The House met at 1330.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
QUARRYING IN PROVINCIAL PARKS
Mr Ramsay: It has come to my attention, through the assistance of the Thunder Bay Field Naturalists and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, that the amended Mining Act, to be proclaimed into law next week, on 3 June, may have the unintended effect of permitting the quarrying of gravel and sand in Ontario's provincial parks.
Specifically, the Mining Act, as amended, redefines minerals to exclude sand, peat and gravel, and when combined with the Provincial Parks Act, which prohibits the development of mineral interests, the effect may be to open the door for quarrying of sand and gravel in Ontario's provincial park land.
Mining and quarrying were eliminated from provincial parks in 1988 by Liberal government policy and, while I am sure this loophole is merely an oversight and that the ministers involved would never have intended for such quarrying to occur, many provincial parks in Ontario contain within their boundaries large sand, peat and gravel deposits.
This is an urgent matter. There is right now an active proposal to open a gravel pit in Sleeping Giant Provincial Park near Thunder Bay, and if nothing is done to change the Mining Act then it will become legal to exploit this park and others for their gravel and sand resources.
I am sure the people of Ontario and the Minister of Natural Resources do not wish their parks to be exploited as gravel pits and their beaches exploited for sand extraction. Because of the immediacy of this issue, I will be presenting before the House later on today a private member's bill which will reinsert the words "sand, peat and gravel" into the definition of "minerals" in the Mining Act. The effect of this bill will be to ensure that the quarrying of these resources is not permitted in Ontario's provincial parks. I hope all members will support me in that endeavour.
SKILLS TRAINING
Mrs Cunningham: I was encouraged to see the Minister of Skills Development finally make a skills training announcement yesterday: $2 million for counselling laid-off workers and $1.5 million for retraining 250 workers at Stelco. But, as the budget clearly stated, to move towards an economy in which workers and businesses are skilled and flexible in effecting change will require new approaches to training. We need a comprehensive job training strategy, but there was nothing in the budget and we have heard nothing from the minister.
The province of Quebec, on the other hand, introduced a proactive training measure in its budget. Quebec will provide financial assistance designed to maintain 90% of workers' disposable income while they seek training to upgrade their skills. When fully implemented, it is anticipated that $100 million will be allocated to this program. Last year, Quebec also introduced a refundable tax credit aimed at businesses that invest in training their work force.
These measures are significant because Canadian firms spend half as much as American firms on training. As Harvey Lazar, deputy chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, recently stated, if the private sector invests more heavily in training, then the need for public programs will be attenuated.
A skilled and adaptable work force is an essential component to ensure that Ontario remains competitive. Instead of more statements about the need to train our workers, it is time this government unveiled a comprehensive human resource strategy.
CHILD ABUSE
Mr White: I would like to talk a little bit about a group in our area, in the city of Oshawa, that deals with a number of problems, physical abuse of children, emotional abuse of children and principally childhood sexual abuse, which is a tremendous problem throughout the province and throughout this country.
In 1983, after the death of Sharin' Morningstar Keenan, Outreach Abuse Prevention started to develop programs and develop books for children that were preventive in nature. Their programs for both children and women have been very well received not only throughout Ontario but, I understand, throughout the entire country.
This is a group which is instrumental in helping to prevent childhood sexual abuse; prevent, because it is too late 20 years after to deal with suicides, depression, permanent psychotic ailments; prevent, because by prevention one can create a community and a human being whose self-esteem is enhanced and whose capacity for dealing with this world is richer and fuller.
I want to commend that group and particularly those people who for so many years have worked in a volunteer capacity and dedicated so much of their time.
1340
SEVERANCE PAYMENT AND TERMINATION HEARINGS
Mr Cleary: The members will recall that I addressed a very serious labour issue in the Legislature on 6 May. After scheduling the termination and severance payment hearings for over 200 former employees of BCL in Cornwall, the Ministry of Labour arbitrarily and unilaterally decided to relocate these hearings to Ottawa.
Although the minister's letter to the former employees noting the change in venue was dated 25 April, these workers did not receive the registered letter until 14 May, almost three weeks later. At this time, I refuted the Minister of Labour's ridiculous claim that the move was necessary because Cornwall could not adequately accommodate the hearings.
