Hansard Transcripts 1984-Jun-08 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have a dilemma as party whip. The Premier (Mr. Davis) has sent invitations to all members of the Legislature to be at a dinner next Tuesday night at eight o'clock. I realize they do not have to go, but it is apparently in regard to a water conference, and I am sure anybody who lives in the Great Lakes district is interested in any water conference.

I am in a dilemma as party whip as to how to approach this, because some of my members have said that if they do not go, there would probably be some sort of insinuation that they were not interested in good-quality water for the province; but if they do go, how do you run the Legislature?

My real concern is, I have never seen a time in my 16½ years here when every member of the Legislature was invited by the Premier to attend a dinner while the Legislature was in session and, as it happens, exactly at the same hour, and I think that is going a little too far.

Mr. Speaker: First of all, let me point out to the honourable member, as he must already know, that this is not a point of order. But I can appreciate your dilemma, and I am not going to presume to offer advice. In my own case my first responsibilities are here; each member must make that decision for himself or herself.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

BUSES FOR PHYSICALLY DISABLED

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, in the recent budget it was announced that additional funds would be available to my ministry to assist municipalities in the purchase of special buses for the transportation of the physically disabled. I am pleased to be able to announce today that the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development has approved and is providing us with $1.5 million this fiscal year for this purpose.

The subsidy will have two very important objectives. First, it will provide municipalities with the opportunity to purchase buses specifically developed and designed to transport physically disabled persons as compared with the modified vehicles that are now in use. Second, it will provide Ontario companies with the operating experience to illustrate low operating cost and long-life benefits needed to market this product in North America, where there is very limited competition.

The $1.5 million is to provide a 50 per cent subsidy for the purchase of special vehicles and will be available to any interested municipality. At this time, however, I am unable to say exactly which municipalities will be availing themselves of this opportunity because it is so new.

I can tell members, however, that Metro Toronto has expressed an interest in these specialized buses, and I anticipate that perhaps as many as 30 will be purchased for service in the Toronto area. Other municipalities across Ontario have also identified a potential need for 14 vehicles for the transportation of the physically disabled in this fiscal year.

The advantages in these buses for passengers include a low, flat floor and easy, unassisted access from short ramps, convenient access through wide doors, front-facing spaces for wheelchairs and adequate head room and aisle space. For the operators, they offer a longer vehicle life -- 10 to 15 years -- as compared to the three to five years realized from the modified vehicles.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ADHERENCE TO MANUAL OF ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, to whom do I ask a question?

Mr. Boudria: Where is everybody?

Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet with respect to political activities and his Manual of Administration. I am sure the minister is aware of the section in the manual that deals with political activities, but if he is not, I will refresh his memory.

It says: "Except during a leave of absence granted to be a candidate in a provincial or federal election, a crown employee shall not... associate his position in the service of the crown with any political party." As I said, that refers to federal as well as to provincial elections.

Is the minister aware of the case of Pauline Browes who is a commissioner with the Residential Tenancy Commission? She recently won the federal Tory nomination in Scarborough Centre after running a five-month campaign for the nomination. She took a leave of absence only in April, although she had been running for some time.

Why did the minister allow her to continue to violate the Manual of Administration and not take a leave of absence until late April, as was prescribed by the rules in his Manual of Administration by which Ontario is run?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) was dealing with that matter. I might say that Pauline Browes was a member of the Residential Tenancy Commission. She did seek a leave of absence prior to seeking the nomination in that riding.

There was one problem. She had heard a couple of cases and it was decided it would be only appropriate that she write those up following her request for a leave of absence. She did not hold any hearings following that point.

Mr. Peterson: The minister actively encouraged her to violate his Manual of Administration. Is that what the minister is saying in this House? That is what the minister is saying.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Let me go on and remind the minister of another section of the manual that says that no candidate shall "speak in public; or express views in writing for distribution to the public on any matter that forms part of the platform of a provincial or federal political party."

Perhaps the minister can tell this House why Nina Willcocks, a revenue manager for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, actively sought the Progressive Conservative nomination in Scarborough West. She spoke in public, distributed leaflets and at no time sought or received a leave of absence from the civil service. Why is the minister not enforcing his own manual?

10:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I will answer the first part of the question, which asked why we were allowing somebody to break the rules. I am sure the member is sensible enough to understand that because it was her responsibility to write up those cases, it did not seem to make much sense to have been in attendance at a couple of hearings, then have somebody else hear the cases over again to write them up. That is the reason.

As far as the second case is concerned, I am not aware of it. In both cases, however, it was the minister responsible who was dealing with that, and I would be completely willing to have the question redirected to him if the honourable member so wishes.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I had --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: He redirected.

Mr. Speaker: Was that a redirection?

Mr. McClellan: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Management Board is quite correct with respect to Ms. Browes. When I was advised by the Residential Tenancy Commission's chairman of her indication to him that she would be seeking a nomination, he had the matter reviewed legally and determined that it would not be appropriate for her, as the Chairman of Management Board has said, to continue with any further hearings.

But she had been a panel member or a chairman in some 23 hearings, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) knows from the letter written to him on June 4 by the chairman of the Residential Tenancy Commission. It seems most inappropriate that those 23 hearings should have to go through a rehearing process, so her resignation, although submitted within the time frame, was scheduled for a date that would allow her time to complete any role she had with respect to writing decisions in those particular cases.

In the case of Mrs. Willcocks, I am simply advised that for technical legal reasons there was no contravention of the Manual of Administration and if the Leader of the Opposition wishes me to obtain them for him, I shall.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I had alluded to Ms. Browes's candidacy when I asked a question last Friday with respect to the Residential Tenancy Commission's reversal of the precedent-setting 40 Earl Street decision. Does the minister not think it is really a denial of very fundamental justice, as well as a matter of propriety in the rules of the Manual of Administration, that a Conservative candidate, from what I hear this morning, is sitting in judgement on a precedent-setting matter before the Residential Tenancy Commission, namely, whether or not landlords should be required to prove whether a financial transaction is in fact an arm's-length transaction or not? Does the minister not think, in the light of what we have learned today -- that she was a declared candidate at the time she was writing this judgement -- that this judgement should be overturned?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate what the Chairman of Management Board has said and what I have said. First of all, she was not a nominated candidate at the time; she was seeking a nomination and that did not occur until after the effective date of her resignation.

There were consultations with legal staff, with Management Board and with the Civil Service Commission, and it was deemed that it was in the public interest that there not be a rehearing of those matters.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the people over there interpret the rules very flexibly according to their own purposes on any given occasion. It is obvious that the Manual of Administration means nothing to either of these ministers, which is very disturbing.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: How does the minister explain, for example, the violations of the political partisanship rules with respect to the Deputy Minister to the Premier? One Ed Stewart is shown in a picture here carrying a PC football at a plant opening, clearly identifying himself as a Progressive Conservative even though he is the chief civil servant in this province. At the same time there was a member of the Conservative Party at this particular opening, and Dr. Stewart unabashedly was appearing there wearing his PC colours, as he did in the Hydro ads in the last campaign.

What conversations has the minister had with Dr. Stewart about his ongoing violations of the Manual of Administration? What disciplinary procedures is he going to bring to Dr. Stewart?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the member should redirect the question to the Chairman of Management Board.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that football the Leader of the Opposition is talking about; the one he is kicking around this morning I have heard about. But I will take a look at the picture, if he would send it over, and make an appropriate comment.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Management Board has the answer to a previously asked question.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked me this morning about this picture he sent over to me. I understand this is a picture of Mr. Brown, who is holding a Liberal ball, and Dr. Stewart, who is holding a Progressive Conservative ball. This was at the opening of a sporting goods store in St. George to which the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) was invited. I am told Dr. Stewart also held the Liberal ball for a while, although he may not have liked that. However, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) was our official representative there, and many pictures were taken. Oddly enough, they chose to print this one, and I do not intend to investigate the matter any further.

Mr. Speaker: The Premier on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as a further matter of clarification of this issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised in one of the two most important questions in all the public issues confronting the --

Mr. McClellan: What part of the standing orders does this come under?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a point of order?

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, would you clarify for me --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You can only have one point of order at a time.

Mr. Speaker: The Premier has risen on a point of order--

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If I may be so bold as to ask, how can we determine whether it is a point of order until we have heard it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: And how often have I heard those words?

10:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the Leader of the Opposition would be very upset if this issue were not fully explained. In that he raised with the House the activities of my deputy minister and the Chairman of Management Board has given a partial reply, I should think he would be anxious for me to table all relevant correspondence.

I have a letter from Dr. Stewart to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and a reply from that member which I would like to read into the record.

"Dear Bob:

"This is a strange way for a product made in St. George to reach you. Some might suggest, however, that in government getting everything turned around is no surprise at all.

"In any event, as you may know, through a friend of mine, Bob Huntington, who is also a friend of Doug Brown" -- who I understand is a friend of the member from St. George, that other St. George -- "I was invited to take part in the ceremonies held to mark the expansion of the Brown plant ... ."

This is a commercial enterprise that is very important to the community the very distinguished former leader of the Liberal Party represents.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: "On that occasion, Doug was handing out footballs, including the accompanying 'model' which was intended for you." The member quite properly could not be there. "I promised to carry out the delivery along with a counterpart that was prepared for the Premier. By some matter of chance, I ended up holding the Premier's ball when the Brant News took a picture of the occasion. You understand how these things happen.

"I hope the ball is of some use at an appropriate future occasion."

I think the record should be made totally full:

"Dear Ed:

"Re red and white football f.o.b. St. George.

"Thanks for delivering the special gift from Doug Brown's official opening. I am truly sorry to have missed the occasion, since I am sure we might have done something more constructive with the Premier's ball."

That is very relevant. This is important for the record. The member raised it as one of his lead questions.

"I am sure you enjoyed your visit to Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. The Browns are extremely hospitable and we are fortunate to have them in our community.

"Best personal regards.

"Yours truly, Robert F. Nixon, MPP, Brant-Oxford-Norfolk."

Now the record is complete.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would just like to point out to all honourable members that in an effort to be fair and even-handed in this matter, I patiently listened and waited for the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) to make his point. I think it is only fair that we have equal time on this side.

Mr. Peterson: Just so you know what is happening, Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the Premier. Is the Premier aware that this picture of his deputy identifying himself --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: He answered the question. This is a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead.

Mr. Peterson: What a strange place you run, Mr. Speaker. Why do you not take the weekend and read the rules of this House? How you are running this place is absolutely incredible. You allowed him to do whatever he did. You had better allow me to do whatever I am going to do right now.

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection and I was not --

Mr. Peterson: Good. I will go ahead then.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not mean to be provocative --

Mr. Peterson: Go ahead.

Mr. Speaker: -- though he might --

Mr. Peterson: I might too.

Mr. Speaker: -- he might just address himself to the standing orders, and particularly standing order 27(e), I believe it is, after the remarks that were made yesterday.

Mr. Peterson: I have a supplementary to the Premier, who has now shown up and found some correspondence that he thought was embarrassing and is not at all. What is embarrassing is this picture of his deputy clearly identifying himself with the Progressive Conservative Party in contravention of the Manual of Administration, which the Premier created but which he does not believe in and which he systematically violates through his colleagues and through the members of the cabinet. He is now paying close to $300,000 to figure out what his own rules are.

Given the fact that this picture appeared on the front page of a Brantford newspaper, clearly identifying the deputy minister with the Conservative Party, would the Premier not agree with me that this would give the appearance to any objective, normal observer that this man now is politically tainted? Given also the history of his involvement in the government's ads in the last campaign, would the Premier not agree that there is evidence of clear violation of the Manual of Administration, which the Premier has created but which he does not believe in?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted the Leader of the Opposition wishes to pursue this subject as a matter of urgent public importance; so I am delighted to answer his question.

