determination on the plan? Is he not just waiting until this House recesses or until a federal election is called to release the report, so there will be very little focus on his pro-development decision?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I agree that it has taken one year to review the decisions of both the hearing officers and the final plan of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, as I am charged to do under the act. I suspect I will be making some announcement in regard to that within the next two months. If the members prefer me to wait longer, I will; but the problem is with producing the plan. It requires a fair bit of preparation because of the maps that have to be produced. The presentation is most important to make sure our plans are clear when they are brought out. This does cover an area some 400 miles in length, including more than 40 municipalities, as the honourable member well knows.

11:10 a.m.

Mr. Swart: The minister has just confirmed that he is going to release it during the summer when there will be very little focus on it. Can the minister recall that he indicated last year he felt his decision should be a compromise between the two reports, the report of the commission and the report of the hearing officers? That would mean the slopes of the Beaver Valley would be designated for development by Epping Commons and other developers.

I wonder whether the minister now has had a chance to review the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act fully and to come to the realization that such a development in the Beaver Valley and other proposed developments on the escarpment are contrary to clause 8(e) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act which says the act is "to ensure that all new development is compatible with the purpose of this act as expressed in section 2."

Section 2 of the act says, "The purpose of this act is to provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment." Will the minister tell this House he is going to live up to that purpose? Will he tell this House he is going to reject the proposed development in the Beaver Valley and otherwise preserve the Niagara Escarpment for future generations?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I am well aware of the thrust and purpose of the act. In terms of whatever the plan will produce, I believe our government will uphold the purpose of the act as set out in section 2.

As the member well knows, I am required by law to state in a public forum exactly what my recommendations will be so that people will have an opportunity to respond within a 21-day period. I intend to live up to that mandate. I do not intend to announce parts of the plan prior to its actual public announcement, because I do not think that would be fair and it would perhaps leave the process open to attack in the courts once I have completed part of the process.

UNITED CO-OPERATIVES OF ONTARIO

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, over the past two or three months a number of concerns have been raised with me about the United Co-operatives of Ontario and its financial concerns. I have relayed these to the Minister of Agriculture and Food from time to time. Can the minister give me some update on what is happening with UCO and its financial problems?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, a number of the members, most recently the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) last evening, have approached me about this situation. Essentially, the matter stands as follows.

We have been talking with UCO for more than a year about its financial situation. It came to us in 1983 seeking some assistance from the provincial and federal governments. At that time, our position was that we were not prepared to consider any assistance without the benefit of an in-depth analysis of the company. This has been carried out at our request and at our expense by Price Waterhouse. Since then we have been discussing with it, the federal government and its principal creditors, one of the chartered banks and the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society, what needs to be done.

I have a couple of objectives in mind which I have imparted to all members and to members of the private sector who expressed concern about this. One is to attempt to achieve a more secure standing for the debenture holders and shareholders in UCO who are unsecured at present. Another is to attempt to do what we can to assure the continuity of 1,300 jobs in the UCO enterprises and network of sales and service centres around Ontario.

In all of this, I have made it clear to UCO, and my staff has reinforced this on a regular basis, that I am not prepared to put five cents of public money into the operation unless there is a reasonable, and agreed to, turnaround business plan for UCO. This will have to be totally committed to and supported by the board and the senior management of UCO as well as by an advisory group that we have insisted be formed. It will be made up of representatives of each of the provincial and federal governments, the bank in question and the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure the House that any assistance given to UCO would be justified on several social and economic levels and that the assistance the government does give UCO does not imply that the government of Ontario will turn its back on the hundreds of small competitors to UCO?

The minister is aware that it is the small competitors that are very concerned about the assistance forthcoming to UCO. They will have to continue to compete with UCO, their biggest competitor, yet in the past the government has rendered absolutely no assistance to them. Will the minister assure these small competitors that if the time ever comes, they will be granted assistance in a similar fashion to that in which the government is prepared to grant assistance to UCO?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we are not about to set up a new branch of the ministry known as the co-operative assistance branch. In this particular case, given the number of sales and service centres, given the UCO network in the province and given that in parts of northern Ontario if it were not for UCO there would not be a number of local services, it is a unique, one-of-a-kind situation.

I told the honourable member as recently as last night, and by telephone six weeks or so ago when we spoke about it, that we must have a proper, sound business plan spelled out before we sign anything. We are not prepared to lend any money to this operation in the absence of a proper business plan which, as I said, must be agreed to by the board, must have the commitment of the board and the senior executive of UCO to implement and must be overseen by an advisory group which in my view must have the power of veto in the event anyone tried to stray from that business plan.

PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Before I ask my question, however, I must say I am extremely pleased that he has come to his senses on the issue of the Mohawk Community Services Health Centre in the city of Burlington. Community-based programming is extremely important.

The minister no doubt will know that in Toronto the report of the Mayor's Action Task Force on Discharged Psychiatric Patients, which deals with the plight of 1,800 discharged patients -- a group that was a priority with the previous minister -- was completed in February, almost five months ago. The Premier (Mr. Davis) promised in January that his ministers would offer full support to any of its recommendations. The minister himself met with the chairman of the committee, Dr. Reva Gerstein, on May 10.

Can the minister bring this House up to date on what financial commitment he has made to implement the recommendations that were unanimously proposed to this Legislature by the mayor's action task force and city council?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member has reviewed the report of the task force, she will be aware that a response to it from this government would involve more than just my ministry.

We have done two things. We have established an interministerial group to work on the development of a co-ordinated response to the report. The chairman of our interministerial group is also a member of the city of Toronto's implementation team; so there is a good liaison between the government working group and the city's implementation team on an onging basis.

The response we will be making, I trust in the relatively near future, will be one that will involve the several ministries represented on the task force.

Ms. Copps: The minister's predecessor declared in 1982 that one of his main priorities would be the situation of community-based services for ex-psychiatric patients. We are now at the end of the session that began in 1984 and we do not have any action on this.

I can understand that the minister is working with the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development and other ministries, but can he give this House a commitment that he will come up with a financial commitment to implement the task force recommendations at least within the next 30 days?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not know what the precise nature of our final response will be with respect to financial commitments or even which specific ministries may be involved. Obviously the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing might be involved; it is represented in the group. I believe the Ministry of Community and Social Services is also involved, if I am not mistaken, as well as my own ministry.

But the point that I think is important for the member to bear in mind is that we do have the chairman of our own group working as a member of the implementation team in the city of Toronto; so they are well aware of what we are doing and we of where they are. We are working, if not hand in hand then in lockstep, in coming up with an implementation plan. Certainly we will be co-operating with them, as we indicated from the very beginning we would.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

11:20 a.m.

PETITION

FACILITIES FOR LEARNING DISABLED

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition to the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We respectfully request that the Ontario government acknowledge the educational needs of learning disabled children by incorporating the right under law of independent institutions to meet their needs.

"While local school boards are increasingly providing facilities for the learning disabled, there yet remain significant numbers of children of average or above-average abilities who require attention of a nature and extent that school boards could not, and perhaps should not, be expected to provide.

"We request public support for such institutions so that the children who require specialized instruction in order to learn to read or write or concentrate can eventually take full advantage of standard educational facilities, take their rightful place in society and fulfil the roles of which they are capable."

This petition is signed by approximately 35 residents of my riding of Ottawa Centre.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $18,247,000; community planning program, $37,720,000; real estate program, $18,689,000; community housing program, $188,235,000; municipal affairs program, $771,581,000.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wonder if you could determine whether or not the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), inadvertently or otherwise, misled the House earlier this morning when he indicated to my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) the fact that his youth employment programs would create 100,000 jobs by September 1.

This is at the same time as I, representing a community with a very high unemployment rate, am told by the Ontario youth employment program hotline that there are no more applications to be sent out and the program is finished because it has used up its allotment.

Do you think it appropriate that a minister of the crown would imply in this chamber that the program is going to create that many jobs, while at the same time, in areas where those jobs are most needed, people are being given the back of the hand by the programs of that minister?

Mr. Speaker: I shall be pleased to look at Hansard and see what was said. However, I have no way of knowing what programs are in effect and what programs are not in effect.

Mr. Laughren: It is the Ontario youth employment program which the minister is --

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I know what you are referring to.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, could I speak to that point? On several occasions, I have telephoned to try to obtain the material pertaining to all of those programs. The minister comes in here and says the material is available and the program is in place. I have now been waiting for one whole month for documentation and material from his ministry with respect to every one of those programs. I have received nothing. He keeps coming in here and saying it is all available and that it is up to us.