Just yesterday, however, I received further notice from the minister which stated a new reason: "The referee is from Ottawa, and ministry personnel have advised that he is more likely to agree to extend the hearing into evening sessions if the hearing takes place in Ottawa."
Essentially, then, the minister is stating that the referee is more likely to do his job responsibly if he can eat at home. I might remind the minister that the former employees of BCL do not have that luxury which the minister implies. Perhaps the referee and the minister would be more sympathetic if they were forced to wait two years for a severance package and then were asked to absorb the cost and burden of travelling to Ottawa for four consecutive days.
Furthermore, the minister states "that rescheduling this matter would result in a further delay of approximately 10 months." This entire hearing was already scheduled in Cornwall before the ministry arbitrarily decided to move the hearing. It is the opinion of the former employees, as well as myself, that this is an obvious attempt to alienate these individuals from the hearing.
GRENVILLE PARK
Mr Villeneuve: This statement is oriented towards the Minister of Tourism and Recreation as well as the Chairman of Management Board.
The St Lawrence Parks Commission last year decided to close down five of its parks for economic reasons. The township of Osnabruck operated one of these parks very successfully, I might say, and showed a profit. Grenville Park right now is one of these four remaining parks that are still closed down and was closed in 1990 throughout the season. Mary Ann and Larry Cooper submitted the successful bid to reopen Grenville Park on a co-operative venture. If the government is scared of the word "privatization," we will use "co-operative." The government remains the owner of the park, and it will be operated successfully, I might say, by the Coopers.
The government is more interested in perception than substance in this case. We have at Grenville Park prime riverfront property waiting to be used by campers from Ontario, from Quebec, from New York state. We might even prevent a little bit of cross-border shopping from Ontario over to New York state. Let's reopen the park. Let's get the Coopers in there. They will not only fill that park but they will be looking to expand in the not-too-distant future.
I have confidence in these people. We have prime riverfront property. Let's get the bureaucrats and the politicians out of the way, and let's use our prime waterfront property.
POSTAL SERVICES
Mr Fletcher: Recently, postal workers in my riding of Guelph expressed concerns about the dismantling of the local postal services. Guelph union representatives remain convinced, despite the denials from Canada Post, that our historic downtown post office will be shut down. In fact, Canada Post has given the union an outline of plans for yet another franchise. This franchise will be located within three kilometres of the downtown post office and will offer full service, including 80 boxes, the same number already located downtown.
Canada Post maintains the property will not be sold, yet acknowledges that the post office might eventually close counter operations and become a processing centre. No wonder postal workers in my riding are wary. Just last year the city lost its 130-year-old postmark when Canada Post began sorting Guelph mail in Kitchener. This happened just six years after Canada Post assured city council it would not ship local mail to Kitchener for sorting.
The Guelph situation is a microcosm of the dismantling of our national postal service through privatization, franchising and contracting out services. Canada Post has 61,000 employees, and there are more than 60,000 grievances in the system. But our national postal system is much more than those statistics. MP Len Taylor, the former New Democratic post office critic, noted in his report on the future of Canada's postal system that unlike so many federal institutions, our post office is an important part of our everyday life, of all Canadians, of farmers, fishers, small businesses, seniors, workers, cultural organizations, our families and friends. Mr Taylor is correct in saying that the view that seeks profit before service and places big business before the health and safety of its employees and the interests of the vast majority of Canadians ignores the role of our national postal system and what it plays in our daily life.
CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mrs Y. O'Neill: Recently the Minister of Revenue travelled to Ottawa to meet her federal counterpart, Otto Jelinek, to ask him to collect the provincial sales tax at the border, the only solution this minister has come up with so far for the cross-border shopping epidemic.
The minister has not made a report of this meeting to the House, but we know that this minister, flushed with failure, told reporters that the federal government refused, and was punishing Ontario for opposing the GST.
Well, the next day, Mr Jelinek travelled to New Brunswick to meet with New Brunswick merchants and government officials. That very day he agreed that the federal government would collect the New Brunswick provincial sales tax at the border. The irony lies in the fact that the Liberal government in New Brunswick also opposes the GST, as did the previous Liberal government in Ontario and as the NDP government says it does here now.
The only people being punished are the merchants in the Ontario border communities, and the person meting out that punishment is the provincial Minister of Revenue, who would rather play politics than find solutions for one of the most important and pressing problems plaguing Ontario today.