He asked me what I think of this picture. I can only say that I prefer this picture to the one I saw of the member on the front page of the Toronto Sun obviously auditioning for a performance in Swan Lake. I know the member thinks I am a cultural pygmy, but he does not have to carry his own enthusiasm for the ballet to the front page of the Toronto Sun. If I had to make a choice in pictures, I would choose this one.

This is a very able, dedicated public servant. He was a guest in the riding of the member's colleague. He was there at a plant operated by a friend of the member's colleague. The member heard what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said about Mr. Brown. He was given a ball to give to me. He was given a ball to present to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. What is Dr. Stewart to do? Is he to say: "I do not want to receive Mr. Nixon's ball. I am not to receive the Premier's ball"?

I can only say that the member should research these things more carefully and more thoroughly. If he would only talk to his former leader, he might understand just who got whose ball.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I think we have heard enough.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You already had the supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: Can I have a new question?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is time for a new question.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: This is all a lot of fun, I am sure, but back-benchers have some right to ask questions in here. I am sure you will want to rule that that was the question from the Leader of the Opposition. The Premier was up on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition asked his question; he can ask a supplementary, and then the rotation goes here.

Mr. Speaker: But I did not see anybody rise on a supplementary.

Mr. McClellan: We do not want a supplementary; we want our question.

Mr. Speaker: No. The next question is here, with all respect.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Bell-woods was rising on a point of order, I think.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to explain to you that the Leader of the Opposition, in replying to the Premier's point of order, was asking a question. The Premier was not answering a question; that question was already answered. He was making a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition asked his supplementary, and the rotation comes back here.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition quite clearly rose on a supplementary, which I recognized.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I thought that leadoff questions, which I assume this football question was, were allowed two supplementaries.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: How is it that the Leader of the Opposition was offered three supplementaries?

Mr. Speaker: No, he was not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He dropped the ball twice.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

10:15 a.m.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer with regard to the statistics released this morning respecting unemployment in Ontario. They are disturbing from a number of points of view. The national percentage is actually improving somewhat, but Ontario's position is deteriorating in percentage terms. Our unemployment has actually risen in the last month. There are 15,000 more unemployed youth this month than there were a month ago.

There have been three recent reports -- the report of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, the report of the Ontario Manpower Commission and the federal youth report -- which say that even the statistics, as revealed, do not tell the story. The real unemployment rate, that is the real number of unemployed young people, is much higher than revealed in the statistics. I want to know from the Treasurer, who is the chief policymaker, his estimate of the real unemployment rate among youth in this province. How many unemployed youth do we have in this province? What is his opinion?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, a far more important thing than my opinion about Statscan's, the social planning council's or anyone else's estimate of the number of unemployed young people, and which is the most accurate, is the fact that we are now mounting a series of programs that will have an opportunity for every one of them, regardless of the number. I will tell the member quite openly that we are trying to identify all the young people, whether they show up statistically or not. If the member read the budget carefully --

Mr. Peterson: How can the minister do that if he does not know how many there are?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member read the budget carefully --

Mr. Peterson: It took about three minutes to read the budget carefully.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- he would understand we are --

Mr. Peterson: Continue. Stop interfering with him, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. Supplementary, please.

Mr. Peterson: If the Treasurer is going to say to read his budget carefully, which, as I said, took about three minutes to do, and look for statistics, there were none.

Let me ask him about a specific program. He announced an Ontario youth tourism program that would presumably produce 2,500 jobs. Is he aware there have been no conversations with Tourism Ontario? They have not been consulted on the details. No one knows when that is going into operation or if it is going into operation for this summer. As the minister may be aware, the tourist season has already started. Will he have this program in place in the summer areas by September, October or November when the tourism season is finished?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer to that is, yes, we will. The information the member has is completely wrong. Conversations have been held. The member is mistaken once again.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the number of programs the Treasurer announced, will he now admit that young people in this province have a very slim chance of getting a job this summer and this winter? For how long does the Treasurer think young people in this province can take the answer "no" when they go to apply for a job? How many years does he expect them to take the answer "no," time after time, without some serious social unrest unleashing itself in this province.

lion. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let us agree that no one in this assembly wants to have a circumstance continue where young people are expected to sit idly by during the important years of their lives and get neither educational training nor employment. Everyone accepts this. There is no period of time when that is acceptable or expected. Where I believe the member and I differ on the question --

Mr. Foulds: It is the Treasurer's job to do something about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- is with regard to what to do with those young people and what the alternatives are over the next period of time. I firmly believe the option the member has invited us to undertake, which is a simplistic and old-fashioned option of make-work projects to get them something for a few weeks or a few months, does nothing for them. It keeps them happy for a few months. I admit it is better than nothing, but it certainly is not better than retraining them.

Mr. Foulds: The government is doing nothing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member might want to hold to the proposition that we are doing nothing, but while I was reading my budget statement, he and his colleagues were moaning and complaining that the essence of our many new youth programs was stolen from his party. That is wrong. There were many initiatives in there. As the third party scurried for some ground, they were not using the argument they are using today that we did nothing. They were saying all the things we had done, since they were so good, must have been taken from the third party. That is incorrect.

Mr. Peterson: We have talked to the executive director of Tourism Ontario, and the Treasurer's facts are wrong again. The Treasurer told me to read the budget for the details. There are no details in his budget. His colleagues do not know the details in his budget.

Is the Treasurer aware that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) wrote to my colleague the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) and said, "As you know, the recent budget announced increased expenditures for youth employment programs? I will be pleased to provide you with further details of the new programs as they are developed." He does not know the details and the Treasurer does not know the details. Who does know what is going on over there?

We want stats, we want specifics and we want jobs now. When is the Treasurer going to get off his duff and do something, as opposed to that silly rhetoric he is giving us constantly, day after day, in this House? He has all public relations, but no programs. When are the jobs coming forward?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let us understand one thing. I would admit immediately that if we had accepted the 1950s economics of David Peterson we would have sent a lot of kids out to paint fences tomorrow afternoon. We would be able to stand up in this assembly and pretend politically we had solved the problem by taking, to use the Liberals' own program, $100 million to create 14,000 positions. That is their version of trying to help young people. They should get out there and talk about that program. I hope they will. It will not stand up.

Juxtaposed against that, we are making the kind of long-term --

Mr. Peterson: Juxtaposed against nothing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Juxtaposed against that, we are taking that amount of money and more and investing it in retraining for those young people.

Mr. Peterson: Look at the results. They are getting worse and worse.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition did much better with plastic bookmarks than he is doing now. He should stick to them.

RETUBING OF NUCLEAR REACTORS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. With the information this morning that was given at the Ontario Energy Board hearings, is the minister aware that the cost merely of retubing two reactors at Pickering has risen to almost twice the original price of the four reactors at Pickering? Does he not think that is good cause to give Ontario Hydro instructions that it should stop its mindless pursuit of nuclear power and its goal of trying to achieve 66 per cent of electricity produced in this province through nuclear energy?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Is the Minister of Energy not aware that the cost of retubing the two Pickering stations will cost each man, woman and child in this province $150. Does he not think that is an outrageous figure for the cost of nuclear power added on to the original cost, when nuclear power was sold as being a cheap source of electricity?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is again speculating on these costs. These costs have not been fixed. Perhaps Mr. Morison, in presenting this information, indicated that a definitive estimate of these costs is being prepared and will be presented to the Ontario Hydro board at a future date. The original cost estimate of $420 million is the current figure being placed on the cost of retubing Pickering units 1 and 2. That will affect the 1985 rate by approximately three quarters to one per cent.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall that we put out a press release shortly after Hydro's information came forth with respect to the cost of that retubing. We said then it would be at least $1.2 billion. Does the minister recall that was pooh-poohed by him and by Hydro at the time? Now, very clearly, that is going to have a major impact on Hydro and the subsequent increase in rates. It is the minister's responsibility to tell this House what that is going to do to rates. What is his opinion?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Claridge of the Globe and Mail can agree on something. I feel it is important we keep these costs in context. The original estimate for the repairs at Pickering units 1 and 2 of $420 million, allowing for inflation and interest, might escalate to approximately $520 million over the period of time required for the retubing. A definitive estimate is under preparation and will be ready by September 1984.

Mr. Morison gave this evidence before the Ontario Energy Board yesterday. He was asked how accurate the initial estimate was likely to be and he said within 20 and 25 per cent, which gives a possible cost of $650 million for the total retubing.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I suppose 25 per cent on $500 million is not bad. That is a lot of money --

An hon. member: Four hundred and fifty million dollars.

Mr. Foulds: Within 25 per cent on $450 million. I know it was before the minister's time as Minister of Energy, but is he aware that the cost of power from Pickering A was supposed to be 1.4 cents per kilowatt hour? That is the figure that was used by the Premier (Mr. Davis) in the early 1970s to convince the public that nuclear power is cheap.

Can the minister come clean with this House? Can Hydro come clean with the people of this province? Can they tell us what the true cost of nuclear power is and what it is going to be with escalating costs? The minister himself says the costs are not fixed.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member recognizes why the costs cannot be fixed. The costs for the actual materials can be estimated fairly accurately. The costs of wages and the costs of interest on borrowed capital cannot be estimated so accurately, nor can the ongoing costs of research and development of equipment required in this retubing procedure. I can only remind the member that Ontario Hydro has one of the lowest rates in North America. It has one of the lowest rates in Canada and will continue to have, based on the wisdom of that investment in the nuclear industry.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Treasurer is aware that the provincial government sacrifices between $750 million and $1 billion in corporate tax revenues through the corporate tax incentives his government offers.

How does the Treasurer justify shifting the burden of taxation from corporations such as Northern Telecom and CCL Industries, which, by the way, paid no corporate income tax in its last year and does not plan to until 1988, to personal taxes on a family of four earning $15,000, which in this province is the group paying the highest personal taxes in the country?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with regard to those kinds of measures, those companies may be taking advantage, and I am sure they are, of a lot of incentives that have been built into the system to get them to invest and expand through research and development.

I think he mentioned Northern Telecom, one of our best growth industries. The net result of all that activity is that a lot more people are working and are employed in the system, which is exactly the subject matter of his immediately preceding question to me.

The member may propose that we should employ people by running up the deficit and spending a couple of hundred million dollars hiring them on government payrolls. I think we cannot make a better investment than to get those people real jobs in the private sector. The proof of the success of that is the fact that, as everyone now acknowledges, Ontario has far and away led Canada through this economic recovery. That is not unrelated to the circumstances we have structured to allow great private sector job growth.

Mr. Foulds: Is the Treasurer aware that, by statutory income tax rate, Northern Telecom owed $155.4 million and actually paid, after all its write-offs, something like $23.4 million? In other words, its rate was 48 per cent, but its actual payment was seven per cent.

Does the Treasurer not think that kind of write-down would be even more justified in the personal tax sector? Does he not think that people and families in this province would love to be able to defer their personal provincial income taxes and their Ontario health insurance plan premiums so that they had an effective tax rate of only seven per cent instead of the 30-odd per cent they pay now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think what those people would really prefer is to be employed and that is the whole object of the exercise. The whole object of the exercise is to find opportunities for those companies to grow and expand.

Fortunately, the member's party will not have the opportunity to find out from bitter experience, but one way to make sure those companies do not grow and expand, one way to make sure research and development is done in the United States, and one way to make sure we have plant closures, not plant expansions, is to make sure we are not competitive in those incentives. It is to make sure we do not have a tax system that encourages reinvestment in R and D to be done in this country and, instead, to use the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation-New Democratic Party Regina Manifesto theory of economics, so to speak, to tax the big corporations and everyone will be happy.

That is just not right. It does not work. The proof of how much the public thinks that works is their party is at 12 per cent and dropping.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I assume we are going to get into the harangue we have had before. My friends on the left will harangue the corporate sector, the Treasurer will defend it and it will not be a meaningful dialogue.

One of the realities is that we do not have good information on the costs and benefits of the tax expenditures. Tax expenditures now take literally billions and billions of dollars in this country. Some time ago I brought a bill before this House asking for a cost-benefit analysis of those tax expenditures. The Treasurer does not know at this point how many jobs he is creating or saving by offering tax expenditures.