Can you get to the bottom of what in God's name is going on? We certainly cannot. The minister implies we are misleading whenever we question him on this matter. I stated that he implied.

Mr. Speaker: I noticed that. Again, I think you are asking the Speaker to do something which is not within --

Mr. Martel: How are we supposed to do it? He gets up here and says it is there --

Mr. Speaker: No, I know what you are saying. It is a matter of record.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: perhaps I can ask you this question then. I know you cannot answer questions, but perhaps you can make a ruling.

I feel my privileges as a member are being abused when my constituents and others see advertisements on television urging employers to take advantage of this program. The employers telephone me because they are having problems with the number and the response when they dial that number. It seems to me that members in this assembly are having their privileges abused by the rather cavalier behaviour of the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I did tell the honourable member earlier I would consult Hansard and see exactly what was said, but I must make the point that I cannot be the judge of which programs are in effect and which are not.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, one last word while you are looking at that. The Treasurer required the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) to withdraw certain statements during the course of that exchange. Surely the Treasurer should be required to withdraw misleading information.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to speak to that because I did hear some comments going around. I did not rule that the language used was unparliamentary. I asked, at the request of a member, as I have done before with other members, that what was judged by that particular member to be a provocative statement be withdrawn.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

DRAINAGE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, first reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Drainage Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, this bill to amend the Drainage Act will expedite the construction of desirable municipal drains where there is serious question about the wisdom of the petitioned drain or the magnitude or affordability of the drain proposed. My amendments will make sure decisions are made by a more democratic process before large amounts of money are spent. It will also provide a far less costly method of clearing blockages of water courses than by always doing it by petitioned municipal drains.

Consultation will be required with farm and environmental organizations on all appointments to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal. Finally, the act will be revised to apply to unorganized territories in the north, which are now excluded, by the local services board or the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) substituting for the local council.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SOVIET DISSIDENTS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I might indicate this motion was initiated by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and discussed by all parties and accepted.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon and Mr. Rae, resolution 7:

That the government of Ontario express to the authorities in the Soviet Union, on behalf of the people of the province, its deep concern for the health and safety of Yuri Orlov and Anatoly Shcharansky, its complete opposition to the continued imprisonment of Drs. Orlov and Shcharansky, and its support for the International Campaign -- Orlov and Shcharansky, which has been joined by Nobel laureates, scholars, scientists, organizations and individuals from around the world in its fight to free these two prisoners of conscience.

Motion agreed to.

11:30 a.m.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 66, An Act respecting Conveyancing Documents and Procedures and Recording of Title to Real Property.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Eaton moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Grossman, third reading of Bill 74, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to speak briefly on the second reading of this bill. I had not anticipated speaking quite as long as I did, but I was cut off on several occasions when I attempted to read the statement of the Premier (Mr. Davis) that related to the financing of separate schools.

I am not going to attempt to read that into the record today, but there is another brief matter I wish to discuss, which deals with why this bill should not be read for the third time; I think that is what I am allowed to speak on. It is in regard to the funding that would have been raised for the purpose of providing money to libraries and how much funding would be needed for that.

Members will recall that I raised a question in the House on Wednesday, June 20, when I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) whether some large amount of money, in this case $266,630, that was supposed to be coming to the city of St. Catharines would be forthcoming, because the city had to borrow money in order to provide it to the library. That money would normally have come to the library, yet it was half a year and they had still not heard anything. Alderman Kenneth Atkinson had raised this both in his position as a member of the library board and as a member of St. Catharines city council.

At the same time I asked the minister whether she had contemplated making an announcement in the House about increasing the per capita grant for all libraries in the province in this particular year. The minister would not give an assurance; she just said that if she were going to do it, of course, she would announce it in the House. Even that is questionable, but the fact is that the government is not going to increase it, and this means that as a result of the borrowing that is taking place, some of the money is not going to be going to municipalities across the province which require it very much for library services.

In the city of St. Catharines, for instance, as I recall the figures I used in my question, since 1974, when the province provided somewhere around 22 per cent of the cost of library services, it is now down to 9.6 per cent or something in that neighbourhood. This means the local municipality then either has to spend considerably more money to be able to deal with this problem and has to raise those taxes locally -- I think we recognize that property tax is the most regressive form of taxation -- or has to cut potential library services through the cutting of its budget. That was the question I directed to the minister, and this, of course, is a matter of great concern to many people in our area.

Then, as I pointed out in my point of privilege this morning, instead of informing the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), who also represents St. Catharines and who I know has a great interest in this matter, or the member for St. Catharines, and instead of the minister standing in the House to inform us, I have to open up the St. Catharines Standard to know that the local president of the St. Catharines Progressive Conservative Association has made some kind of announcement and provided some information that was not available, I do not think, to either the member for Brock or to me. I indicated on that occasion that I thought it was quite inappropriate for this person to do it.

I would even have no objection if the other member for St. Catharines -- who is a member of the cabinet, after all -- indicated this in the House, or if the minister did so. I think it is inappropriate for the president of the Progressive Conservative association to give an undertaking for the government that it is going to provide 80 per cent of the $266,630 grant in mid-July. The library would normally have received 50 per cent of the grant in May, the point being that it would cover the cost of interest.

I am pleased to hear that news, but it would be more appropriate if the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), the Minister of Citizenship and Culture, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) or ministry officials had given me that information to provide to city council.

As to the borrowing in this bill, I wish to speak very strongly in favour of increasing the per capita grant for library purposes so the local municipality does not have to assume that cost. Those funds should be provided at an earlier date in the year so the borrowing does not have to take place. I think most members on both sides of the House would be in favour of that.

The second item I want to discuss under the borrowing in this bill relates to a matter that has been raised on many occasions in this House, the expenses of members and funds that would have to be raised through this bill for the expenses of members.

I will not be unduly repetitious on this matter. Many view this as somehow being expenses that go into the pockets of the members of the Legislature. Looking at the headlines in the St. Catharines Standard, naturally I made the front page for once, as one does on occasions of this kind rather than when there are important items to be raised.

It says, "Average MPP Spent $56,000." There is quite a good story on it. Actually, it is a Canadian Press story, but of course in bold black type it says, "Claiming the most in expenses locally is St. Catharines MPP Jim Bradley, who submitted $58,669.23 in expenses. He was followed by Welland-Thorold MPP Mel Swart who claimed $58,226.77. Ray Haggerty of Erie claimed $55,232.78; Vince Kerrio of Niagara Falls, $46,872.58, and Phil Andrewes of Lincoln $45,541.99. Bob Welch, Brock MPP and Deputy Premier, had the lowest claim among the local members with $39,081.44. However, as a cabinet minister, not all his expenses are listed in the report."

Relating it to this bill, there are things it really does not explain. I think it is unfair to all members of the Legislature who do not hold specific portfolios. Then we get telephone calls at our constituency office asking, "What are you doing?" It is as though we are getting the money in our pockets. In my case, for instance, I am very low in personal expenditures, that is travel and accommodation.

I guess I could have an apartment here in Toronto. Instead, I work 18 hours a day and drive back in the middle of the night in my own car, falling asleep on the highway, stopping at truck stops or wherever to sleep five minutes so I can keep going. The thanks I get is the indication, such as that in the newspaper, that somehow I am spending money that goes into my pocket.

There are two things. I happen to come here often. I think my attendance in this House is quite good and I have a very large constituency of 84,000 people. Comparing that to those of the two cabinet ministers in my area, I think there are 51,000 in Brock and 50,000 in Lincoln. When a constituency newsletter goes out, it goes to more people, the printing costs are higher and the cost of postage is substantially higher.

In addition, because the government-recommended printers were late, I had to have three constituency newsletters put into one year as opposed to two. Of course, that pushes it up. In addition, in my constituency office I employ one person full-time and another person part-time and we simply cannot deal with the work that is there now with that number of staff. I have one legislative assistant here in Toronto.

I am not being critical of the ministers. I am critical of the procedures for reporting this. I look at the ministers. I go to various functions in the city and there is a representative, a special assistant of the minister, at one of those things. That does not show up on a minister's report that comes to this House. There are all kinds of staff here in Toronto in limousines. That is fine. It is the prerogative of a minister to have limousines, but that does not show up either.

11:40 a.m.