BUDGET
Mrs Witmer: Last night, I, along with four of my colleagues, attended a meeting of the leader of the third party's task force on the budget. We were in Hamilton; it was the first stop in a five-stop swing through southern Ontario.
The task force originally planned to hold several more weeks of hearings throughout the province. However, we are pleased to be cancelling these plans in light of the government's announcement yesterday of an all-party public hearings process. However, we will be passing on to the all-party committee copies of all the presentations we have received, and if last night's presentation in Hamilton was any indication, there is much to be gained from reviewing the briefs that these individuals have presented.
Last night we had an opportunity to hear from individual taxpayers. We had an opportunity to hear from those involved in the trucking industry, those in housing, those who were concerned about social services. I would like to mention to members just one letter that was read to us from an individual.
They had received a letter from a foreign investor. The investor had decided to hold off establishing business ties in the region because of the recent Ontario budget. However, the good news is that the jury for that company is still out. Ties were not broken.
The all-party committee struck by Ontario's government yesterday can ensure that investors will once again have the confidence to invest in this province and that new jobs will be created.
TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES
Mr Christopherson: It is with pride that I rise today to inform members of this House of just one of the benefits arising from the Treasurer's 29 April budget.
In my own community of Hamilton, I commend our city council for the leadership it has shown in announcing a 1.9% property tax increase for 1991, and both the public and separate school boards for their modest increase of 1.08%. In fact, the mayor of Hamilton has thanked our government for its sensitivity in increasing transfer payments to municipalities. When was the last time any municipal politician said that about an Ontario budget?
Our government has been squeezed by cuts in federal transfer payments which have cost Ontario an unprecedented $1.6 billion this year alone. As members of this House know, it has been the general practice of previous governments to pass these cuts on to municipalities, despite the fact that property tax is one of the most regressive forms of taxation and hurts most those who can least afford it.
This budget demonstrates that the province has no intention of passing the buck or fighting the recession on the backs of municipalities. It shows our commitment to working with municipalities as our funding partners to maintain and promote the quality of services Ontarians need and deserve.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Now that we have captured everyone's attention, perhaps we can get on with business.
1350
VISITOR
The Speaker: Before proceeding to statements by ministers, members may wish to welcome to our assembly this afternoon the former member for Halton North, Walt Elliot, who is seated in the west gallery. Welcome.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING
Hon Mr North: Each year millions of dollars are spent to build and maintain community recreation facilities. Millions of tax dollars have also gone into programs that encourage more people to take part in recreation. Many thousands of Ontarians do take part in community events alongside their friends, families and neighbours.
Every member in this House knows first hand about the tremendous value of community recreation. All three parties have supported it. Our government believes it is time to make sure the Ontario recreation system benefits everyone.
Today I am proud to announce major improvements in the way our ministry will allocate community recreation dollars. Our new approach has the goal that by 1994, Ontario communities will have developed new recreation opportunities so that all individuals, especially those now facing barriers that prevent equal participation, lead more active and healthy lives. This goal is part of our government's commitment to fairness. We are especially proud to make this announcement during National Access Awareness Week, which also reflects our strong commitment to fairness towards all people of Ontario.
Taking part in community recreation can make a real and lasting difference in people's lives, but not everyone in Ontario has equal access to our recreation facilities and/or its programs. We want to ensure that everyone has a chance to take part. Therefore, I am pleased to announce major changes to our ministry's funding criteria. Our new program reaches out to people in eight priority groups. They are persons with disabilities, children and youth, women, working families, Franco-Ontarians, native people, older adults and visible minorities.
From now on, to qualify for funding under our new program, organizations must show that they will involve members from those priority groups in a significant way. This is a major change in policy. That is why our new funding requirements will be phased in over the next three years.
This new program will allow people to have full access to Ontario's recreation system. It will encourage traditional recreation groups to address the needs of others who do want to and will participate.
Our goal is a big one and so is the payoff. Our new program will make the recreation system stronger and more responsive to the changing social needs of the 1990s and beyond. I believe it will lead to more creative and innovative approaches to community recreation.
Our government takes leisure and recreation very seriously. Recreation can help reduce health care costs, provide a positive environment for children and adults and build better communities across this province. By making major improvements in our recreation system, we hope to give more opportunities to more people across this province.