Will the Treasurer, in the spirit of openness, budget consultation and sharing his problems with the world, undertake to do cost-benefit analysis studies on those tax expenditures to determine whether we are hitting the targets and whether we are getting real value for the tax dollars expended? Will he undertake that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let me offer the observation that while he may hear predictable positions from the NDP and what he considers to be, accurately, a predictable position from us on this side, no one has ever accused us of being able to predict which of those positions the Leader of the Opposition will be taking either here or on any public platform. I must say, in retrospect, if we knew what platform he was speaking on, we would be able to predict which of those positions he would be taking. We understand he would be comfortable with these two and a variety of others from time to time.

On the question of tax expenditures, he should think back, if he can, to the time when he was finance critic for his party. He should think back to the accuracy and value of pretending there is a definitive analysis to be done.

Let us look at last year's retail sales tax holiday for furniture and appliances. On the basis of the number of items that were sold without tax, we can estimate what the revenue loss apparently is, but no one will ever know how many of those would have been sold anyway. No one will ever be able to measure with finality or absoluteness the number of jobs that were created. What one does is estimate that this is an important thing to stimulate that sector. Let us be sensible; we will never have a definitive answer on that sort of thing, whether it is retail sales tax, corporate income tax or personal income tax. Anyone will tell the member that.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer indicates that companies such as Northern Telecom get these large tax incentives so they can keep employment in Canada. Can he explain why, in the seven years since 1976 to 1983, Northern Telecom increased its total employment by 67 per cent while its Canadian employment increased by only 10.4 per cent? In other words, Canadian jobs in that company account for only 54 per cent of the company's total employment. Are not the tax incentives of the Treasurer creating jobs in Northern Telecom outside the country?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is really silly. Let us begin by acknowledging that the member just blithely tossed off the fact that only 10 per cent of their job growth occurred in Canada. That is a lot of jobs; it did create a lot of jobs in Canada.

Second, if we look at the various reasons they have been able to expand in other countries, it is because, for once, Canada has been able to build multinational companies based in Canada that are able to operate in other countries, therefore creating revenue for Canada by helping improve our balance of payments. That is exactly the kind of thing the member has been crying for years that we need in Canada. Then when we have work and it creates jobs both in Canada and in other countries, he is complaining about that too.

If we are successful, that is the kind of company that results from this sort of thing. We should not be complaining about it; we should be looking for more opportunities to do that.

10:50 p.m.

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move over from the issue of football to the issue of baseball. I would like to ask a question of the Premier regarding the use of government aircraft to go to sporting events, even in other countries.

I know the Premier is a great sports aficionado; all of us accept that and recognize it. While I realize that his adherence to the Toronto Argonauts is misplaced, that particular aspect does not raise my ire. What raises my ire, and what certainly raises questions among the unemployed people in my riding, is the personal use of government aircraft by the Premier for such things as the trip that he, the infamous Ed Stewart, that civil servant, and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) recently took to a baseball game in Detroit.

I wonder whether the Premier can tell the House, first of all, what his stated policy is on personal use of government aircraft; and second, just how much he personally paid for the trip that he and his invited guests took to the baseball game in Detroit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the honourable member asked the question. The policy has been stated here on several occasions, but I will review for the member what the policy is and try to explain to her the circumstances of what transpired.

At rather a late date, I determined after checking with the whip that there was no supply motion on Tuesday evening. I had been at Millcroft on Monday and a good part of Tuesday. I left Millcroft about mid-afternoon to meet with certain people in my own constituency.

I then met with the new Canadian head of Honda Motor Co. Ltd. to express my appreciation to him in the presence of his colleague from Japan. We had that meeting close to Malton international airport, at which time I expressed to him my delight and enthusiasm. We discussed the potential expansion of that facility some time down the road. It was a helpful and worthwhile discussion.

As is my custom on occasion, and I make no apologies for it, I go to the odd recreational event. In case the member thinks that is only in the sporting world, my wife and I intend to go to the opera this evening. If the member happens to be present, as I know her leader will be, I will be delighted to chat with her.

On occasions when I determine to go to some event and there are obvious timetable scheduling problems, I avail myself of government aircraft as I have been requested to do by certain security people.

It was a personal trip to Windsor. I did not fly into Detroit. I want to make that clear in case the member is under any misapprehension. We left the airport at Windsor and travelled across to Tiger Stadium in Detroit to support the Blue Jays in what I think is a natural interest on the part of many of us in establishing, in the United States, their credibility and the important role they play in promoting Toronto and Ontario across all of North America.

I can say to the member, the policy is very simple. It has been stated before --

Mr. Peterson: Did Ed Stewart carry your ball?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As a matter of fact, Dr. Stewart did not carry my ball. He did not carry the member's colleague's ball. Now that the member's leader has dropped several balls on several occasions and struck out so many times, I would have thought he would have let his colleague now carry the ball for him.

The policy is very simple. I explained it to the press some years ago. I will explain it to the member. When it is strictly a personal trip on my part, the taxpayers do not pay a nickel.

Ms. Copps: Notwithstanding the first minister's heavily charged agenda, there are a number of members on all sides of the House who work 70, 80 and 90 hours a week. The first minister has avoided the main question: how much did he pay? We do not know how much that payment has been. How much is he actually getting below market value?

Why could the Premier, Ed Stewart and the Minister of the Environment not follow the normal procedure taken by all other members of the House and travel by Air Canada or other commercial airlines? Does the Premier not think it is little difficult for unemployed people across Ontario to see him and his civil servants travelling in government-owned aircraft at a time when they cannot even find jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to assure the member that on those rare occasions when I use government aircraft for what is obviously a personal trip -- there is no argument about it whatsoever and I have never been reluctant to state it -- I pay exactly what is involved in the chargeback to the various ministries, the hourly rate that is part of the stated cost for whatever aircraft it may be.

If the member thinks many ministers of the crown of the government of Canada have a comparable policy, I suggest she check with her close friend Mr. Munro.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, when the Premier arrived at the Windsor airport, how many federal government jets were parked there for federal cabinet ministers?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, everywhere I travel I find the number of federal government jets, whether it is out at Vancouver, for whatever purpose, to be far greater than any provincial aircraft we ever observe, and the member for Hamilton Centre knows it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Give the Liberals another question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ASSISTANCE FOR JOB SEEKERS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a sense that the Treasurer is right and my question is going to be wasted today, but I have a serious question I would like to ask him concerning the problems of the unemployed in finding work.

I wonder whether in a very practical sense he would agree that it is a good time to help those people who are looking for work but do not have much money. Would he not agree that it would be a good time to help them with transportation costs which they have to undertake to look for work?

As the Treasurer knows, just to meet the requirements for job search, an unemployed person in Toronto will be spending about $4 a day now on Toronto Transit Commission fares. That is about $20 a week, which is a fair amount. Does the Treasurer not think it would be a good thing to give an incentive to communities such as Toronto, and to the transportation authorities, to subsidize the fares of those people who are unemployed and looking for work to help them find employment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether that is precisely the best mechanism to help them. Considering the cost of seeking employment, it is probably a worthwhile idea. It is something I shall have a look at together with my colleagues, the federal government and municipalities.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would appreciate it if the minister would do so. He is probably aware that certain municipalities such as Hamilton-Wentworth are already subsidizing fares. Now, instead of paying a $30 fee for a monthly pass, an unemployed worker there can get it for $17. The municipality figures it will cost about $250,000 a year to maintain that program.

Would it not be appropriate for the Treasurer to do exactly what he is saying; that is, get some agreement with the federal and provincial governments to assume that responsibility for that subsidization? Surely the primary responsibility for the welfare of those people and the assistance with re-employment belongs to this government and not that of the municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have only heard the honourable member advance this suggestion this morning. It is my guess that there are more cost-effective ways to attack that problem through the various community-based and government-based organizations which help people directly in getting some assistance. It may not be through the mechanism the member is suggesting. In any event, I will review it with my colleagues.

I think the question is to find the best way to make sure all the assistance we want to provide is effectively used by job seekers. I shall review that with my colleagues.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, when the Treasurer is reviewing that, will he take a look at some of the smaller communities? The ones that particularly affect me are in Elgin county. I am referring to communities that have about 800 or 1,000 people.

When a welfare recipient is sent on a job search, he can normally do that in the morning because there are only a very limited number of jobs in those small communities. But he is often told he will have to drive 30 or 40 miles to St. Thomas or to London, and he does not have the money for that. The Treasurer knows as well as I do that there are no jobs for them in those areas anyway.

It is a particular problem in the smaller communities. A little bit of common sense on the part of the administrators would be of great help.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will review that. One does hope the various support mechanisms in place for the unemployed would have in them a sufficient component to allow a reasonable job search. I will be happy to review that together with the initial request.

11 a.m.

FARM CREDIT

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It concerns farmers who are having enough difficulty putting shoes on their children's feet and cannot afford the luxury of getting into a government aircraft to fly to a baseball game in some other part of the country.

The former Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, Duncan Allan, told Bruce county farmers in February 1982 that the province would seriously consider setting up its own farm bank if the farm credit problems became chronic and persisted for more than a year. Farm credit problems have persisted for more than two years since Mr. Allan made that promise. The situation shows no signs of improvement, with 15 percent farm credit interest rates, bankruptcies continuing to increase and bank interest rates going up.

In view of these facts, can the minister tell us exactly what action has been taken on the provincial farm bank idea and when farmers can expect to see some action on this promise, so affordable long-term and short-term loans at eight per cent interest rates can be made available to farmers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, since February 1982 there have been a number of developments in the farm credit area. First of all, I am pleased to say that based on the statistics I have seen to date for calendar 1984, farm bankruptcies in Ontario are not going up. They are down from the 1982 levels and they are at the same levels as 1983, unlike other provinces such as Quebec where bankruptcies in the first quarter of 1984 were 100 per cent more than in 1983.

Second, since then we have introduced programs such as the beginning farmer assistance program. This is providing to beginning farmers eight per cent interest rates for the first five years of their farming careers. As of last Friday, we have signed up 757 applicants under that program, with average indebtedness of $131,000 to $132,000.

Third, we have advanced a proposal to the federal government on several occasions, and we will be going back to it in the very near future, with respect to agribonds. I have no plans to propose the establishment of a provincial agricultural bank. I will offer again, in what I think will be a creative way and a way I hope the federal government can accept, particularly since it has been committed since 1980 in its official federal Liberal Party platform to support agribonds, my proposal, which, in effect, is for a sharing of the costs by the federal and provincial governments of a program targeted to a broader group than we have been able to assist to date.

Mr. Riddell: I think we can understand now why the former deputy minister Duncan Allan is no longer with the ministry. As the minister has often stated, "You can make figures do anything." In 1982, we had the highest bankruptcies of any province in Canada, yet the minister takes delight in saying bankruptcies are no higher than in 1982, when they were the highest they have ever been in the history of this province. Shame on the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Riddell: In view of the --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In fact, I said --

Mr. Riddell: I am asking the questions. The minister will have a chance to answer later on.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Such arrogance.

Ms. Copps: We learned it from the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I said the incidence of bankruptcies has declined from what it was in 1982 while it has gone up in virtually every other province.

Mr. Riddell: What a comparison to make; 1982, a time when there were a terrific number of farm bankruptcies.

In view of the very significant effect the farming industry has had on spinoff industries such as farm machinery -- the minister will be aware of the recently announced layoffs by the John Deere farm machinery company because of the failure of the farm financial situation to improve -- and in view of the disadvantage our farmers face from the financial assistance programs offered by other provinces to farmers, does the minister not feel it is now time to take some positive action to give our farmers some sense of security in the future of our agricultural industry?