When parliamentary assistants are on business on behalf of the minister, their mileage is not racked up in that. The normal mileage they would have, and legitimately so, does not show. I am sure they must send some things out under the ministry letterhead. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, who is in the House today -- and I am not being critical of him -- may want to send out something in that capacity. I am sure that does not show up against his name when the expenses come out.

What I am pointing out is this is grossly unfair in the way it is presented. That is when one makes the front page of one's local newspaper, and people phone and say, "You must be a crook if you are taking that much money," and so on. It is most unfortunate because it does not truly reflect what is going on.

It also opens up the opportunity to look at some expenditures which some might question. I am not going to do that. I do not think it is appropriate for me to be involved in that kind of thing. There is a lot of sympathy, even on the other side, for the kind of reporting that goes on. It does concern me that a member is portrayed as being a high spender when he is providing services to his constituents as opposed to services to himself. Those are not shown in the same way. I can appreciate that a minister might have far more legitimate expenses. A minister is called upon to be in many different places for many different purposes, more than I would be.

Finally, on postage, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) sends out many things. She might send out something to every director of education in the province and every chairman of every board of education. That goes out through ministry printing and under the auspices of the ministry postage. If I send the same thing as a critic for the Ministry of Education, it goes out under my name and is assigned and shown as an expense.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your allowing me to stray slightly on the third reading for this purpose, and you have been kind to do so. Once more, I make the plea for a fairer presentation of the expenditures of members when we allocate these funds that are borrowed. Most of these expenditures would be beyond question because they are a service to our constituents. I do not remember the federal people ever facing this, and they have more staff than we have and seem to be doing far more things than we do that would cost the taxpayers money. I do not recall that it is released with any great fanfare.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly on third reading of this bill. I guess it will probably sail through with the government majority, but I wanted to let members in on a few of those items.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS (CONTINUED)

Bill 75, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act;

Bill 88, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act;

Bill 99, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act;

Bill 104, An Act to amend the Farm Products Payments Act;

Bill 105, An Act to amend the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS ACT

Mr. Gillies moved, on behalf of Mr. Mitchell, second reading of Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before we carry that, I might indicate we have to go into committee of the whole House on this. Because of an oversight, a section was missed and we will move it in committee of the whole.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have considered this bill carefully and they have authorized me to say to the House we intend to support it. The recommendation for this increase comes from the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses. We have been following its recommendations in the past and we are doing so again this year.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Wells moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"5a. Subsection 61(1) of the said act, as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1981, chapter 29, section 6, and 1983, chapter 50, section 7, is further amended by striking out the first, second, third and fourth lines in the amendment of 1981 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(1) There shall be paid to each member of a committee of the assembly, other than the chairman thereof, an allowance for expenses of $63 and to the chairman thereof an allowance for expenses of $73; and"

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, this implements the recommendations that apply to the rest of the bill, increasing the amount of expenses by five per cent for the committee and the committee chairman.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

11:50 a.m.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Gillies moves that clause 40a(9)(b) of the act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(b) to the employer where during the period of 12 months from the termination the employee advises the director in writing that the employee elects to retain the right to be recalled, and in such case the employee shall be deemed to have abandoned the right to severance pay; or

"(c) to the employee in any case other than a case mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b), and upon payment the employee shall be deemed to have abandoned the right to be recalled."

Mr. Gillies: The amendment I am proposing is designed to correct two anomalies in the bill that require minor changes. I understand it has been discussed with the opposition critics.

As honourable members know, the bill proposes to amend the severance pay provisions of the Employment Standards Act to enable an employee to elect either to be paid severance pay upon the termination of employment and forfeit any right of recall or to retain the right of recall and be paid severance pay if he or she is not recalled within a year of termination or such shorter period of time as may be provided under a collective agreement.

The first case the amendment addresses relates to a situation where an employee wishes to maintain the right to recall for more than 12 months, as again may be provided under the terms of the collective agreement. Clause (b) of the amendment enables an employee who has not received severance pay and who has not been recalled during the period of 12 months from the termination of employment to advise the director of the employment standards branch that he or she wishes to retain the right to be recalled. In such cases, the employee will be deemed to have abandoned the right to severance pay.

Clause (c) of the amendment makes it clear that unless the employee has been recalled or has advised the director of the employment standards branch that he or she wishes to retain the right to be recalled for more than 12 months after the termination of employment, the director shall pay the severance pay to the employee and the employee shall be deemed to have abandoned the right to recall.

We believe this amendment will result in a bill that is somewhat more coherent and complete. I hope members opposite will agree and give speedy passage to the bill.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant says "coherent and complete," which really is a bit of a joke. I think he also speaks of a couple of "anomalies." What we have here in a bill with only four sections is two straight errors. There must be some guilty consciences on that side of the House, because the errors in effect gave the benefit to some workers who might be involved in a plant closure and who had not elected to take the severance pay, but had elected to wait for their recall time right up to a year. It simply said they would not have to sign a waiver if they did collect.

That is the very argument I was making in this House, that the government should not have to take away a contractual right of workers to recall that may be a little bit better than the legislation. Lo and behold, when this bill was prepared -- and I must confess, we did not catch it ourselves; that is the only thing I really feel a bit guilty about -- we find the very arguments I have been making in this House are incorporated in the doggone bill.

I had some reservations then about letting this go through. I do so now only because there could be the protection of some money where it is paid into trust, there is interest on it and the possibility may exist down the road of a firm going belly up and the workers maybe losing that money. In fact, with the amendments now being moved in this House, the bill is exactly what we had agreed to very reluctantly and with all the reservations we expressed in the debate on second reading of the bill in the House.

I just wonder if somebody did not have a bit of a guilty conscience and ended up drafting the bill that really took into account the very argument I had been making in this House. The government is not improving the bill. It had been improved slightly as it passed on second reading. It gave a little more protection or rights to workers, because they could still retain a certain percentage of their recall rights when they got their severance pay, if they waited for the year period.

The parliamentary assistant should not give us this nonsense about improving or making it tighter or a better bill. It is what the government had intended in the first place and we had agreed to that; so we will support it. I think it was a rather prophetic error, because I think in any event the government is going to have to come back and give these rights back to the workers not too far down the road.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for Hamilton East for his gracious support of the amendment. As all members know, and we fully agree, there was a drafting error in this particular section. The Employment Standards Act normally sets out a minimum standard, and we fully recognize that many bargaining units bargain protection above and beyond what is contained in the Employment Standards Act. It was certainly never the intention of Bill 62 to take away any rights the workers have bargained for, and we feel that this is a substantive improvement to the bill.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

BARRIE-VESPRA ANNEXATION ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned consideration of Bill 142, An Act respecting the City of Barrie and the Township of Vespra.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I want to continue with my brief introductory remarks on this bill because I think it is important that a number of things be understood. It is important this morning that the Legislature of Ontario make a conscientious decision on how it will proceed with this matter. I have been advocating at some length now that there is something dreadfully wrong with this particular legislative approach to this particular matter.

I have been advocating that the province would be very well served if it simply said: "Okay, we understand there is some need for the government to save face. We understand it would be unusual for it to pull the bill." I am not making an argument that the government should withdraw the legislation or that the minister should resign, whichever minister it might be, and we have some problem determining which of the ministers over there is actually proposing this bill.

As has been his practice throughout the entire debate on the bill, save for an introductory statement, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has been mysteriously absent from the process. Apparently, he was not interested in hearing what people who came before the committee had to say and, apparently, he is not interested in participating in this portion of the debate. He is not present, but simply away from it all.

It has widely been rumoured that the real minister for this bill is the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). It is certainly a very unusual move, but if one were to read the media comments about this bill, the only minister of the crown who has any visibility on it is the Solicitor General. It is highly unusual for the Solicitor General to promote a bill of this nature, which is clearly in the jurisdiction of another minister. I note this morning the absence of the Solicitor General from his place. He has been here fairly regularly through this particular portion of the debate, although he did not participate in the hearing section of the debate.

I want to get on the record how strongly I think it would serve everybody well if we just let this one sit here for a while. During the course of committee hearings, we tried to get some verification of what the parliamentary assistant has said on a number of occasions about there having been a lot of negotiating. In my recollection during all those committee hearings, in all of the debate that has taken place around this bill, though I have asked for it many times, nobody has ever laid before this Legislature a track record of negotiating.