CAMPUS SAFETY / SÉCURITÉ SUR LES CAMPUS
Hon Mr Allen: The promotion of safe and secure campuses is critical to the development of a positive learning and working environment for women students and employees at Ontario's colleges and universities.
At a time when 55% of the total student population at our post-secondary institutions is female, it is vital that we create a healthy environment on our campuses that will eliminate the crime of sexual assault and wipe away the causes of the existing fears of female students, faculty, administrators and staff. Simply stated, campuses that are not safe are not accessible.
À une époque où les femmes constituent 55 % de la population de nos établissements d'enseignement postsecondaire, il est essentiel de créer un climat sain sur nos campus en éliminant les crimes d'agression sexuelle et les sources des craintes des femmes qui sont étudiantes, professeures, administratrices et employées. En d'autres termes, les campus qui ne sont pas sécuritaires ne sont pas accessibles.
While many universities and colleges have already taken steps to address the issues related to sexual assault and harassment on campus, much remains to be done.
To help post-secondary institutions address their responsibilities in this area and to contribute further to the advancement of education and employment equity, I am pleased to be announcing the details of new initiatives aimed at improving safety and combating the harassment of women on college and university campuses across the province.
In addition to the initiatives already announced and receiving funding from the Ontario women's directorate that deal with date rape and wife assault, I am announcing two further initiatives. The first is making campuses safer for women, and the second is improving the atmosphere for women studying in engineering programs.
We will provide a total of $1.5 million this year and in 1992-93 to post-secondary institutions to develop measures to make campuses safer for women. Most of this money will be used to improve lighting, install emergency phones and create awareness campaigns that focus on the safety needs of female students, staff and faculty.
Nous consacrerons un montant de 1.5 million de dollars cette année et l'année prochaine pour aider les établissements d'enseignement postsecondaire à adopter des mesures visant à améliorer la sécurité des femmes sur les campus. Ces fonds serviront principalement à améliorer l'éclairage, à installer des appareils téléphoniques d'urgence et à réaliser des campagnes de sensibilisation mettant l'accent sur les besoins en matière de sécurité des femmes étudiantes, employées et professeures.
Up to $50,000 of this fund will be available to develop a project aimed at improving the current atmosphere for women studying in engineering programs. The project will be developed after consultation with universities, representatives of faculties of engineering and women in engineering.
I also would like to refer to two related initiatives.
This year, with the financial assistance of the Ontario women's directorate, my ministry will provide $200,000 for the development of a strategy to address the issue of date rape and to combat sexual harassment on our campuses. The strategy will include the development of a comprehensive training package with resource materials on this subject, distribution of materials to all colleges and universities and the delivery of instruction on the use of this package. Post-secondary institutions can use the strategy as required to meet their particular needs.
Violence against women is a major social problem that we must work hard to eliminate. It is important that we raise the awareness of faculty and students about the issues of wife assault. It is essential that students, in particular, be prepared to react appropriately in their professional lives to the needs of wife assault victims.
La violence faite aux femmes est un problème social important et nous devons travailler avec acharnement pour l'éliminer. Il est crucial de sensibiliser davantage le personnel enseignant et la population étudiante à la violence faite aux femmes. Il est essentiel que les étudiantes et les étudiants en particulier apprennent à réagir de façon appropriée au cours de leur vie professionnelle aux besoins des femmes violentées.
To help our post-secondary institutions in this area, my ministry, again with the financial help of the Ontario women's directorate, will provide $100,000 this year to support projects that focus on curriculum development in professional fields such as nursing, law and medicine that will address this issue.
We require a concerted effort by government and all members of the post-secondary community to eliminate violent behaviour towards women. The projects I have announced today build on many initiatives of this government, our institutions and local action groups that have been initiated to create a healthier and safer climate for women across the province.
I believe our colleges and universities can make a difference on the issue of women's safety by setting an example for others to follow. I look forward to the day when no person in this House need stand up and announce programs related to violence against women.
1400
RESPONSES
COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING
Mr H. O'Neil: My response is in reply to the statement of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation about National Access Awareness Week. I can tell the minister that not one of us would disagree with the tremendous work that community projects such as this do, but while the minister was making the statement, a couple of our members said, "Old news." It is old news.
When I was Minister of Tourism and Recreation three or four years ago, that was one of the policy statements we had. We involved all of these people whenever we made grants and no grants were ever made for some of these community projects unless these people were involved and part of it. There were other programs and other ministries that provided money for access.