In case he wants to get up and answer, "We are going to get a tripartite stabilization program in effect," which we have listened to for over two years, did the minister read the article, entitled "Provinces Losing Enthusiasm for Beef-Hog Plan, Aide Says"? This was an aide to the federal Minister of Agriculture. The minister has been talking about it for over two years, and the chances are it will not materialize. He is prepared to see our farmers go down the drain. Why does the minister not do something for the farmers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Quite frankly, debating with the honourable member at times reminds me of having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

The aide to whom he refers is a recent entry into --

Mr. Breaugh: Which one of you is supposed to be unarmed?

Mr. Laughren: That makes the odds even.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The aide to whom he refers is someone who has recently entered the office of the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa. There is no foundation whatsoever for the comment attributed to him. The position of the federal minister still was, as recently as a couple of weeks ago when we checked with his deputy minister, that he is going to submit the necessary amendment to the Agricultural Stabilization Act in this session of Parliament. That is a firm commitment of the federal minister. He has given his word to the provinces and to producer organizations.

Once that is done, we can and will finalize the agreement at the July 23, 24, 25 meeting of the ministers of agriculture. We are very confident there will be three or four provinces involved at the outset, and perhaps several others, and that we can begin to put these programs in place this fall. Four out of the five of them are quarterly programs.

The honourable member refers to credit programs in other provinces. If you look closely at the credit programs in most of the other provinces, either they are limited with respect to the farmers who can apply -- that is, either beginning farmers or distressed farmers -- or they are not as generous as the member might like to suggest, in that many of the other provincial programs are at prime, prime plus one or some formula like that.

Let us not fool ourselves or anybody else. It is impossible for any one provincial government to develop a credit program to be all things to all people. I think it is possible that by working together with the federal government we could develop an agribond program that would target a much wider population than we are able to assist today.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the question that had to come at some time, I suppose, from the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), with his long-term record of supporting high interest rates to the farmers.

I would like to ask the minister if he has actively explored with the Farm Credit Corp. a program whereby his government could become involved in a joint effort to provide substantial additional long-term financing at a low interest rate for the farmers of this province.

There is no question that he has done far less than the other provinces. It is obvious that he is not going to do anything on his own.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Swart: Will he at least explore this possibility so that more money can be made available at low interest rates to meet the desperate need of the farmers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if anyone were to make an objective analysis, I would not say we have done more than any other province, but I would say we have certainly done as much as or more than most of the other provinces. As I indicated, most other provinces' credit programs are targeted to specific groups or are at rates that are certainly not of the order the honourable members opposite have mentioned, whereas we have a very successful program in the beginning farmer assistance program at eight per cent that by July or August will have covered about 1,000 applicants.

When we began the beginning farmer assistance program, we proposed to the federal government that it would be exclusively an Ontario-FCC program; in fact, I had a commitment from the federal minister to that effect. Then all of a sudden the FCC ran out of money and we had to broaden the program to include other lenders.

We have proposed with respect to agribond that it be a joint federal-provincial program limited to FCC if they see fit; that would still be my position if it were prepared to operate in that way. What I want is a commitment from the federal government that it will play in any way at all.

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

Mr. McClellan: Why do you not add 30 minutes to question period?

Mr. Speaker: I think we added almost eight.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) I table the following petition:

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

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Speaker, I also have another petition on a different matter.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) I table the following petition:

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

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

"As resident electors many of us send our children to independent schools because we believe parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their child. Most independent school supporters are people of modest means.

"We ask your help in reducing the unfair tax burden of what, in effect, is double taxation. Our school operates in the public interest. We ask for protection for the right of our school to its existence and the remission of taxes taken away by the province of Ontario but not used for the education of our children."

11:10 a.m.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Eaton moved that in the standing committee on social development, the estimates of the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development be considered before the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Eaton moved that nothwithstanding standing order 64(a), when the House sits in the chamber on Wednesday, June 13, 1984, private members' public business be taken up following the routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 97, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism whereby the Lieutenant Governor in Council can order a 60-day suspension of a strike or lockout and order a return to work if the strike or the lockout constitutes an immediate and serious danger to life, health and safety or seriously disrupts the economy in any area of Ontario.

The bill provides that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) must appoint a conciliation officer where an order suspending a strike or lockout has been made and may subsequently appoint a conciliation board where the efforts of the conciliation officer to effect a collective agreement are unsuccessful.

If conciliation efforts are unsuccessful, the strike or lockout may be resumed without a further strike vote.

An order made under this bill would be enforceable as an order of the Supreme Court.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 98, An Act to relieve Persons from Liability in respect of Voluntary Emergency Medical and First Aid Services.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to relieve persons from liability in respect of voluntary emergency first aid assistance or medical services rendered at or near the scene of an accident or other sudden emergency.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege to correct the record: On Thursday, March 1, 1984, the standing committee on social development was discussing recommendations to the Ministry of Community and Social Services with regard to the draft Child and Family Services Act, with specific attention to adoption disclosure.

While the committee did not reach a consensus on retroactive disclosure of adoption information, there was general agreement that the ministry should explore a new system to provide a more active registry when current adoptees reach the age of majority. This consensus was overshadowed by further discussions in committee on the number of interests to be a party to this active registry.

As the then chairman of the committee, I must accept the responsibility for this omission in the final report of the committee to the House on the draft legislation.

As a result of this omission, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) could not possibly have responded to the committee recommendation for revamping Ontario adoption disclosure procedures in a legislative way.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member. Interesting as that may be, I have to point out the record should have been corrected in committee, not in the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 77, An Act respecting the Protection and Well-being of Children and their Families.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have some remarks, but I first would like to express my appreciation to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) for the clarification of the record. It may seem somewhat inappropriate to do it prior to second reading, but when there are comments in the media about the failure of the minister to respond I think a correction is required.

The bill that I am presenting for second reading today is a very crucial document. It is one that is needed in the field. Standing here speaking on the bill, I have some mixed feelings. I take great personal pride in presenting it because it is a credit to the dedicated people in my ministry and to the child care network in Ontario that worked so hard on its preparation. It is a credit to the consultative legislative process which produced it.

This bill grew out of the aspirations, convictions and beliefs, and the concern for children of literally thousands of people who freely expressed their ideas to my staff -- experts and laymen, agencies and associations, private citizens and politicians alike have all been heard.

These points of view were not merely listened to politely by my staff. They were valuable contributions that my people actively sought out at forums, meetings and consultations held all over the province. The ideas were weighed and analysed and in many cases, they were incorporated into the document before us. This was a process of formal consultation that has been under way for almost three years.

From the outset the deliberations over this bill have been free of partisan considerations and we trust will remain that way. The parliamentary tradition of consultation and compromise has shown how well and effectively it can be made to work. I think one of the things that may be remembered and looked at long after this bill is made into law is the fact that the function of a standing committee of this Legislature was enhanced by its hard work, thoughtful conclusions and diligent pursuit of the matters now formally conveyed in the contents of Bill 77.

Since I became the minister in April 1981, I have never made it a secret that I would bring into this House clear, concise legislation for the protection of children. A task I took as a primary mandate was to encompass all the regulations and statutes concerning children, all the hard laws and the general guidelines that were dispersed through 10 separate acts, into a single, steamlined piece of legislation. That legislation would clarify and adapt old laws to give them renewed meaning in the 1980s and beyond, and strike new laws that would protect our children in these changing and stressful times.

11:20 a.m.

This bill before us, which does all that, is not the work of one man or one party. This is not legislation that anyone can say was hastily or heedlessly rammed through any type of legislative process. This has been an undertaking that has been going on for three years, as I mentioned. Many members of this House know well that the undertaking involved exhaustive consultations from the time of the first general proposals through to the working papers and the early flexible draft I presented to this House in December 1983, which was referred subsequently to the standing committee on social development.

Let me describe the long process of the consultation that was the basis for Bill 77. From the start in 1982, members of my ministry sought out private citizens, advocacy groups, agencies, social workers, medical and psychiatric professionals and members of the general public who realized even then the critical importance of this bill which was in the works.

Beginning in October 1982, my staff organized and attended 150 meetings and community forums all over the province and held special consultations with special groups about special needs. In the summer of 1983, they met with spokesmen and officers of the major groups in the province which deal with children: children's aid societies, the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centres, the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded, Justice for Children, members of the judiciary and medical profession and many, many more.

We have met, for example, with the leaders of Ontario's native community and proposed that native communities take a greater role in providing children's care services. To me, this seemed to make only good sense, for children taken out of their homes into protective care are already under strain and can only be troubled more if they are removed from their cultural environment. I was disappointed when, after due deliberation in 1983, the native people declined what I thought was an important responsibility.

On the whole the feedback was enormous. The people in this province who care about children have made an immediate and crucial contribution to our deliberations. Citizens spoke out at public forums and wrote thoughtful letters to my staff. Agencies and groups submitted exhaustive briefs that were analysed and reviewed thoroughly. We took no hard stand. We listened and we heeded. We changed much in that first working paper. We abandoned some recommendations and added others. We amended and we expanded and even then we left the door open for change.

By December 1983 I brought to this House a draft for a bill -- probably a better description would be a bill in conceptual form -- that had already been adjusted and altered after the consultation process. As I told the House then, I and my staff stood ready to work with the standing committee on social development throughout its deliberations.

It was my belief at that time that all of us here would place the interests of children over partisan considerations and that the concerned members of this House would work with good heart with my ministry and with the standing committee to resolve differences.

The standing committee invested six weeks in its considerations of the draft earlier this year. It heard further submissions from the community, from associations, from groups and from citizens. I was gratified when leaders of Ontario's native communities stood before the committee with their then willingness to accept the challenge of providing child care services within their own communities. I immediately instructed my policy and legal staff to meet with their representatives and the chiefs of Ontario to begin discussions so we could best reflect their needs in the new act.

The provisions that resulted from these discussions go well beyond the recommendations of the committee and in fact are unparalleled by any jurisdiction in Canada. I say with great pride that no other province has so clearly recognized the importance of maintaining the cultural environment of children coming into care.

It is a principle stated in the act. I quote:

"Indian and native people should be entitled to provide wherever possible their own child and family services and that all services to Indian and native children and families should be provided in a manner that recognizes their culture, heritage and traditions in the concept of the extended family."

If that concept is woven through the act, it means a band or native community will acquire the authority to establish child and family service agencies of its own. A band or native community will have the right to consult regularly with any agencies and groups providing services to native families and children. A band or native community can expect the courts to make every effort possible to find placements for children in conflict with the law within the community and within their own cultural environment.

The deliberations of the standing committee on social development lasted for six very well-filled weeks. In that time -- and I think the record should show this -- committee members heard 45 oral submissions and studied 74 written briefs. They heard the submissions of my staff, my deputy minister and myself.

I was always optimistic and I never had any doubts, but I think what has happened confirms that the decision to take our bill in conceptual form to a standing committee was a wise one. The contributions of committee members from all parties was valuable. I asked for and received their recommendations on extremely sensitive issues such as the counselling of children in care and for procedures surrounding the disclosures of adoption information. As well, in response to the concerns of the committee, sections of the draft were altered, expanded or deleted. Individual words were changed and fine-tuned such as the definition of "children who are in need of protection."

I point out again, as we did at the beginning of the deliberations of the standing committee, all the things I have spoken about were very sensitive in the community. They had become even more sensitive during the consultation process. There was no community consensus.

These were difficult areas for the committee to deal with. They were areas of such significance that very seldom is a committee doing deliberations on a bill charged with the responsibility. In retrospect, each one of the topics could have been the subject of a very exhaustive search by the standing committee. Their work does enhance the function of standing committees in our Legislature. I wish to point that out because quite often all that is ever remembered of a committee is its final report.

The committee made many recommendations that were incorporated into the bill. As a result, it now provides for the creation of teams of professionals to try to solve the terrible riddle and the dreadful dilemma of child abuse on a case-by-case basis. The bill provides for the provision of child care services in the French language where appropriate; for measures to stabilize long-term foster care relationships; for the disclosure of adoption information in special health-related circumstances; and for the protection of the rights and privileges of children in protective care.