The best I could find is some correspondence from Vespra township asking for some initiative on the part of the government to resolve this dispute by means of negotiation. It seems to me that is a fairly straightforward way to proceed. The only other piece of evidence I can mount is a letter from the Premier (Mr. Davis) back to Vespra township saying, "Certainly, we would be happy to negotiate." Unfortunately, the last piece of correspondence I had from the Premier on the matter was from 1980.

12 noon

Those of us who have bargained for anything, whether it is a contract, such as my House leader does here about the order of business, know you do not negotiate or bargain by sending people letters. You have to sit down with them face to face and attempt to establish what your priorities are, and they try to get their priorities on the table. The negotiating process is not a matter of sending letters to one another. It is a matter of looking at one another, shaking down the priorities and coming to a consensus on the matter, if the parties can.

On the record, no effort of that kind has ever been made by the province. Off the record, it is alluded that several trips have been made. For example, in the course of debating the bill, when we went through the hearing section, it was pretty clear there. We were making the argument in committee at that stage that we wanted the financial aspects of this bill put together before the bill was finished. I think many of us understand that when you negotiate from a position of great weakness, you get clobbered. That is precisely what is happening to Vespra township here.

Whichever minister over there is in charge of this bill, and it is hard to find one from time to time, knows that by proceeding with a legislative solution to this long-standing problem, he puts Vespra township decidedly on the floor. He knows he is saying, first, the government will legislate the ultimate solution and then it will proceed by some means, not yet described to us all, to deal with all the financial implications. That is an absolutely absurd way to proceed, and we all know that.

We know right now that if the government just said, "We have pretty well completed the business of the Legislature for the spring session, we will go away over the summer and establish a timetable of meetings among the ministry, Vespra, Barrie and Simcoe county," if it were to adopt that stance, let a little cooling-off period occur and commit itself to negotiating a solution, that would give us what I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) would be happy to have. If we had a cooling-off period agreed to by everybody who is an interested party here, that would mean the services of mediation, arbitration or just straight negotiation would have a chance to work.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this government is so afraid of the little township of Vespra. It makes no sense to me. There should be no fear in the Big Blue Machine over there of one little rural township. Is the government afraid it cannot cope with them? Is it afraid they will outsmart the government again? Is it afraid they will outnegotiate it again? Is it afraid their personnel, who are far fewer than those the government has at its disposal, are so good at putting the township's case that it cannot compete with them?

It seems to me that a very logical flow should occur here. We have taken this bill through a process that is normal for the legislative procedure here. It seems to me the government has an opportunity. It certainly implied it was going to threaten them with legislation. The government has got away with that aspect of it. It now seems to me to be a logical time to say: "Let us just hold it for a minute. Let us cool things down a little bit. Let us leave it alone for a month or so and then see if we can arrange a set of meetings whereby these negotiations can take place."

From my point of view, if the government came back here in the fall session and said: "Here is the financial package that has been negotiated; we know exactly what dollars are being allocated and to which of the players, and we know exactly who is picking up what financial responsibilities in all of this," I would have to look at that in an entirely different manner.

If Vespra township came to me and said: "We do not like the negotiated package, but it is a negotiated package and it addresses our concerns," I would look on that as I have at every other contract that has been put to me. I have never voted for a contract for my own salary where I thought it was everything I wanted. That is not the process. I understand the process better than that. I know that what I get is the best that is available. I would have to look at this bill in a totally different context.

I plead with the Legislature to give us an opportunity to do that. If the government came back six months from now and said, "They will not appear at the bargaining table," I would have to say, "You tried." But to my knowledge, in correspondence, Vespra has co-operated with the government. To my knowledge, when the Solicitor General held a meeting at Georgian College after we had gone through the hearing stage of the bill, Vespra township appeared. To my personal knowledge, the constant comments of the parliamentary assistant that they will not appear at the bargaining table are not quite according to the facts.

Mr. Rotenberg: They are totally according to the facts.

Mr. Breaugh: Does the parliamentary assistant deny, for example, that Vespra township was at the meeting at Georgian College?

Mr. Rotenberg: That was the only meeting they came to.

Mr. Breaugh: There is a failure to communicate of rather large proportions. I believe the parliamentary assistant was here during the debate on second reading. I believe he sat in the committee when I said there, and I said it again here in the Legislature on more than one occasion, that he should show me where he has negotiated and give me a list of places, dates, times and staff people who sat down with Vespra and tried to negotiate a solution to this. I gave him from December until June, six months, to try to put together that list and, as of this morning, the list has never appeared.

He persistently says, "We tried." He alleges he tried. I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. I have been asking for six months for a simple list of where he met, who was there and what were the results of the meetings. That has never happened.

Mr. Rotenberg: Would the member like me to get up and tell him?

Mr. Breaugh: The parliamentary assistant has had six months to get up and tell me, and he has not done it yet. Frankly, I do not believe he is liable to get up and do anything more this morning except brag a little that he is the world's finest negotiator. In my personal opinion, and it is only that, he stinks as a negotiator.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I ask the member to withdraw that remark as being insulting and unparliamentary.

Mr. Chairman: I think the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) will realize on reflection that could lead to abusive or insulting language. We have a rule of order that deals with that. Would the member withdraw that remark?

Mr. Breaugh: Could I ask which remark I am asked to withdraw? "Stinks" or "negotiator"?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: All of them.

Mr. Breaugh: If the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) would like me to withdraw them all, I would have to read them all back into the record to withdraw them. I would be happy to do that.

Mr. Chairman: With all due respect, you are asked to withdraw the remark that the member "stinks as a negotiator."

Mr. Breaugh: Let me solve the problem. The member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) is easily offended, and apparently I have done that to him today. I certainly did not mean to offend him -- I mean to appeal to his reason -- so I would be happy to withdraw any implication that he is a lousy negotiator or anything of that nature. Is everybody happy now?

Mr. Rotenberg: The particular word "stinks" is unparliamentary and offensive, and I think that should be withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman: I clearly heard the member withdraw.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not want to leave that searing remark on the record that he "stinks," so I would be happy to remove from the record any inference that the member for Wilson Heights stinks. Is that good enough?

Mr. Chairman: We are really testing the gods.

Mr. Breaugh: I know.

There is a need for me to explain at some length why I feel so strongly about this bill and why there is a need for everybody to walk away from it for a little while. As to why I was first attracted to this bill, I admit I am given to looking for the underdog in a situation. I have a tendency to look out for the little person first and then to look around at the big people afterwards and try to figure out who is right and who is wrong.

12:10 p.m.

My inclination, and I admit it freely, is that whenever I see a dispute between a large group of folks and a small group of folks, I look to the small people first and say: "Hold it. What is going on here? There is a bit of a gang-up going on." When I first saw this piece of legislation, that was my instinct; I admit it flat out. It appeared to me that the government of Ontario, for reasons that escape me totally, was exercising once again its almost annual ritual. About once a year, the province picks on some little rural municipality that has been involved in some argument with another municipality for some time and decides to asserts its power, its influence and its presence.

For the most part, the government of Ontario goes to all the Ontario Good Roads Association conventions, all the Ontario Medical Association conventions and all the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conventions and attempts to tell all these people who are involved in rural life in Ontario that it is the friend of those folks, that this Big Blue Machine represents their best interests and that the Tories have always built them roads and bridges, even when they did not need them. They have always been friendly to them at conventions; they have always run good hospitality suites. The government spends a lot of time, money and effort to see that rural Ontario understands that the Tories in Ontario are rural Ontario.

I am from Napanee. I am not happy to admit, but I will, that in Napanee it is still the case that the political process revolves around one political party. When you win the Tory nomination in Prince Edward-Lennox, you have in effect won the riding. That is changing and evolving slowly, but it is the only place I know of where at a federal nominating convention, for example, they have fistfights because they know that this is the battle. The current provincial member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) knows what I am talking about because he was involved in some of those fistfights. They go around to each rural municipality where the Tories gather, and it is a big social and political event; it is what politics is all about: winning the nomination. Of course, after the nomination process is over, you simply have to wait out the election period.

We know that Prince Edward-Lennox has been Tory since Confederation and is likely to remain Tory. The member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) represents a similar kind of area, and he said after the last election that even a collie pup could get elected in Oxford. That was just the day after he had proved he was right.

Mr. Chairman: With due respect to the member, we do have to come back to the bill. This is all very interesting. We are living on borrowed time, I would suggest, if one looks back --

Mr. McClellan: What do you mean "borrowed time"?

Mr. Ruston: We all are.