I would remind the minister also, when he is talking to his ministry officials, that when you look at the funding that has been given to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation for capital grants for some of these recreation facilities, this ministry has dropped from $32 million down to approximately $28 million and the projects have dropped from 479 down to 427. It is well to have these high ideals, but unless the minister has the backing to give more money to some of these projects, he is not going to have access for some of these groups.
I would also remind the minister that when we are talking about money for access and money for recreation, he should be buttonholing the Premier and the Treasurer, in fact maybe taking them by the scruff of the neck and saying, "More money should be given to Tourism and Recreation."
Yesterday, when our budget task force appeared in Collingwood, many of the people who appeared there on the tourism side said: "No one is speaking for us in tourism. No attention is being given to us." I know that here we are asking for additional money, but I can tell members that where the overall budget gave an increase of approximately 13% this year, as I mentioned, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation dropped from $32 million to $28 million, and the tourism industry is really hurting. Unless this government has a healthy tourism industry, it is not going to have the income coming into the Treasury to help keep these people in business.
Again, it is old stuff. The minister should get hold of the Premier and get hold of the Treasurer and tell them he wants some more attention given to those two areas of the government.
CAMPUS SAFETY
Mr Daigeler: Yesterday my colleague the esteemed member for St George-St David said the NDP always looks best when it announces projects that were under way by the previous Liberal government. I think the same thing is happening today with the announcement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, which I certainly am very appreciative of, because last August we announced, and I would like to read from the announcement:
"In recent years there has been a marked increase in violence against women on Ontario college and university campuses. Therefore, the Ontario Liberal government is establishing a fund to improve campus security. Its purpose will be to reduce safety hazards in the campus environment through changes such as improved lighting on walkways and in parking areas, ensuring safe access to buildings, installing emergency telephones on walkways, installing alarm systems in residences and classrooms."
Since the minister finally, almost a whole year later, is making these very same announcements, I am obviously very pleased that he is finally coming forward with these initiatives. However, I would like to indicate one thing. I think it is a very important matter the minister is addressing. He is unfortunately only looking at the symptoms. He is encouraging our university sector to become more sensitive to the issue of wife assault, and certainly I support that, but I wish the minister would go deeper and I wish his whole government would take the issue even more seriously.
I think it is time to look at the root causes, the origins of wife assault and violence against women. Why is it? What is wrong in our culture, in our economic system, in our social structure, that the thought of violence against women is even occurring?
I think the minister would do very well if he would encourage the university community to do very serious studies as to why it is that the thought of violence even occurs in the minds of men. I think his government could provide real leadership by doing a very in-depth and very serious study of the origins and causes of that kind of violence, because while it is important to treat the symptoms, and I congratulate the minister for his initiatives in that regard, I think it is even more important and more needed at this time to look at the causes and the root origins of that serious social problem which is violence against women.
COMMUNITY RECREATION FUNDING
Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to stand and respond today to the statement made by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. This is his second announcement since he was appointed minister some eight months ago that tells us nothing about his plans to address the serious issues affecting the tourism and recreation industries -- issues like the 32% increase in cross-border shopping through the months of February and March of this year and the incredible tax increases on cigarettes, alcohol and gasoline that the Premier's budget inflicted on these industries.
The minister has not taken any initiatives. I think he is afraid to take initiatives on behalf of the tourism industry. We simply get vague statements from him talking about accessibility. I want to talk about today's statement, for example, which says, "I am pleased to announce major changes to our ministry's funding criteria." Then he says it is a new program that is targeted towards eight priority groups. "They are persons with disabilities, children and youth, women, working families, Franco-Ontarians, native people, older adults and visible minorities."
I want to know who the hell he was funding before, because that covers just about 9.5 million Ontarians. That is the province. When you walk into any arena in my community and his community, surely to God you see a number of these people from all these priority groups. It makes me wonder what this announcement is.
I am putting the minister on notice today that if this is a major change in policy, first of all, he has got to explain to us whom he was funding in the past and, second, if this is simply another communications plan by his ministry to make himself and his ministry look good, then I am putting him on notice that he had better not spend one more dollar of taxpayers' money on this sort of nonsense because this is the second vague, tell-us-nothing announcement he has made. He has been in office eight months and it is time he got down to the serious matters affecting the tourism and recreation industry.