The bill before us, so exhaustively prepared over so many years, is 163 pages long and covers virtually every aspect of children's services provided by my ministry in Ontario. I cannot summarize the entire thrust behind every clause it contains; however, let me read the very first words of this bill:

"The purposes of this act are: (a) as a paramount objective, to promote the best interests, protection and the well-being of children."

In my opinion, we have one of the finest pieces of social legislation in North America. We have created legislation that contains checks and balances. It gives my ministry the means to fulfil its obligations and it provides safeguards to ensure these means are never abused. Above all, the bill upholds the accountability of both this ministry and its agencies to Ontario's children.

What I am asking of this House is a mandate to continue the exhaustive and meticulous preparations that have been the hallmark of this bill from its inception. The governments of Ontario have compiled a long and unparalleled history of outstanding legislation for the protection of children. That is a tradition we must carry into the future. It is a tradition that can well be entrusted to Bill 77, the act I am submitting today. I am asking the support of the House on second reading so we can begin immediately to protect the tomorrows of our children.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off discussion on this very comprehensive, very complex omnibus bill before us today, Bill 77. It has been years in the making. It has been subject to a consultation paper, then to a draft act, and in between on a number of occasions to many weeks of hearings by the social development committee. I was privileged to take part in it as one of the members for our party in the last six weeks of deliberations in January and February this year. It was a very fascinating, complex and at times moving experience.

11:30 a.m.

I want to say, in fairness to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), we in this party are very pleased with the extensive consultation process which has continued at every stage of this legislation. On this side, we are very pleased with the co-operation the ministry staff provided us in the hearings and the candour with which they discussed many matters with us. I think that co-operation and candour have already made the bill a better one. If it continues in an open spirit, perhaps further changes can be made in the weeks and months to come.

We in this party are pleased with some of the changes that have emerged from our hearings in January and February. Indeed, we are delighted with the breakthrough achieved in part X of the legislation, entitled "Indian and Native Child and Family Services." It is without doubt the most important improvement since the tabling of the draft legislation in December of last year. I think it is an issue members of all parties have recognized and have spoken to as being of crucial importance, and we are all pleased to see some breakthrough. I say this as somebody who does not take it for himself, but for members from all parties who sat on that committee. They deserve some small measure of credit for moving this matter forward.

We have carefully examined the 219 sections of this legislation and weighed whether the act is worthy of support in principle. It should be no surprise to any individual, least of all, I am sure, to the minister, that both opposition parties are bound to have difficulty with individual sections of the legislation. Indeed, as I outline some of the Liberal Party's concerns in the next 30 minutes or so, I will be dealing with some very specific objections. I know my colleagues will be doing the same thing in areas that are of great interest to them as this debate proceeds on second reading.

With regret, our party cannot support the legislation in principle. We are troubled by too many of the approaches taken, but most specifically by two underlying issues. The first is the power given to the government of the day. I do not believe this government, indeed any government, should enjoy the discretionary powers conferred under the act. It simply allows too much opportunity for abuse, and we cannot support it for that reason.

Second, and I will he dealing with this more specifically as we get into specific sections I want to discuss today, we are very concerned about the lack of emphasis given to the preventive nature of child services. I know it appears at many points in the definitions and in the act, but certainly its omission from the declaration of principles sets a tone we cannot support.

I want to go through various aspects of this very complex legislation, which has 12 parts. I will start with the declaration of principles and the purposes of the act. Our party essentially has three reservations, or I could say disappointments, about the declaration of principles in Bill 77. We spoke to all of them in committee, yet the disappointments remain.

This section clearly is meant to set out the philosophy underlying the legislation, but there is a glaring omission, namely, the strong presumption of a preventive approach. Sadly, the act remains a continuance of the interventionist approach of preceding legislation with respect to children.

I had hoped the government members, and indeed the minister, would listen a little more closely to the testimony that was given before the standing committee on social development in briefs from the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association, the Ontario Social Development Council, the Children's Services CoOrdinating and Advisory Group of York Region and the Niagara Children's Services Committee, among others. There were a number of other briefs and they all talked about the need for prevention.

My colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) indicated in the dissent that was filed that the principle of prevention should be included. I think it was a worthwhile, an important and a fundamental recommendation that it should be up front and centre in the declaration of principles. We are more than disappointed it has not been included.

Our second reservation concerns the principle of providing services in the French language. I believe the government has moved in this matter. It was silent in the first instance, but it has moved in this final legislation before the House. We on this side still have some problems.

The recommendation that the fundamental principle of services in the French language should be enshrined in the revised legislation certainly came from this party at the outset. During our hearings in Ottawa, such a recommendation also came from the Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs, the Children's Services Co-ordinating and Advisory Group of Prescott and Russell and the Co-ordinating Committee of Ottawa-Carleton.

On this side. we are still bothered by the wording of that phrase. It says, "Service providers shall, where appropriate, make services to children and their families available in the French language." One wonders about the ambiguity of' the phrase, "where appropriate." What do the words "where appropriate" really mean? Do they mean "where numbers warrant"? What are the designated areas? In short, we have some problem with that. It is certainly one area we are going to wish to clarify when the bill goes back to committee for further deliberation and what I hope will be further hearings with some of the major interest groups.

Finally, in discussing the declaration of principles, I would be remiss if I did not draw to the attention of the House that the legislation specifically ignores the recognition of linguistic rights. On the one hand, the government of Ontario -- and I am glad to see the Minister of Citizenship and Culture, Ms. Fish, is here -- talks a lot about the province's rich multicultural heritage. Then in this legislation it turns around and omits a key aspect of that heritage, namely, language.

The social development committee's discussion of the briefs of the Ontario Medical Association and the Sudbury Children's Services Committee led the committee to recommend in its report that language be recognized as a key cultural factor in providing services to children and their families. I want to indicate once again our opposition to that omission. I want to indicate that when the matter goes back to committee, we will certainly be fighting to change that and to include that very important area of linguistic rights up front on page 1 in the declaration of principles.

I want to turn to the issue of what we feel to be almost a blanket discretionary power conferred on the minister in sections 23 through 25 of this legislation. I wonder whether some of this is flowing from the problems in Kenora earlier this year. I do not know whether they do or not, but certainly in our judgement these new sections, which were inserted after the consultation and hence were not subject to earlier discussion, are needlessly broad.

Essentially, they allow the minister to take over a voluntary agency and remove any or all of its board of directors without due process. To be sure, an agency that is upset with the dismissal of some or all of its directors can demand a hearing, but who will be at the hearing acting as judge and jury? Two people appointed by the minister, one of whom shall be from outside the ministry, as I remember it. Can we call that impartiality and objectivity?

11:40 a.m.

After the hearings the two people file a report with the minister, who then has the final say. In reading the legislation a week or so ago, I noticed there are sections of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act that do not apply to such a hearing. I have already been in contact with mental health centres, which have called these provisions draconian and outrageous. The minister is going to hear a lot from many of those organizations when this bill returns to committee.

The minister and his colleagues on the government side should be very sensitive to this. We are talking about very important service providers here. One even said that potentially it means the end of voluntary agencies. After all, what incentive is there for good people to join boards of directors when the minister can just sweep in and dismiss them all?

It seems to me on our reading of it and on its reading by others -- and we will want to go over it very carefully -- this legislation appears to allow the minister to walk in with little cause, such as an agency contravening a regulation it does not even know about.

Certainly we need checks and balances. I would be the last to deny it. Certainly the minister needs the ability to move in on a poorly run agency, but I do not think we have that in this legislation. We do not need the sweeping, blanket discretionary power given to the minister in this revised legislation.

Voluntary agencies such as children's aid societies are being further undermined through the deletion of sections 11 and 12 from the old Child Welfare Act, which sections allow a CAS to appeal the ministry's budget allotment decision to an independent review committee. The minister had the final say, but at least this was a more open and independent forum in which to air grievances.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is not correct.

Mr. Wrye: The minister says it is not correct. I would appreciate it if he did not interrupt me. I did not interrupt him. He can make notes and he can reply.

Obviously the minister views such activities as unwanted thorns in his side. What has he done in the new legislation? He has omitted these sections entirely and has shifted the whole topic to the discretionary regulatory provisions. That is where they are.

The genius of child welfare services in Ontario has always been the balance between the voluntary and the public sectors. This legislation is destructive of that fine balance in its all too-heavy-handed approach. It is one of the reasons our party will not support it.

One of the most controversial sections of the draft bill dealt with the so-called residential placement advisory committees. It remains a matter of great controversy in the final legislation. It was a matter of great discussion in committee with witnesses and among the members of the committee themselves.

The RPACs, as I said, were the subject of extensive discussion in committee. They were a major topic, and sometimes the major topic, of briefs from numerous concerned groups and individuals.

Regrettably, several of the very responsible recommendations of the standing committee on social development have not been addressed. Indeed, there is so much wrong with the RPAC section that I hardly know where to begin. Let me briefly list some of my objections. I will start with the overriding one, that being the absence of a mandatory pre-placement review process.

I do not claim to be a legislative draftsperson, but the wording provided on the RPACs was and remains vague. Subsection 35(2) says, "The minister may establish residential placement advisory committees." Given the fundamental importance of some sort of review process to ensure that decisions to institutionalize children are really wise, surely the word "may" ought to be replaced with "shall." I do not want RPACs to be just another discretionary power of this minister or, to be fair to him, of any minister. They should be mandatory, period.

Why are the mandatory reviews only for children who are institutionalized for more than 90 days? Why is there that arbitrary number? This would be a post-placement review. Children over 12 who object to the placement are also guaranteed a post-placement review, but that review will only happen. according to the bill, within the week following the day that is 14 days after the child is placed.

I will admit that there has been an improvement from the draft legislation, but if I read the draftsman's wording correctly -- and I sometimes wish we could put these things in English -- I suggest we are still going against the committee's recommendation that the review be done within 14 days of admittance.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Twenty-one.

Mr. Wrye: But our recommendation was 14. Indeed, it would be our feeling in this party that even that recommendation would hold only in the case of emergency admissions where pre-placement reviews could not be completed.

Even when we are talking about seven days, what is seven days between friends? We are dealing with children here, and we are obviously dealing with children who are having a problem, often a very major problem. It seems to us in this party that because the institutionalization of an objecting child must be terribly traumatic for that child, it is almost cruel to add even as long as another week to the review process.

If the government is going to he unwise enough to ignore a mandatory pre-placement review suggestion, even with the sole exception of emergency cases, then at least the post-placement review in two weeks is not an unreasonable suggestion to make. While there will be talk that some of the reviews will he pre-placement, if we do not put them in the legislation, the fact is that the vast majority of them will not be.

I want to remind the government of the comment of the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded that these RPAC reviews will apply not to existing placements but only to those made after the act is proclaimed. While the new' act allows the minister to refer an existing case to a placement review' committee if he feels like it. surely that is not good enough.

I remind the minister and the government amzain that the committee recommended in the face of persuasive briefs on the matter: "That an initial review of all cases of children currently in care be conducted within 12 months upon the establishment (if a local RPAC, where reasonably possible. and subject to an ongoing six-month review process."

For many of us. this was a very difficult bottom line that we came to. I think my friend the former chairman of the committee will remember that. Many of us felt the review of those in care should occur in far less time than 12 months after the establishment of an RPAC. and yet we did not even get that.

In addition, under the new legislation, all cases that occur after the act is proclaimed will be subject to reviews only every 12 months rather than every six. Again, the draft act spoke of the 12-month period, and the committee heard many witnesses who were very concerned about that. I think members from all parties had a sensitivity and an understanding that we are talking about very young children here. We could be talking about a kid 12 or 13 years old; and if that kid is in care for 12 months, that is eight per cent of that child's life.

If those of us who are adults try to think back over all the things that have happened to us over the last 12 months, that is a very long time. Imagining how long it is for us, we can imagine what it would be like for a kid who is 12 years old. That child may not be happy with the placement in the first instance, and the period of time becomes almost counterproductive to that individual's development.