Mr. Chairman: We all are; that is absolutely true. We have had all the discussion during the second reading debate. We know the member clearly said at the outset of his remarks, and again in other comments in this debate, that he was restricting himself to a few comments. It is with the consent of the House that we have been operating under that, and that goes back seven and a half hours as of 12 o'clock; so can we get back to the bill?

Mr. Breaugh: Sure, I will be glad to. I just want to get a few more rationales out here, because I think the explanation is in order and is necessary.

When I looked at this bill, it appeared at first glance simply to be the annual crushing of a rural municipality, just to remind it that the government is its friend but, of course, the government is the government, the government does run Ontario; the government does have the power, when you displease it somehow, to eat you up and spit you out.

Mr. McClellan: It is like tearing the wings off a butterfly.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. You can go for a while through the justice system and it will allow you a couple of cracks at the Ontario Municipal Board. But if you start getting too uppity, this government will remind you that the Big Blue Machine rules the joint and that if you do not toe the line the legislation will be there; it will use its majority in the Legislature of Ontario to snuff you out. If you do not like the legislation, if you do not think the financial arrangements are fair, honest and above board, too bad, because the Legislature of Ontario has put out the verdict on you. The contract has been let, so to speak, and it will crush you.

This reminds everybody in municipal politics that this is where the machine really starts and stops; this is where the important stuff is done. Municipal people are welcome guests at conventions, they are welcome to attend the hospitality suites, they can pass little motions if they want, they can look after the potholes, fix up the sewer plants and see that people have water; but if they get too uppity or go astray of the chosen course as dictated by the powers that be at Queen's Park, they are going to get a bloody nose for sure and maybe worse if they do not look out. That is what this bill is about at one level.

I had a little conversation with the Premier (Mr. Davis) yesterday about another matter, and some of my remarks seemed to have caught his attention. He asked me: "Why are you pursuing this bill? There is no politics in it for you." A number of my colleagues have asked, "Are you going to run in Vespra township?" I am not going to run; and if I did, I will bet that a lot of those people who like some of the things I have done in committee or agree with some of the things I have said in the House are not quite ready to vote for the New Democratic Party yet. I am not quite sure the socialist forces gathering in and around Barrie are really going to overwhelm. They might; they are getting close up there.

The Premier has a magnificent ability to be dead right and dead wrong on an issue at exactly the same time. On this issue he is dead right in one sense: there are no politics in this for me.

There are no votes in Vespra township that will elect me in Oshawa. That is true. I do not honestly believe --

Mr. Treleaven: There are probably not very many in Oshawa either.

Mr. Breaugh: In Oshawa, only 50 to 55 per cent of the people usually vote for me; so the member is right. There are a lot of non-New Democrats in Oshawa.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: What about last time?

Mr. Breaugh: Last time it slipped, yes; it was just under 50 per cent. I apologize that we did not run the best campaign we have ever run in our life there, but if one can win with only 49.5 per cent of the popular vote, what the heck.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Elections are always interesting, but we have this bill we are addressing clause by clause.

Mr. Breaugh: In one sense the Premier is correct: the politics are not there for me. But in another very real sense much of what we talk about, two Ontarios and the powers that be and the establishment structure in Ontario, is reflected directly in this bill; it is an exact tracing of the power structure in Ontario.

On the surface, this bill looks to be simply a piece of legislation dealing with a boundary dispute. The more one gets involved in the bill itself, however, the more one questions who the players were leading to this legislation. This bill is about politics in Ontario. It is about people with great influence and power using a political system well and succeeding remarkably in ways no one else could.

I do not know of any other citizen in Ontario in recent history who has wished to build something -- a garden shed, a house, a small plaza, let alone a $20-million expansion of a shopping plaza -- and had permission put forward directly by a missive sent by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

There are now 70 areas in Ontario that have ministerial control orders on them, or so the minister said in estimates the other day, but I do not know of one other major shopping centre that got approval to proceed by means of the minister writing on a piece of paper that he would lift the ministerial order for a little shopping centre expansion of only $20 million.

Cadillac Fairview got exactly that. It is represented by one of the more prominent law firms in the province, Goodman and Goodman, home of Fast Eddie Goodman, a very prominent member of our community in Metropolitan Toronto. He is a prominent political activist for the Progressive Conservative Party. That law firm managed to do what not many other law firms could do. It certainly represented its clients very well.

The sequence of events is important here too. On a Monday night, the Barrie council met in an in camera session and decided to withdraw its objection to that shopping centre. On the Tuesday, the minister stood in his place and announced this legislation. On the Wednesday, he sent out this little piece of paper that gave Cadillac Fairview exactly what it wanted. That is not the normal way for the planning process to work in Ontario. It happens rarely, but it surely happened in this case.

I keep asking the question, what role did the law firm of Goodman and Goodman play in this sequence of events?

12:20 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: With all due respect to the member, how long might we be in our comments? We talked about whether we are in order or out of order and that we are operating under the approval of the House. Are we to understand this shopping plaza is in the township of Vespra or in Barrie?

Mr. Mackenzie: It is very much a part of the issue.

Mr. Breaugh: That is right.

The process used to bring us this bill is one that has to be examined. I have asked that question in committee and no one answered. I have asked it in the estimates and no one answered. I have asked in the Legislature and no one answered. It seems like a relatively straightforward question. It is one a number of people have asked. But when I ask what role that law firm played in this sequence of developments, I got an answer that told me the city of Barrie had a fine lawyer. That is nice. I got an answer that this is about a boundary dispute, and that is nice, but no one will answer that question.

I was just asked how long I am going to talk. I am going to talk until I get an answer that responds to the question. We are playing a game here that I am free to ask any question I want and they are free to provide me with any answer they want, but no one here, in the committee room, in the Legislature or up in Simcoe county, wants to tell me what that role was.

The thing was brought to my attention some time ago when people asked, "Was it not a little more than coincidence that a very prominent Toronto law firm, heavily connected to the Progressive Conservative Party, represented Cadillac Fairview?" I said, "Yes, but there is nothing wrong with that."

The sequence of events that caused this bill to be produced has a lot of loopholes in it. There are no good answers for a lot of these things. I intend to pursue that. I can pursue it in a number of ways and I am going to do it for a while this morning as well.

Mr. Rotenberg: If you want answers, let me get up and give them to you.

Mr. Breaugh: I think the parliamentary assistant is yapping away over there. I am sorry, I withdraw the word "yapping," he is so easily offended. He is speaking from his seat as usual. The parliamentary assistant has had six months to answer the question. The minister has had six months to answer the question. Everybody has had lots of time to answer these questions.

I asked it earlier in committee. I have asked since December, and it is now June, for them to tell me about this negotiating process. Do not tell me the parliamentary assistant is good at it, do not tell me he is bad at it, do not tell me that he tried a few times. Just lay it out for me. It is a pretty straightforward question. Simply tell me exactly when the meeting took place, where it took place, who was there and what was transacted. In six months' time, not once has he even put a good fake on that.

Mr. Rotenberg: I never put fakes on anything and you know it. I am constrained. I have to tell the truth and that puts me at a disadvantage.

Mr. Breaugh: I withdrew a couple of things a little earlier that I really do not think are unparliamentary, but in order to make this debate flow smoothly I withdrew them.

I intend to speak my piece on this and if there is something in the rule book that says I am not allowed to speak my piece, they can move a closure motion if they want. That is all legitimate. There are a number of municipalities sending letters to the government asking it not to move closure, but if that is the route it wants to go, that is the route it has got.

I am going to say what I want to say on this bill. The chair can harass me all it wants, or the government or anyone else. I can take a fair amount of harassment and the more I am harassed, the more you will instigate me. I am trying to get a bit of a smooth-flowing discussion under way about why I am in opposition to this bill. I have attempted through the course of the debate not to get rancorous, not to be nasty.

Like all other members, I have a list of barbecues, picnics, meetings and official openings to go to. I would rather be there, but I am here because I think the bill is wrong and this government is wrong in pursuing it. If I am brought back in here next week, I ain't going to be in such a friendly mood.

Mr. Chairman: If I may, the chair is not going to get involved in any debate, but I would correct the member's comment. Fair debate is that the member has his criticism of the lack of response from the government. That is fine, but I can assure you the chair is not harassing you. I am simply reminding all of us about the rules under which we are supposed to be operating. We have been off them for some time. At some point my responsibilities will lead me to interpret whether we are in breach of those rules and if it is an abuse of the time of the committee.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate that and I appreciate it is your job. I expect you to remember that the job of the Speaker of the Legislature or the chairman of a committee is to see that members are given an opportunity to debate. You are here to protect the members. I sometimes think it is a difficult job, particularly when, to state the obvious, you are a government member occupying a position of neutrality.