We all agree on, and both the Liberals and the Conservatives have very good records in the past of, for instance, removing physical barriers for physically challenged people. He addressed that issue in his previous statement a few weeks ago. But if the minister is going to spend millions of dollars on a communications plan that does nothing for these people, or any of the other people in his so-called eight priority groups, then I am telling him that he is going to have the toughest time of any parliamentarian in this House.
CAMPUS SAFETY
Mrs Cunningham: We of course would agree with the Minister of Colleges and Universities and encourage him in his work to make campuses safer in Ontario.
At this point, I would like to address the second part of the minister's announcement, and that is the part in regard to a fund to improve the current atmosphere for women studying in engineering programs.
What we really need in Ontario today are more women studying in engineering programs in a very positive atmosphere. The work of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, when it did its survey in September 1990, would give the minister some wonderful resource materials and wonderful people to help him in fact improve the accessibility and encourage women to enter the non-traditional professions that we need so much in Ontario and especially in the study of engineering.
I myself introduced a resolution, in December 1990, that stated that we need a highly skilled work force to maintain Ontario's economic competitiveness. I encourage the minister to establish a WISE fund, women in science and engineering. I am sure he will remember it well.
I take a look at this $50,000 as just the beginning. I will send the minister the backgrounder that talks about the WISE fund, women in science and engineering, that talks about a fund to encourage women to study engineering and applied science. It is very specific in that scholarships would be awarded to 500 women entering engineering studies and 300 women entering applied science courses over the next five years. It would pay full tuition expenses for each of the four years of the students' programs. It would be allocated to the 16 universities. These are all of the scholarship funds.
I think what we really need are more women in engineering and I am certain this House would encourage the minister in his work to make certain that happens in the term of his government.
1410
ORAL QUESTIONS
Mr Scott: Is the Attorney General coming in? If not, I would like to stand down two leader's questions.
LABOUR DISPUTE
Mr Carr: It is a pleasure to get a chance to go first.
My question is to the Solicitor General. It deals with the Budd Canada case. I would like to read him a quote from Wayne Sudds, who said Staff Inspector John Westbrook told him on 26 April that the Ministry of the Solicitor General told the police not to back off on the picket line confrontations. Reading from his notes, he said, "Mr Westbrook, based on the conversation, said there would be no assistance to transport products across the line." Mr Sudds said, "Mr Westbrook, the officer who co-ordinated the strike, said it was the first time in his career that the government had intervened in a labour dispute."
My question is very clearly that in light of the contradictions I would like to know if he would explain to the House exactly what was said during this famous telephone conversation.
Hon Mr Farnan: First, let us reiterate once again the words of the chief of police for the Waterloo region. His words are, "There was no attempt to influence local operational decisions by the Ministry of the Solicitor General." They are the words of the chief of police for the Waterloo region.
Second, what exactly transpired? My understanding is that this is the advice that was given: Information first of all that there was a phone call from a union member, that the union member was interested and the union was interested in being able to talk to the police about having a peaceful existence on the picket line. The advice that was given by the policing services division of the Ministry of the Solicitor General was, "If you're talking to the union, it would probably be a good idea if you also spoke to the management." That sounds like very good advice to me, not to speak to one partner in a dispute but to speak to both. That is the extent and the limit of the advice. I am very proud of the very balanced role that the policing services division took in this particular instance.
Mr Carr: The problem we have is the contradictions, because not only the company president but the union president, John Coleman, have said that Westbrook also told company and union officials that police were getting pressure from Queen's Park. It goes on to say that yes, the police said there was no pressure, but we have the union, the company and also the security firm saying there was pressure. Also, the minister's executive assistant said, and I quote from a newspaper report, "It was simply a recommendation."
My question is very simply, what formal instructions has the Solicitor General given to his ministry not to interfere with police forces across this province?
Hon Mr Farnan: Let me instruct the critic for the Conservative Party. We have a legislative responsibility under the new Police Services Act to provide both information and advice to policing services in the field, particularly when there are special circumstances where there are problems. It is a legislative responsibility. Indeed, one could say it is a duty, but it is a duty we are very careful about, because we realize that the operational decisions by policing services must be made by the local chief of police and his police force.