11:50 a.m.

It is also disappointing to us that a residential placement advisory committee may review, on a person's request or on its own initiative, an existing or proposed residential placement. Again, that is a discretionary ability as opposed to a mandatory requirement.

The standing committee on social development further urged the minister to specify that the existing children's advisory groups be the forum from which to draw members to form the review bodies of RPACs, with the option to include others such as legal counsel. As we see in subsection 35(2), community advisory groups are not specifically mentioned.

Before I move on to other flawed areas of the legislation, my final concern regards the appeal process of an RPAC decision. The committee and many witnesses, including Dr. Landau, recommended that there be an appeal provision to the family court if there is a dissenting party to an RPAC decision. Instead, the legislation makes the Children's Services Review Board the forum for appeal. Considering the gravity of the situation that may be occurring, I do not believe that is good enough. We need a different approach to institutionalization where there is a dissenting party, and we believe the family court would be an ideal place.

I want to turn to the matter of children in need of protection. The government has listened to the recommendations of the committee. During the hearings, a number of us on the committee moved from our very first view, which was that the recommendation written out in the draft act to remove both the words "substantial" and "serious" was appropriate, to the belief that we had to return one of those two words to the legislation. We proposed to put "substantial" back in front of the word "risk" to act descriptively. We are very pleased to see the government has agreed with us.

It is useful and it is balanced. It provides the right amount of balance to protect kids who need the protection of society, but it will maintain the autonomy and the integrity of the family unit wherever possible. It is a very difficult balancing act, because the state must have an ability to move in on occasion. I think we have struck the right balance in this matter.

I want to say, though, that sexual exploitation and/or sexual molestation of a child are obvious grounds for intervention by children's aid societies. I hope we will take another look at this, because many of our criticisms are not partisan; they are, rather, differences of approach. Perhaps this one in particular is a difference of approach. The committee felt both these areas should be defined in the legislation. We note they have not been, and we hope the government will take another very close look at providing some definitions in this area.

We are dealing with An Act to provide for the Implementation of the Young Offenders Act (Canada) in committee right now, so I will deal very briefly with the young offender section of the legislation. It is substantially broader in the legislation and substantially more descriptive than in Bill 28, which is before us in committee.

The fundamental issue I want to deal with will not come as a surprise to the minister. We remain disappointed, though not surprised, that the bill contemplates a continued two-tier approach in the treatment of young offenders in Ontario. The Ministry of Community and Social Services will have responsibility for those now covered by the act between the ages of 12 and 16. The Ministry of Correctional Services will take responsibility in April 1985, when 16- and 17-year-olds come under this federal statute.

The minister knows we do not agree with such an approach. We will not agree with it in terms of Bill 28, now before committee, and we do not expect to agree with that approach in committee when this bill goes out. It is an important concept to us to have the one-tier approach.

I want to deal with a number of other matters. Let me turn next to the matter of adoption in this legislation. I know there is a great deal of controversy on this matter. It is a great moral dilemma for a number of us.

While the members of my party who sat on the committee were of one voice, I acknowledge that there is on very personal grounds some division in our party on the matter. Should this matter come back to committee of the whole House, for example, it would not stun me if there were some dissent in my party from what I am going to say.

My committee colleagues and, I believe, most of my colleagues in the party have a number of reservations about the revised provisions. We are disappointed that the disclosure provisions with respect to an adoptee's birth parents still stipulate three-party consent; that is, the adult adoptee, the birth parent and the adopting parents.

We feel, we argued in committee and we will argue in committee again, that there should be two-party consent for all future adoptions, with the veto power on disclosure now given to adopting parents being removed. I feel strongly about that.

I do not believe, and we did not argue in committee, that we should go the even more extreme route of one-party disclosure, that the disclosure be made at the request of the adult adoptee. I and my colleagues were troubled at the thought of changing the rules in the middle of the game. I cannot bring myself to accept that we would change the rules for those who are in the game now. I personally would not support an area of retroactivity.

We could probably make some progress in activating the register. That might provide some improvement for those adult adoptees who wish to have a reunion with their birth parents.

The government has made some modest progress in removing the adopting parents' veto power if they are dead or have been declared mentally incompetent. I do not view that to be great progress; it sounds more like common sense. We have made some modest progress, although I think it is common sense, in allowing for the disclosure of nonidentifying medical information.

12 noon

However, we have not made the fundamental progress that if the birth parent and his or her child wish to meet, no future law should block that fundamental right to know one's heritage and roots.

It is one thing for the adopting parent to sign a form and take away the rights of a young baby who is being adopted, but it seems to me that at the point of adulthood that child ought to have a vote on whether he or she wishes to have those rights taken away.

I want to mention a couple of other areas. While we welcome the lowering of the age at which the child has the right to consent from 12 to seven, again we think the omission of any reference to the more general and flexible provisions of common law is a mistake.

I am sure my friend the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) will deal with this, because it has been a personal matter of interest and advocacy for him, but I noticed that the issue of foster guardianship has again been ignored in this legislation. I, for one, am persuaded that, on balance, we should have moved ahead with it, and I look forward to seeing efforts in committee to put it back in the legislation.

I want to talk briefly about the issue of counselling. The standing committee on social development urged in its report that children have the right to seek counselling, and for my part I am disturbed that the legislation does not guarantee the implementation of that right. Once again let us look at section 29, which says, "A service provider may provide a counselling service." This may be simply a misreading of the legislation; we will talk about it in committee.

With regard to deeming the age of consent to services to be 12 years of age, once again I would make the same point as I did with adoption earlier, namely, that the common law principle should apply in taking into consideration the child's capacity to consent.

I am pleased that children in residential care will now be able to send unread and uncensored correspondence. This is something that bothered the committee greatly. It will certainly leave the child free to air his or her complaints via mail to a lawyer, a member of the provincial parliament or a friend, without fear that the staff will read it and exact punishment.

I do want to touch on a couple of other matters. I believe the rights of children in care would be better protected if the terms "privacy" and "corporal punishment" were defined. If we did a poll of MPPs here today, we might not come up with half a dozen different definitions of each term because there are barely half a dozen members in their places; but if the legislation clearly spelled out the definition, it seems to me there would be no misunderstanding by either the children or the residential staff, and I think that is something we should be taking a look at in committee.

I do not mean to be critical of the number of members here after question period on Friday. I make the comment only by way of suggesting that, as my friend the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) suggested, if we sat here Wednesday afternoons rather than Friday mornings we might have a little better attendance. I know a lot of MPPs have to get right to the airport or right to the train station to get home because they have long trips home.

I want to turn to the matter of extraordinary measures. We are pleased that the government has adopted some of the committee's recommendations, though not all, in the area of extraordinary measures. I note there must now be a substantial threat -- the act uses the word "serious," but I believe it is the same thing -- rather than just a threat that the child will cause harm if not put into a secure treatment program.

Second, the legislation must specify a time frame for isolation with an absolute maximum. I see this act stipulates no more than eight hours in a 24-hour day or no more than 24 hours in a week, and that is an improvement over the draft.

Third, the child must be under constant observation while in secure isolation, though I am worried that "constant" means "at prescribed intervals."

In spite of those improvements -- and there are some and I believe they are important -- with respect to this legislation, I think there is some measure of nonpartisanship in this legislation. We may have differences on some fundamental issues, but I think we are all concerned basically with the rights of kids. We may have some political divisions which extend to children just as they exist with adults, in terms of extraordinary measures and a number of other issues. However, I think the essential attitude of all parties is a nonpartisan one, differing only in terms of our approach.

I want to raise some of the problems that remain. I am concerned about the definition of intrusive procedure as a mechanical means of controlling behaviour. I also am concerned about the aversion stimulation technique or any other procedure as prescribed in the regulations. I believe it is important that the definition be written in more specific terms rather than leaving in so many discretionary regulations.

We are dealing with a very serious matter here. I worry -- as do all of us; not just those of us on the opposition side -- about the whole idea of regulations being in a sense more important legislation. That is something we have no control over.

I am also troubled by the provision that an individual child sentenced to 180 days of secure treatment is forced to remain there until the order expires, even if he or she turns 18 in the meantime. It seems to me that because there is a change in the legal status of someone who reaches adulthood such a provision is inappropriate.

My final point goes to the heart of the dissent from my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre, who I think was most outspoken on this point during committee. I notice the prohibited measures category has not been reinstated. The legislation seems to have an anything goes mentality about what can be done to objecting children. The review team can look at medical or chemical experimentations, psychosurgery, non-therapeutic sterilization or electroconvulsive therapy.

The awesome coercive power of the state over an objecting individual frightens me, most particularly when we are talking about children. I do not believe we can in good conscience condone a piece of legislation that allows for this kind of a procedure to be used on a child. It is a measure we opposed in committee. We will take that matter back to committee and will be fighting to clear it up.

I wish to speak very briefly to the definition of institution. It is a problem that runs all through the revised legislation. The legislation defines institution as, "premises other than a maternity home in which residential services are provided to 10 or more children at a time." In committee, we urged recommendations that the ministry review its definition of institution to reflect institutional care where the child has restricted access to the general community rather than the definition being placed upon the number of children in care in an institution.

Our party regrets the ministry's preoccupation with numbers rather than upon restricted access to the community. It seems to me that is where the descriptive words should be. As the Waterloo Region Social Resources Council said, "The definition should also not ignore smaller residential settings, but should rather mean all or any part of a building in which children reside and which is licensed or funded to provide residential services."

I think there is some import in this relating to that whole definition. Definitions are often viewed as not being important, but I think in this one there is some import. I hope we are going to take another look at that.

12:10 p.m.

Before I wrap up, I want to deal with two very minor matters. They are like many populist-oriented matters that are picked up by the media. The first is the issue of religion. I am very pleased to see the sexist clause in the draft legislation, "If the religion of a child is not known it shall be deemed to be that of the father," has been removed.

I have reservations about another clause, in subsection 83(3), which does not show sensitivity to all religious faiths, as we had recommended in committee. If it did, it would not single out Catholicism and Protestantism for special mention.

There is the great issue that captured the imagination of the press, that of curfews. I am glad the minister and the government heeded the suggestion of the committee to alter the curfew hours to the more reasonable midnight to 6 a.m. I note the minister adopted only two of our three stipulations; first, that a child should not be allowed to loiter in a public place in these hours; and second, he should not be in a place of public entertainment unless accompanied by someone 18 years old or older.

I want to remind the government of our third recommendation, that we should not allow children to be employed in a place to which the public has access during these late hours. I do not see that in the appropriate section. Perhaps it is something we will have to look at.

As I said at the outset, in a sense I regret that we cannot support this legislation because it is very important. It replaces a large number of acts. It is important literally to thousands of individual children. However, I do not believe it sets a tone we can support. We will oppose the bill on second reading, but we hope we can go to committee with an open mind towards making major improvements in the legislation.

We look forward to hearing from many of the major groups that came before us before. I hope they will be invited back again this summer or whenever we deal with this legislation in committee so that, even at this late hour, they can make a major contribution to changing some of the ill-considered directions which this legislation takes to children's services in Ontario.

We hope the government will be amenable to having those hearings. We think it is only fair. It was clearly indicated that the committee would be meeting again and that there would be one more kick at the can, particularly for the major organizations. That is important. There are major changes from the draft in this legislation. Given those major changes, I trust the minister will be supportive of any efforts by the committee to order its own business in such a way as to have witnesses come before it again to discuss this important piece of legislation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill. Our party will be opposing this legislation on second reading. We would like to go out to committee and hope to continue the process of consultation with the community that has occurred to this point.

I would like to recognize the role of some ministry people with the committee. I have now been involved with the act since the first consultation paper came before committee some time ago. Then there was the last set of hearings on the conceptual act -- it was not written in legislative terms. Now I hope I will be involved again in committee deliberations as we go through the legislative discussion and fine-tuning of the act.