This morning you are here chairing a committee of the whole House session. A little later on you may be on the government side.

Mr. Chairman: No problem at all.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate that is a difficult role to play and I appreciate the attempt at neutrality is made conscientiously on the part of all of the table officers. Quite frankly, I know it is not easy. I know the Speaker very often gets himself into conflicts. It simply cannot be avoided. The Speaker does not appear magically one day. He, or someone who chairs a committee in the Legislature, has been around here for a while and has been involved in some political fights over the years.

When a person assumes the role of Speaker or chairman of a committee, he is expected to perform in a slightly different way, and that is not easy to do. I appreciate you have a tough job and you are trying to do it. You will get no hassle from me on that.

Mr. Chairman: No complaint. Just going back to the debate, however long it is going to be.

Mr. Breaugh: Right. It is going to be a while.

I have some obligations to put on the record some things the government does not want to hear. I know it does not want to hear from 104 municipalities that think this bill is seriously wrong, not only in a mechanical way but also on the central principle of the approach the government has taken. The 104 municipalities have said that, and they are folks this government ought to listen to, although it has not chosen to listen to them so far.

I want to remind them. I am going to reiterate that fact. They are going to listen to these people one way or another. I want to remind them there is kind of a second wave at work out there as well. A number of the same municipalities are saying:

"Not only do we think Bill 142 is flawed and the principle you are using here is a wrong one, but also we do not believe you should invoke closure on the debate. We think you may not like what is being said in the Legislature. We understand you may not enjoy that. We think you may take some recognition of the fact that the municipalities in Ontario are at odds with the government's position. But do not invoke closure on it. This is supposed to be a parliament of sorts. This is supposed to be a place where you sometimes do hear opposing points of view you really do not want to hear."

I have heard on occasion the Solicitor General, among others, saying: "The reason for the legislation is very simply that there has been a long argument here and an expensive argument here. We do not like that process, so we are going to bring it into the Legislature." I am afraid we are on the verge of saying there has been yet another long argument in the Legislature. I am sure at some time somebody will start saying, "and an expensive argument in the Legislature."

They do not like that either, so they are casting aside the judicial system and that process on the basis that it is long and expensive. I sense they are on the verge of casting aside the legislative system on the same basis, that it is awkward, incontinent, expensive and they do not want to hear it. That leaves us with not much of a system to lean on, does it? If we are not allowed to use the court process and we are not allowed to use the parliamentary process, what process is left?

The cabinet probably would dispense with the Legislature as being an unnecessarily awkward and inconvenient vehicle for resolving its problems. The cabinet somehow would do what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has already done in one aspect of this matter; that is, it would simply rule by decree. They would sit around there on Wednesday mornings down the hall in the big padded room and they would decide in secret session what they want to do and then send out little notices.

They would not bother with the Legislature of Ontario. There is too much talk there, too much argument. It is awkward and they do not like that. They will just write out a little note saying, "Goodbye, Vespra township" and by some royal decree Vespra township will be gone. Well, that ain't the way it works, certainly not in my understanding of how it should work.

I was presented this week with a definition from Webster's Dictionary that I would like to put on the record. I think it hints at part of the problem. It is a definition of the word "Tory," which comes from a Gaelic word, "toiridhe," meaning "a hunter, applied to bog trotters and outlaws: (1) A name originally given to one of the numerous mosstroopers, who, during the civil wars of the 16th century, plundered people in the bogs of Ireland, being in arms nominally for the royal cause but really to afford a colourable pretext for their own lawless proceedings. (2) A political party name first used in England about 1679 and applied originally as an epithet of reproach."

12:30 p.m.

It seems to me Webster has caught the flavour of it all there. Being of Irish ancestry myself, I understand there is a lot of history rolled into this. For a lot of years the Irish in their humble surroundings and bogs have been bothered by folks who came around and harassed them, who took their pennies while the rich paid nothing.

It seems to me that up in Vespra township there is a little low-lying area and there may be people who would refer to it as a bog. That, in effect, is what is happening with this bill. This bill is about bog trotters; it is about people who are saying one thing nominally in the royal cause but who are there essentially to gather a little cash for themselves.

We know the history of the British Empire has little spots like this in it from time to time, that there were people who were pirates one day and privateers the next day, all because they flew the British flag and gave a portion of what they took to the royal treasury. We know this definition of what a Tory is may be a little closer to the mark than some people would like it to be. I think it has some relevance to the bill itself and to the approach taken by the government.

Very early in the arguments presented here I got a letter. It is hardly a private document; it went to the Canadian Press, the press gallery at Queen's Park. It asked some interesting questions and, to my knowledge, once again nobody has ever bothered to answer them. Let me read it. It is not very long.

"For several years Vespra township has been fighting off a land grab by Barrie. Bloodied but victorious, they have emerged from fierce battles at the Ontario Municipal Board, at the Supreme Court and up and down the corridors of power at Queen's Park only to be mugged in the alleys of cynicism. The general government committee is listening to the whole shameful story while considering a piece of legislation introduced by Claude Bennett which in effect hands over to Barrie what the city could not mooch in any public forum.

"Here is an angle that has not been discussed. Vespra gave permission to Cadillac Fairview to develop a regional shopping centre at the Georgian Mall. Barrie objected, bringing the project to a halt. Normally the minister of municipal affairs would forward the matter to the 0MB. He did not. Cadillac Fairview and its lawyers, Goodman and Goodman, were stymied. Barrie would not budge.

"What went on behind the scenes can only be guessed at, but look at the coincidences of what came to centre stage when Bennett announced he would help Barrie in its lust for Vespra's highway strip assessments. Bennett made his statement on December 6. In a letter to the minister, dated December 6, Barrie and the council withdrew its objection to the expansion of the Georgian Mall. On December 8, the minister signed a memorandum of legal notations allowing the Cadillac Fairview expansion to proceed.

"Wouldn't a politically cynical person conclude that Barrie blackmailed Cadillac Fairview and the Eaton boys, who have a store planned for that mall, and Eddie Goodman and the minister, by opposing the expansion as long as Vespra refused to submit? Was there a deal?" It is signed by a gentleman by the name of Thomas Reid.

That is a really good question, and I am not the one who is asking it; it is somebody in the outside world asking for a little explanation of what is going on with this bill. We have not had the explanation. Forgive me; we have tried for six months in here and in committee to ask that simple, straightforward question. What is going on? Why would the government of Ontario use this legislative approach? Why would it set aside its own legislation about municipal boundary disputes and legislate this? Why would the government of Ontario by ministerial decree, of all things, allow something as major as a shopping centre to virtually double a $20-million expansion?

We know the players; we have taken it that far. We know Eaton's is not exactly an impoverished group of folks. I understand Mr. Bronfman has moved into the Eaton's investment area now. We know we are talking about some heavyweight players here.

Mr. Nixon: Not the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Breaugh: Not the NDP.

On the surface, this looks like something that would have an impact up in Barrie and Vespra township, but we also know that some of the heavy hitters do not frequent that area a whole lot. These heavy hitters are down on Bay Street. These people have a lot of muscle.

As I looked for explanations of what is going on here, I suppose it did cross my mind at one point that Cadillac Fairview itself, for example, is a company that has been in the news for quite a while now. It is rumoured to be in some financial difficulty; it is certainly involved in a lot of real estate transactions here in Toronto.

A very confusing set of events happened last year in Toronto. centring round the sale of apartment units by Cadillac Fairview. Perhaps what is happening here is that Cadillac Fairview needs some help from the government. The government usually responds generously to large entities such as that. It has responded to Chrysler and other auto makers. I was a little worried that perhaps Cadillac Fairview was in real trouble.

The Globe and Mail, always the paper of record in rushing out with more information than one can ever use, left on my doorstep this morning this Globe and Mail Report on Business 1000. It provides us with a little information about who is healthy and who is well in various fields of business endeavour. This is its estimation of whether Cadillac Fairview is in good shape.

That is important to this bill because it would appear to be central from many perspectives that this was all done to assist Cadillac Fairview, that this whole legislation is about Cadillac Fairview and its needs; that this legislation is not about Barrie, Vespra or anybody else, but is about Cadillac Fairview.

We know that before the legislation is passed Cadillac Fairview has what it needs. It was having a little problem expanding its mall and could not get the thing through the system. Barrie was blocking it. Now we know that before the legislation was passed, the ministerial order went out giving Cadillac Fairview permission to expand.

It got a pretty clear, perhaps not easily measured but measurable, chunk of money. There is cash involved. This is not peanuts we are talking about. We are not talking about bogs in Vespra township. We are talking about a $20-million expansion to a mall. We are talking about a substantial interest in the expansion of that mall on the part of the Eaton company. We are talking about the big kahunas. There is a lot of money floating around.

Mr. Nixon: Represented by Eddie Goodman, QC.

Mr. Breaugh: That is right.

I want to put on the record the assessment in the Globe and Mail article about how healthy Cadillac Fairview really is, and whether it really needed to have the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing rush to help it out of this little jam-up in Vespra township. I think we should try to establish whether this is another bailout. Is this part of the government's corporate welfare system at work? Is this something that will be a boon to Canada's economy? I think it is important to establish that.

The article is written by Dianne Maley.

"A similar union is evident among the senior executives of Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd., where the recent change in management direction has been dramatic. As interest costs swelled and property prices collapsed, the company's major shareholder, Cemp Investments Ltd., decided it was time the Cadillac side of the company gave way to the more conservative Fairview side.

"Before it merged with Cadillac Development Corp. Ltd., a successful residential developer, Fairview Corp. of Canada Ltd. had been the staid and profitable real estate arm for Charles and Edgar Bronfman of Montreal. In 1981, following the resignation of Neil Wood, Bernard Ghert, a Fairview man, was appointed president. In 1982, former Fairview president Leo Kolber replaced Jack Daniels as chairman.

"He promptly put half the company's assets up for sale. Then, in a daring move, the company walked away from a $21-million down payment it had made on a property in Manhattan rather than close the deal and lose even more. While the loss was painful, Mr. Ghert was philosophical in retrospect, 'How many companies can afford to walk away from $21 million?' Today the company resembles the old Fairview. But its business is divided into operating arms, each of which would stand as a separate company. It is here that the entrepreneurs thrive, reined in gently when necessary by the president."

That is hardly a tale of woe. It is hardly a story of great sorrow. How is it that they can walk away from a $21-million investment in Manhatten and seem happy about it all? In Vespra township, where it had less money at stake, only a $20-million picayune investment, that one had to happen.

12:40 p.m.

It is tough to figure this out. How come it can walk away from $21 million in Manhattan, but in Vespra township a $20-million expansion to a mall is so important that it needs to do something really unusual? It somehow gets the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing -- and we do not know how yet -- to lift the ministerial order, send out a little piece of paper that has a $20-million ramification to it and, in the process of doing that, stomp all over a rural township. I am sure the government does not take great joy and pleasure in stomping all over Vespra township, but it is doing so.

All 104 municipalities know what is happening. They know that if this government is allowed to stomp all over Vespra township, they are on the list. There is no question about it. Every little municipality, whether adjacent to a big city or a small town, knows that if this is the way things are done, if this is the precedent that is established, if it is the little guy who gets crushed when somebody on Bay Street needs something done, it had better red-flag that. They have to say to the Legislature: "Hold on there. Do not proceed quite so rapidly. Let us cool it out for a while. Let us sit down and talk about this. Let us negotiate some kind of settlement."

I thought the members might be interested to know that Cadillac Fairview is number 2 in the real estate business in Canada on this list from the Globe and Mail. It is trying harder. It is not number 1. First is Bramalea Ltd., bless its soul. It is at the top of the list. Cadillac Fairview is only in second place, but it is gaining.

Mr. Nixon: I think that is alphabetical order.

Mr. Breaugh: No, it is gaining. I went through all this and I think I almost understand it. It seems to be doing quite well.

Mr. Nixon: Unicorp is ahead, I think.

Mr. Breaugh: The honourable member is into all these major investment things, but I am not. It may be Unicorp. I would not know a Unicorp from a Chevrolet, to tell the truth.

I took from the text that this was fairly straightforward because it says, and I will just quote this last little bit: "At the top of the list are the pure income-property owners -- Trizec, Cadillac Fairview, Olympia and York, and Campeau. Cadillac Fairview and Campeau joined this preferred class only recently, having decided to shed their residential business. They put their losing assets up for sale, in the meantime dismissing them with the stroke of a pen to the 'discontinued' category; most have since been sold."

Mr. Nixon: Maybe you can tell us about how Cadillac Fairview shed its apartments. That will be good for a couple of minutes.

Mr. Breaugh: I would be pleased to tell the member how Cadillac Fairview shed its apartments, but the problem is that this government says it has been investigating that little deal for 18 months now and still does not know exactly how all that happened.

Mr. Nixon: It never will.

Mr. Breaugh: There seems to be some difficulty in ascertaining exactly how the Cadillac Fairview corporation did that, whether it was right for it to do it or whether it --

Mr. Epp: It makes the rules.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. It appears that every once in a while when the rules do not fit, one sets aside the rules. It appears it got the help it needed when a firm such as Cadillac Fairview said to the government of Ontario: "Wait a minute. We have a little problem here. We are not going to stand around letting a $20-million investment sit idly by. We need some help."

The other little truth involved in this is Eaton's. Members may recall Eaton's has been in the news lately because, after a long time, it is finally beginning to get organized in the trade union sense. There are trade unions going into Eaton's stores. I know that for a long time Eaton's of Canada Ltd. has resisted the wonderfulness of the trade union movement for reasons that escape me and has been fairly active in promoting the idea its employees do not need a union. It has been in the news lately because a lot of its employees have said: "That may be the company's point of view, but it is not my point of view. I would sure like the protection of a trade union to represent me."

Quite frankly, I suspect the trade union movement will do for Eaton's what it has done for General Motors of Canada. I remember all the arguments in reading the history of my community of Oshawa. When the trade union movement began in Oshawa, General Motors said: "Wait a minute. You cannot have a union here. Of all the things you might do to us, that is the worst possible scenario. You cannot have a union in the General Motors plant in Oshawa."

The company got very serious about it all. I seem to recall, and I might have mentioned it previously, that the then temporary government of Ontario, wobbly crew that it was, decided to jump in on the side of General Motors in that dispute. It hauled out the troops and stacked them up outside the town. I am told it was only the mayor of the day who prevented the troops from arriving in Oshawa to keep out the unions. Since then the union is a part of General Motors of Canada and General Motors around the world, and General Motors seems to be doing okay.

Mr. Nixon: Is that what they call Drew's Dragoons?

Mr. Breaugh: Drew's Dragoons, conceivably. There was another name applied to them as I recall it.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): Perhaps we could address ourselves to the bill again.

Mr. Breaugh: At any rate, the T. Eaton Co. Ltd. certainly has a stake in this mall. I have heard rumours -- and they are no more than rumours because I do not hang around these corporate board rooms that much -- that one of the things which caused this bill to happen now was that the T. Eaton Co., which was going to be a participant in the expansion of this mall, which was going to lease space in the expanded mall, was making grumbly little noises that if this thing did not get resolved shortly it was going to withdraw from that.

Those of us who have spent some time on municipal council know it is sometimes a little tenuous when a developer comes before a council and says, "I would like to build a big shopping mall." The logical question is, "That is nice, but who is going to occupy this big shopping mall"? It is a big selling point when a developer like Cadillac Fairview or anyone else comes before a committee of a council and says, "We are expanding a mall," such as the Georgian Mall in this instance. It is a big bonus when they can say, "The T. Eaton Co. is going to be putting a new store in this expanded mall."

The shopping malls around Ontario are rated. The class of the shopping mall is rated by how many of the big stores are in there. The Oshawa Centre has them all. It has the Bay, Robert Simpson Co. Ltd. and Eaton's, so it is a three-star mall. As one goes around Ontario, a mall that has one of them is a one-star mall.

This particular proposal in Vespra township was getting along there. The acquisition of an Eaton's store in a community like Vespra township is a status symbol, even though the mall is a regional mall. During the course of the committee hearings, we had a fair amount of evidence presented to us that said: "This particular mall is not essentially attached to Barrie, not for commercial purposes anyway. It is essentially the regional shopping centre for the whole of Simcoe county and beyond. It does a lot of business during the summer months with tourists going through."