In that process, especially during our last six weeks of hearings in January and February, we had the very helpful participation of several people, some of whom I would like to recognize.

There was Bernd Walter who gave us a good deal of legal advice on and interpretation of different sections. I see he is here today. There was Dick Barnhorst who took the committee through its first discussions of the changes that had taken place in the consultation process. He gave us some understanding of what the act was about, especially for the new committee members, and then was available to us at various stages during the deliberations.

Gerry Duda from the ministry also played that kind of role, as did a number of women, who often did not make presentations to us but were always there to provide the three gentlemen I have indicated, who are sitting in the gallery over here, with the knowledge they gave us. They were very helpful to the committee and its discussions. It was very useful to us for those people to have been there and to have been so open in the process that went on. I am sure all committee members would agree on that.

I would like to talk, because the minister talked at some length, about the consultation process. I want to deal with it from my perspective, which is slightly different from that of the minister. I agree the process has been a very useful one, especially for an act of this enormity, which is trying to pull together a number of acts already existing in the province and trying to make some co-ordinated sense of the way the various acts deal, in this case with children in Ontario.

I think it is crucial to have a preliminary discussion on general ideas and themes, which is what one would say the first consultation paper was about, and then to come back with the concept put into a legal framework, although without legal language in the second stage. The third stage is to have those people come back to see if, in the development of that process, the translation of the ideas they were espousing and trying to communicate to the ministry and to the legislative committee in its part of that process, is actually being implemented in the language of the act and not being undermined in the language of the act. In that sense, it is a very useful process, but it had its problems.

I recall very well when the first act was brought out and there was a great deal of discussion about the consultation paper. The list of all the people who were participating was added to the back of that document, which I have here. It looked as if a fairly broad range of people had been involved in the entire document and it reflected the combined ideas in its principles of all the people involved. It was not until some time afterwards that we started to understand that many of the people had been consulted about only one section, one subsection or one part of it, and had not been involved in a very large way.

When the ministry started to receive the responses to the first consultation paper, it is fair to say a large number of those who responded had very serious problems with the way it had been developed and also with the direction in which it was going. Consultation is a very useful thing but every government knows it must make up its own mind on its final decisions and where it will go on things. Ultimately, no matter what the Legislature thinks, or what our committee thinks if it comes back out again, the government and the ministry, through the cabinet, will make the decisions about whether there will be further changes and what the themes should be.

During the consultation process after it first came to our committee, what happened was a very unfortunate kind of response, almost a form of pollitis, if I can put it that way, in terms of how to interpret the responses that came back. There was no consistency of philosophy in the way the themes that were put forward in the first act were then altered as it came back to us in this document. Instead, it seemed to me it reflected a popularity poll.

If there were 10 respondents who were upset about one section and only eight who were in favour of it, that section would be dropped and would disappear. If there were more people in favour of a stronger role for one angle of things, that would go in. There was no thought of consistency on the basic principles of the act as they were being laid out or of the very sections of the act and how they should relate to each other.

As a result, the document that was brought to us in November last year for our use in January was a very flawed document. It had changed enormously from what we had, but there were totally strange and bizarre twists and turns that bore little relationship to thematic integrity. One hoped the ministry would have been able to weed these out in that consultation process. Instead, it was more of a hotchpotch of ideas that were often in conflict with each other.

12:20 p.m.

The day before yesterday, in committee on the Young Offenders Act, we discussed with some Indians who came before us some changes in the young offenders legislation in Ontario. They would like to see a greater role for natives in that process in Ontario. During that discussion we again talked about the role of the Indian community in Ontario in the development of this legislation.

The deputy minister gave only part of the story about why the Indians had withdrawn from consultation with the ministry. He then assumed far more responsibility than he should have for some of the very positive changes that have come into this legislation and the way in which it has been drafted and did not give credit where it was due for the language being brought forward. I would like to come to that if I might.

As have all native people across the country, the Indians in Ontario have been involved in discussions with the federal government over their constitutional rights, their fundamental rights, their interaction with governments in Canada and the questions of native autonomy as viewed within the context of the Canadian Constitution or revision of their rights in it.

That debate about the fundamental rights of who should be dealing with whom and the status of the Indian people with the federal government was one of the reasons they decided it would be awkward for them to discuss the provision of a greater role for natives within our provincial jurisdiction during the process of consultation with the federal government. That was the point the deputy was making yesterday, but that was not the only thing.

There was also disappointment at the kind of consultation that had gone on up to that point. Many Indian leaders have spoken to me personally and to people within the ministry about that feeling. One reason they had not been participating was they felt there was a presumption of their position and not what they considered a proper consultative process. I feel it is important to say that, because that side of things often gets left aside when we discuss the lack of Indian involvement in the draft act, the conceptual act, that was brought before us. It had only one permissive regulation in it, which allowed the ministry to do all sorts of things but did not mention Indians anywhere in it.

After our committee initiated discussions with a number of native groups and got them to come before the committee to talk about the draft act and what they thought about it, we managed to get an agreement we were all very pleased with. It was agreed that during the period of the recess and before this legislation finally came back to us, the government and ministry officials would meet with native leaders, primarily the Chiefs of Ontario, to see if they could come up with language on some greater autonomy in the provision of child welfare services that would meet the requirements of the Indians in Ontario.

I am delighted to say that what came out of those discussions is the exceptional piece of work we have before us. It is the most personally pleasing side of this new children's act. I do want to make it very clear that the credit for the wording of that section on native rights should not go to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, as was being espoused the other day in the young offenders discussion, but should very much go to the Chiefs of Ontario.

I have seen what the Chiefs of Ontario presented to the ministry. I have seen the words they used to explain what they wanted. That is what I see in the ministry's document, the new bill. The language was not being determined by the provincial government for months and months, as was suggested the other day, but was the work of some very talented and astute Indians in Ontario who provided that information to the ministry.

As the minister knows, the difficulties we had in getting this thing before us a little earlier were the result of some governmental responses, specifically from the office of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), to some of the wording brought forward by the Indians, in terms of the concerns about just how far we were going with our rights and what we were jeopardizing, in terms of giving too many rights to the Indian population of the province.

I am delighted to say that what has come out of this is something which is more than I had hoped for. In fact, the extent of the rights given is wonderful and welcome. It is a glorious piece of work. But I do want to give credit where it really deserves to be given. I hoped the deputy the other day would have been slightly more expansive in recognizing the role of people like Richard Powless in the development of this work.

There are many parts of this legislation that I like. There are parts which were in the first consultation paper, which were removed when it came into the draft act and then came back in, and some parts which have been in throughout. There were other things added because of the work of committee members and the kind of response the ministry gave to those recommendations that came from the committee.

I am very pleased about that. I think the minister is not incorrect in saying this is a very progressive piece of legislation in general terms. However -- and of course there is always "however" when he gets that kind of compliment coming from me -- there are still such serious problems with the bill that it needs to be and must be opposed at this point.

The primary reason is that we are not going to review it again in a year's time or in 16 months' time. This act will last for a while. This consolidation of these many bills and acts that at present exist in Ontario is not something we are going to get a chance to go over and over again. This is our one shot to make this the best possible bill and act in the country. I intend to place all my energies in the forum again to make sure we continue to improve it and make it possible for all members of this House to rise and say, "Yes, this is the best piece of legislation that has been developed in North America and we are all proud of it." I do not think we are quite at that stage at the moment.

Perhaps I should not involve myself in the affairs of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and the minister in terms of the point of order that came up earlier and the response to it. It is true the ministry responded to specific majority requests of the committee that were found written out precisely in our report. It is true it also ignored some of those or decided to turn them down.

Ministry people, as I have said, many of whom are here, were there throughout all our discussions. They knew the kind of discussions that were being undertaken and knew the kinds of divisions within the committee. They also knew we were able to make decisions about the merits of various kinds of commentaries that were being put forward.

Just because things such as a majority decision on some kind of new process of openness in adoption disclosure and that kind of thing were not put into the final report through our own mistake -- and I will admit that -- is not to say members of the ministry were not aware of that kind of consensus, as they were not unaware of our consensus that there was a need to start looking as soon as possible into day nurseries.

Rather than having to see my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere get up and apologize in the House for it not being a stated opinion that was put forward in our majority report, I would say the ministry knew full well that was the bottom line of consensus we could find on adoption and adoption disclosure.

12:30 p.m.

Perhaps I could just highlight the reasons we will be opposing this legislation. First, I am disappointed in the section on principles. The party is not happy with the principles of the bill as they have been enunciated. We believe this bill cannot be the kind of bill we would like it to be without a bill of rights for children being placed in it so that there are some guidelines, some set of standards by which we and our judges can determine the best interests of children in Ontario.

We find that the principle of prevention work is absent. As I stated particularly, such basic rights as the right to appropriate treatment for children, which many of the people who submitted asked for, is absent.

We are also opposing this because we believe one piece of children's legislation has been deliberately left out of this act, and I am talking about the Day Nurseries Act and the whole question of day care. It is being left out not because of a lack of consensus within the community, even though there is a lack of consensus within the community, and I would admit that; it is being left out and is in limbo for a period of God knows how many years. We have just heard that there is going to be a federal task force looking into day care. Goodness knows when that thing will finally report.

It is being left very much on its own within the realm of acts dealt with by the ministry. The only act affecting children that is not within this act is left very much in the adult welfare domain with respect to the notion of what it is about. I come back to this because it is very much involved in our notion of the basic rights of children and why it should be involved in this act, at least until we determine how we will have a universally accessible program of day care some day in this province.

I personally am very disappointed at the half-measures in the area of children who are placed in long-term treatment facilities. The residential advisory committee concept did receive a majority consensus from our committee and specific recommendations were put forward, but the response by the ministry has not met our desires.

Somehow this issue is never dealt with in a way that reflects the seriousness I feel about it. In this act we have rights for children who are in need of protection, rights to legal counsel and rights to a very extensive due process before a child can be taken from a home. We have rights for children now under the Young Offenders Act. We even have a series of rights now, with some limitations, for children in institutions concerning how those institutions respond to them.

But we have almost nothing on due process for children whose liberty is taken away from them by placing them in children's mental health centres in Ontario, until they have been placed there in all cases. Even then it is a kind of process I do not believe meets the demands of this society for due process for those children. I am very disappointed at the response and the half-measures from the ministry.

The section on extraordinary measures is unthinkable to me. It is unthinkable that we still are going to say in this province that it is all right for Community and Social Services institutions to use shock therapy on children, do chemical and medical experimentation on children, non-therapeutic sterilization and psychosurgery -- under controls, yes, but the words are used there.

I look at what has happened since the beginning of this; this backing away because of pressure from the Ontario Medical Association and other medical types; and the decision that because it is not happening and if it happened anywhere it would happen elsewhere, therefore, somehow, we have to allow this kind of language. I just find out of date and totally offensive the fact that this is seen as something to be countenanced at all in our provincial jurisdiction.

Let me read from the consultation paper: "One of the most difficult problems is defining 'intrusive procedure.' We are recommending that the ministry designate certain procedures as 'prohibited' and others as 'regulated.'"

They are saying that certain things are so offensive to us they should be prohibited. It was not something that was not thought out in advance. It was not something which did not anticipate reaction.

I will read a section on the page before: "In addition, the Ontario interministerial committee on medical consent and the Law Reform Commission of Canada have recently concluded that certain procedures (e.g. sterilization) are of such a serious nature that procedural safeguards are necessary to protect the rights of children.

"Undoubtedly, in practice most professionals are very cautious about the use of intrusive procedures and most programs have some internal review mechanism to check and monitor their use. The recommendations following build on this good practice and on existing ministry policies. The goals are to ensure that intrusive procedures are used only when absolutely necessary and that similar criteria and safeguards apply throughout the province."

Then they go to distinguish that which should be regulated and that which should not be allowed at all. We understand what happened. There was the document that was brought before us in the draft legislation. There were changes from the initial Children's Act proposal to the act itself. We got explanations of what was taking place.