The players here are ones one should not mess with. These are the heavyweights. We are talking here about the Bronfmans, Eddie Goodman and the Eaton company. All of this stuff goes on down on Bay Street. These are the people who frequent places like Winston's and perhaps are taking over table 23 down there. One never knows. They are certainly in a position to do that. They have power. They participate in the political process actively and openly. More power to them. That is their legal right. I am just trying to convince other people that they ought to get a little active in that system themselves.

One of the major problems that has to be resolved is simply to get the roster straight. Who are these players? What role did each one of them play in all of this development? We do not know that. It would be nice if we could answer the allegations I read into the record a little while ago in that letter I received in the latter part of January, that somehow the law firm of Goodman and Goodman put together a deal which was the real basis for this legislation. It is hard to answer that allegation in a straightforward way. I do not know.

I keep asking all over the place, for more than six months now, what role the law firm of Goodman and Goodman played in (a), the approval of the mall; and (b), the formation of Bill 142. People choose not to answer. That is their right, just as it is my right in this Legislature to speak as long as I want on these brief introductory remarks. I am going to do that. For as long as I keep asking that one simple, straightforward question and people choose to give me an answer that is totally unrelated to the question, I am going to pursue this.

12:50 p.m.

Members will probably admit this more readily than I would, but I am a little pigheaded about some things. When I ask somebody a question, I expect a reasonable answer. I do not expect the person to tell me everything I want to hear. I do not expect him to tell me everything he knows, but it seems to me on this one central question, on the role of this law firm, on the role of this major development corporation, on the role of the Eaton company itself, there are questions it is legitimate to ask, but no one chooses to answer.

You may admonish me, Mr. Chairman, that I am being a persistent cuss on this, but I want to lay it out that in all the ways I know how, in different committee rooms here, in committee rooms in Simcoe county, in the Legislature of Ontario during the course of the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I have put the question in as many ways as I can conceive and on as many different occasions as I can conceive.

The last occasion was during the course of the latest round of estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. When I asked a question about the role played by this law firm in securing what Cadillac Fairview and the Eaton company wanted, the minister chose to tell me that the city of Barrie had a very fine lawyer. I appreciate that. I am interested in that. I know that is important to him, but that is not the answer to the question. I am obviously going to have to ask the question a few more times in a few more places before I get that explanation. I have not had it yet.

I would like to put a couple of other things on the record this morning because I think these need to be straightened out as well.

This is a copy of a letter that was sent to Mr. Julian Tofts, the clerk administrator for the township of Vespra in Midhurst, Ontario. It is dated December 12, 1983. The subject is the application to amend the minister's zoning order requested by Cadillac Fairview to permit the expansion of the Georgian Mall, file 43Z82052:

"Dear Mr. Tofts:

'The city of Barrie has now withdrawn its request to refer the above-noted application. A copy of its letter is attached for your information. Therefore, Ontario regulation 62/73 is amended by Ontario regulation 771/83 to permit the expansion. A duplicate original copy of the amended order is enclosed for lodging in your office as required under the Planning Act.

"Yours truly, Sarah Fraser, Acting Senior Planner, Plans Administration Branch, Central and Southwest."

Carbon copies went to Mr. Alan Leibel of Goodman and Goodman, barristers and solicitors, and Mr. P. L. Westwood of the city of Barrie, legal branch, drafting department.

That is interesting, because that is the notice, in essence, from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to the township of Vespra of what had been done. I think it is interesting that we get some sense of how Barrie explained what it had done here.

On December 6, 1983, there was a letter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, plans administration branch, 777 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario. It is marked "Attention: the Honourable Claude E. Bennett."

"Dear Sirs:

"Re: Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd., Application for an Amendment to the Minister's Zoning Order, Township of Vespra, your file:

"Further to our letter dated September 28, 1982, on the above subject, this is to advise you that council for the corporation of the city of Barrie have recommended that their request to refer this matter to the Ontario Municipal Board be withdrawn. This withdrawal will then permit the minister of housing to lift the zoning order with respect to the Cadillac Fairview application and permit them to proceed with this development.

"Yours truly, P. L. Westwood, City Clerk."

That tells it all in a rather succinct way. That tells exactly what is happening here. One needs a little experience in planning matters to understand the jargon of it all, but it is pretty straightforward. The minister simply advises Vespra that Cadillac Fairview can now proceed to build its mall and the city of Barrie in a straightforward way simply advises the minister that, although it has registered an objection and although it had indicated for some time it was going to go to the 0MB over it, it now wants to withdraw it.

Reading the letter, I guess ordinary people would say a $20-million expansion to a shopping mall is important stuff. Surely if a city like Barrie was going to withdraw its objection, it would say why. Surely it would give a little explanation. It is a serious business when one municipality registers an objection at the Ontario Municipal Board or threatens to have a hearing before the 0MB about the expansion of a shopping mall in an adjacent municipality. That is important stuff. It involves a lot of money. They are inconveniencing, for example, the Bronfman family; they are making things awkward for the T. Eaton Co.; I am sure they caused some displeasure and aggravation at Cadillac Fairview, even to its most conservative chairman.

I am sure they knew at Barrie council when they blocked the expansion of the mall that this is not something that is done lightly. I am sure that was discussed completely, and I hope openly, at the Barrie city council level. I am sure when they registered those objections they had good reasons. I am sure they would not go before the 0MB and sit down and say, "We do not like it." They have to muster an argument and present from a planning point of view reasons why this expansion should not proceed.

In my municipality and in my municipal experience, if a municipality is going to object to something at the 0MB, I know and many other members will know that when one municipality objects to something that is happening in an adjacent municipality, the planning staff, legal staff and public works staff get together and begin the long, slow process of mustering an argument as to why that development should not proceed.

It is not just a matter of flipping a letter off in the mail. It is a matter of saying: "Our city's reputation is at stake here. We must put together an argument that is extensive and based on fact. We know when we appear before the municipal board, it will rightly expect that this is not a casual decision taken in the heat of an argument. This objection means there will be an expenditure of substantial amounts of money, there will be legal costs incurred, the argument will be heard before the 0MB and we will have to present a solid and tight case establishing it is a reasonable thing for our municipality to register that objection."

I would have thought that somewhere the council of Barrie would have taken the opportunity, particularly in writing to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to outline precisely why it had decided to withdraw that objection. As with so many other things we have heard about in this scenario of events, perhaps the reasons were given to the minister, in my attempt over a six-month period to lay my hands on those pieces of paper that explain the rationale and provide us with the sequence of events, details and information about why those objections were withdrawn, I have not found them.

During the course of the committee consideration, we asked on several occasions the basis for pulling this. Why did Barrie want it? Although the opportunity was presented to the staff in the city of Barrie and they did attempt during the course of the committee to answer questions, there was no great tabling of documents. That is for sure. None of that happened.

The Acting Chairman: I draw the member's attention to the clock.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate that and I will continue, as they say in the trade, anon.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported two bills with certain amendments and progress on another bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the progress was the two bills we completed in committee.

We will continue debating this matter next Tuesday, taking the form of a government motion we will put on to bring some finality to the debate. We will set some time limits to conclude the debate on this bill, as requested by all members from all sides of the House, to bring some finality to this bill.

Mr. Martel: It sounds like closure.

Mr. McClellan: The House leader said Tuesday.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sorry, I meant Monday.

We are meeting on Monday. I will make sure that is very clear. We will continue this matter next week, debating it Monday afternoon and evening. We will have in Orders and Notices a motion to schedule some timing for the various remaining stages of this bill.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, once the minister calls the orders of the day on Monday, he is going to move directly to his motion, I presume. Then whenever we finish debating the motion, we will go back to the Vespra bill.

Mr. Breaugh: It might be a lengthy debate.

Mr. Martel: There might be a little debate on the motion as well.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is absolutely correct. It will be a motion exactly like the one that was ruled in order by this House a year or so ago.

Mr. Martel: Yes, but we will be able to debate it, I presume.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, yes.

Mr. Martel: At length.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn, while I do not mean to delay the proceedings, I think the House owes a considerable debt of gratitude to our friend the member for York South (Mr. Rae), who has produced an addendum to the sessional paper relating to members' expenses.

If you have not had the opportunity to survey the addendum to the sessional paper, given the interest of the House in this matter, I would certainly recommend it to your attention because it appears the member for York South has done his homework very well. We have, by this accounting, not one but several million-dollar men on the other side of the aisle. I am sure this will be of great interest to you and to the public beyond this place.

I think the member for York South is to be congratulated for his diligence and for the excellence of his work in this connection.

The House adjourned at 1:02 p.m.

June 22, 1984