To give an idea of where the power lies in Ontario, I will read from this. No, it is not there. It is in Hansard with Mr. Barnhorst.

The draft legislation says: "There was no consensus in the feedback as to which procedures should be designated regulated or which should be designated prohibited. Some provincial consumer organizations agreed that certain procedures proposed by the ministry to be prohibited, e.g., ECT and psychosurgery, should not be allowed because of their potential harmful and irreversible effects upon children. Others said that strict regulation of procedures like ECT would suffice since in some rare cases they may be necessary.

Later on, under questioning from the committee, Mr. Barnhorst indicated that the people who had put the pressure to have these matters regulated were the Ontario Medical Association and the children's mental health centres of Ontario. Later on in my speech I will be glad to allude to these matters.

As well, I find it difficult to understand how in 1984 in Ontario we still have an adoption process that is founded on the idea that any child who is adopted essentially becomes another person at the time of adoption and should be seen to be existing as a tabula rasa, a clean slate. Nothing that went on before the child was adopted bears any relevance to that child's future and somehow the child does not have an absolute right to have access to information about where he came from, who he is all about and who he is as a human being.

Instead, there is an ingrained structure of reinforced secrecy by contract among the birth parents, the adoptive parents and the society to prevent the child from having easy access to that kind of information at the age of majority. Here we are in the year of finally getting our act on freedom of information; maybe we should see this as consistent with that, given the lack of substance in that act. However, there is a feeling abroad in our society that openness about our emotions, about our past and about all kinds of information is a better principle than selective secrecy.

12:40 p.m.

It is an emotionally charged issue. Who would deny that? There are those who were here in 1978 and saw the debates in the House at that time. As referred to many times in committee by people such as the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), it is a very emotional debate. What kind of changes do we see from that date to this? We see minor changes in terms of medical information, and we see changes regarding the age of a child having some major say in whether they want to go to a particular adoptive home, but we do not have anything about making it an active register. We do not have anything about getting rid of the veto by adoptive parents once this child is an adult. The individual may be like any other adult in society, but somebody has the capacity to keep information away from him or her because of a decision made by other adults when that individual was a child, a baby in most cases.

We did get rid of the veto from beyond the grave, which is a very positive step. Up to this point, an adoptive parent who had not agreed to a three-party disclosure could stop the disclosure of that information after he or she was dead and not available, even if the birth parent and the child were willing to have a reunion.

I find the principles involved in the adoption section offensive in terms of the ethics of our society in 1984. There must be changes there before I will vote in favour of this bill.

The continued lack of attention to prevention is something that boggles my mind. Why do we not make it the major thrust? While we talk about supporting children and families, our whole system at the moment is designed to catch people as they fall rather than to prevent them from falling.

Mr. McClellan: It is a matter of trying to catch them on the first bounce.

Mr. R.F. Johnston: The member for Bellwoods says it is a matter now of catching them on the first bounce. We make sure they hit the ground with one good thwack first and then we come in to assist them afterwards. That is true.

One looks at our social assistance system and sees that we pay far less to people on welfare and family benefits to raise children than we do to foster parents to raise the same children. That is a ludicrous notion. We do not seem to understand what is necessary if we want a child to remain in a family and keep families intact and vibrant. We should have a system so that when we pull out our time capsules from our backyards in 2010, at least we will be able to recognize what a family was because families will still exist then. Instead, we have an after-the-fact system.

Why do we not place in this act the positive step of permitting judges to order preventive services as one of their choices? Why was that not put back in? It seems to me that we tried to be subtle in the way we got that back into the act, in the way we were approaching it in an attempt to get a consensus. Is it not a fundamental process? Should we not be trying to guarantee that the rights of children increase and augment in our society by allowing judges to point out these things? Should not a judge be saying that if only there were a homemaker going into that home or that if only there were a day care facility for that child, a single-parent father might have the chance to maintain his family and not have the child go off into the world of wardship and foster homes and, potentially, adoption?

There is another element the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) mentioned which we did not talk about in committee as much as we should have. That is this incredible power trip the ministry seems to be on in terms of its role with respect to the agencies of the province that are trying to provide the support system to families. There is a great fear about the capacity of the minister to decide who should be a board member, to replace board members and to deny a sense of due process to those people. I will get into the details of that as we go into the bill.

This is something I find very dangerous. The minister already has those powers. They are not enunciated as clearly in the Child Welfare Act as they are here, but the overall role and power of the minister are definitely in the minister's act. We saw that last year. We saw what happened at the Kenora children's aid society when the minister decided to move in because of conflicts with the agency, primarily around financial matters, on the premise that somehow children were at risk. We will be hearing more of that as we go into this discussion today.

That abuse of power for reasons of monetary expediency by the government of the day is what is scaring a lot of the social service agencies that are being expected to pick up the pieces from the lack of prevention work and the lack of proper financial compensation for the poor people in our society which are the hallmarks of our present system.

The other major thing that concerns me about this act, and the reason we will vote against it, is the number of regulations enumerated here which give enormous power to the minister. I do not think the minister can expect us to pass this bill through the House until we see those regulations.

While he has this tremendous control through the regulations section without us having any definition of what those things mean, whether it is how secure isolation is going to be administered and the basic infringement on liberty that is involved there or whether it is what the minister is requiring in terms of standards for agencies and that kind of thing, he cannot expect us to move ahead with this act until we see those regulations. Are they the same as the ones we have now? If so, let him provide them to us. If not, we need to know what new powers the minister is providing to himself and in what ways those regulations may offend the premises of the act.

I do not want to see happen here what we have seen happen with Bill 82. I do not want to have the minister bring in a regulation that takes away the basic thrust of what the bill is about. We have seen that in the changing of the role of vocational rehabilitation and of the role of the Social Assistance Review Board in dealing with cases around special education, which was brought in as a regulation against the very philosophy of the act, that a child should have the right to an appropriate education. I want to see those regulations and to have them in front of us before we proceed with this act.

I would like to go to the principles of the act. As are all members, I am pleased with the paramountcy of the best interests of the child being included. It was an oversight in the initial consultation paper and was put in in definitive terms in the Child and Family Services Act.

I do not have any particular difficulty with the section with regard to support to families as it is enunciated in clause (b), but I do have some confusion as to what we are talking about when we refer to "family." It is interesting that there is no definition of "family" in this act. We have definitions of "child," "agency," "Indian," "native community" and all sorts of other things; but we do not have a definition of "family."

I would be very interested to know what it is we are talking about specifically, because those of us who may be a little paranoid about the limitations of that definition to nuclear families and to fairly restrictive views of what a family might be would very much like to know what it is we are considering a family.

12:50 p.m.

For instance, when we talk about native rights, because of the new definitions and new actions in that section, we are very specifically recognizing the role of the extended family. We are recognizing that extended family, as far as I can determine from this act, only in native communities. We are not recognizing it in terms of other communities within the province.

Why is there no clear statement in this section about the rights of children from other cultural groups, as there is for natives? Why did the minister not bring in the linguistic wording the committee asked for, to recognize the multicultural nature of our province? Why is less entitlement provided for those other children in our province than there is for native groups?

What are we to understand is the limitation now in French-language services, since the notion of the minister being able to extend French-language services beyond the specific areas the province has designated is not now in the wording before us? What are the limitations there? What regulations will control the expansion of delivery of services to the French communities in Ontario? There is very little in here for us to go on.

Although there is in this act a notion of help for families and a notion of recognition of the least restrictive response to the problems of children, there is no explicit statement about prevention. There is no explicit statement that prevention programs should be funded appropriately and what the programs are. When we talk about best interests and promoting the protection and wellbeing of children, how are we determining what is acceptable?

I will give an example. It seems to me there is a presumption in this act that children in all walks of life end up in our child welfare system, that they all might fall within the ambit of this act. It is true they might, but most well-to-do families will find themselves in voluntary compliance with various sections of this act and will purchase services on their own from psychiatrists or group counsellors or will receive various kinds of help through their own capacity to pay in this society. They will not really be dealing with this act at all.

Essentially, we are talking about children from disadvantaged families being dealt with in this act. That is the reality. Children's aid societies in Ontario do not deal with the middle class. Children in need of protection are not middle-class children; they are not defined that way in our courts. In the real practice of the day, it is the children of poor families who cannot afford to purchase on their own services in the private market who fall under our child welfare system.

In Metropolitan Toronto, one child welfare worker told us that 95 per cent of the people she worked with were living below the poverty line. We thought this was a strange, probably anecdotal, thing until a director of a Catholic children's aid society came before one of our poverty hearings and gave us the statistics of who the society deals with.

The first statistic was that 66 per cent of the children in its care came from families that earned less than $8,000 a year, and 0.34 per cent came from families that earned $20,000 a year or more. Children's aid societies are dealing with the poor. They are the ones who fall into the definitions we will come to later on about a child in need of protection. They do not deal with the middle class and certainly not with the upper class in our society.

That begs the question of why we need this as a catching device, a safety net, for those who fall because of economic disadvantage. Why do we not put into this thing some means of this group providing for its own eventual elimination, if all were a Utopian world; some possibility for those people to participate in our society to the same extent as those people in this House are able to do? Why do we not basically put in place a major statement about prevention, major powers for judges to be able to order and a recognition of the basic standards that we should expect children in Ontario to accept as their right in 1984 and in the future?

I commend to members of the Legislature an act reintroduced by the member for Bellwoods, now Bill 86, An Act to declare the Rights of Children in Ontario. It is something we need fundamentally, in the beginning part of this act, to recognize what we see as basic rights, to recognize the right through judges and others in the system to ensure that those rights are being met before we start infringing on the liberties of poor families.

I will read from section 2, the member's declaration of rights, the things I think should be included in this act:

"(a) The right to food, clothing and housing in order to ensure good health and personal development." Anybody who knows anything about families on waiting lists for housing at the moment and about the kinds of choices some single mothers are making in giving up their children because they do not want them to live in unsanitary conditions while they wait nine months to get into Ontario Housing Corp. accommodations will know that if this were a fundamental right here, we would be talking about a very different kind of act, something that would force this government to produce proper sanitary housing for those families.

"(b) The right to an environment free from physical abuse, exploitation and degrading treatment,

"(c) The right to health care necessary to promote physical and mental health and to remedy illness." Again, the causes of kids' entry into care can often be found in these areas and not in the actual reasons given at the time with respect to acts of physical abuse that might have taken place.

"(d) The right to reside with parents and siblings except where it is in the best interest of the child for the child to reside elsewhere.

"(e) The right to parental and adult support, guidance and continuity in the child's life.

"(f) The right to an education which will ensure every child the opportunity to reach and exercise his or her full potential." That supposedly is now enshrined in Bill 82. I say "supposedly" because I am not convinced we have done that.

"(g) The right to play and recreation.

"(h) The right to have his or her opinions heard and to be included to the greatest extent possible when any decisions are being made affecting his or her life." That right is recognized in a fashion in this act, but it is an area of concern because of the definitions of "consent" and of what is the proper involvement of children in major decisions affecting their lives.

"(i) The right to independent adult counselling and legal assistance in relation to all decisions affecting guardianship, custody or a determination of status." I am not sure this right is there for children who are put into children's mental health centres until they have already been in those centres for 90 days.

"(j) The right to a competent interpreter where language or a disability is a barrier in relation to all decisions affecting guardianship, custody or a determination of status.

"(k) The right to an explanation of all decisions affecting guardianship, custody or a determination of status." That matter is addressed more in this act than it has been in the past.

"(l) The right to be informed of the rights of children and to have them applied and enforced." It is interesting that we will find this dealt with only with respect to the rights of children in institutions in this act; we will not find it anywhere else.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): I draw the member's attention to the clock.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just to leave this matter, I suggest we need to have those basic rights placed in the principles. We need to entrench in the principles the notion of prevention programs to ensure that those rights are being provided; without that, this act will not have our support.

On motion by Mr. R. F. Johnston, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

June 8, 1984