In a very delicate situation, we informed the local chief of police that yes indeed the union was concerned. We also added the caveat that perhaps it would be wise not only to talk to the union but to talk to the management at the same time. In addition, let me just add that as a result automotive parts were allowed to move out of the factory to facilitate the management. The police did a wonderful job in this instance.
Mr Carr: I would like to see if the Solicitor General will confirm that this is the first time his ministry has in fact made a phone call during a labour dispute. We now know that one of the circumstances when a phone call is made is when there is a labour dispute and I would like to see if the Solicitor General could outline today in what other circumstances he feels his ministry will interfere with police forces across this province. We know that he will during labour disputes. Perhaps he could outline in what other circumstances his ministry feels it is appropriate to interfere with the police forces across this province.
Hon Mr Farnan: Again let me try to bring the critic up to speed. The role of the Solicitor General, of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the role of policing services, is public safety. If there is public safety at stake on the picket line or in any other circumstance, we have a responsibility as a ministry to pass on information. Indeed, the legislation, I would remind the member, gives us a duty not only to provide information but in problematic situations to render advice. But the advice is only advice. It can be used by the chief as he pleases. In this case the chief has clearly indicated that there was no attempt to influence. What more does the member want?
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mr Scott: I would like to ask the Attorney General a question about the Farnan affair.
Mr Harnick: Which one?
Mr Scott: It is a good point, which one, but the one that first occupied us.
He will be aware that the issue of ministerial responsibility as it applies to the Solicitor General with respect to his office staff is an important issue. Indeed, as he will also be aware, almost every major newspaper in Ontario has called for the resignation of the Solicitor General, whether he has personal responsibility --
Interjections.
Mr Scott: The three Toronto newspapers, Ottawa newspapers, London newspapers, newspapers all across the province. But that is not the end of the matter. The really difficult problem that presents is not with the Solicitor General, but the unwillingness of the Premier to enforce his own guidelines.
In a major comment on ministerial, as opposed to personal, responsibility in 1985 or 1984, the now Premier said about ministerial responsibility, "If sometimes these doctrines mete out justice that seems a little hard in some circumstances, that is the way it has to be to protect the basic traditions of the place." The concern that is indicated is not about the Solicitor General but also about the Premier, because as the Globe and Mail said this morning, "The Premier's position is markedly at odds with the stance he adopted a year ago."
What I want to ask the Attorney General very simply is this: Was he or his ministerial staff aware when he commissioned the RCMP report that the report would be RCMP property and would not therefore be made public? Was he aware of that?
Hon Mr Hampton: No.
Mr Scott: I am glad to hear that, in light of the assurances --
Interjections.
1420
Mr Scott: I am glad to hear the Premier's answer through the Attorney General, furnished as it was, but it is good to have a one-word answer anyway.
I simply ask that question because the tenor of the Attorney General's answers while the RCMP report was being commissioned was that if it was at all within his power, he would make all of it public. That was the clear assurance he gave, not merely to members of the House but to the press and the general public. That is what he said. Indeed, yesterday he said, "I have no opposition to the release of the report by the police, but they have made it specifically known that they regard the report as their property."
Our party has made a freedom-of-information request for the police report, which is in the possession of the Ministry of the Attorney General and which has been read by him and by the Premier, I understand. The question I want to ask is, will the Attorney --
Interjection.
Mr Scott: It is never read by the member?
Hon Mr Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is one of two allegations which the member has made in his question. I want to make it very clear, I have never seen any RCMP report.
Mr Scott: I think the Premier should read the RCMP report but, if he has not, I accept the correction.
The point I want to make, in the form of a question, is this: The Attorney General has said that if it was up to him he would release the report. That is the impression he created for two weeks in this House. We have made a freedom-of-information request. Will he undertake now to consent to that request, or not to object to it?
Hon Mr Hampton: It is unfortunate that I always have to correct the member for St George-St David. First of all, in my answer some weeks ago when asked if the report might be released, I said that I would consider the issue with crown legal advisers, with criminal lawyers in the Ministry of the Attorney General, and that if it were appropriate and proper, I would consider the releasing of the report.
The advice I have received is that this report, like many other police reports, has in it references to third parties. Some of the information is secondhand information. Some of it may be unflattering. Those individuals certainly have a privacy interest.
That may not matter to the member for St George-St David. We have already seen that he is capable of saying almost anything about anybody and making all kinds of allegations here. But it does mean something to me, so I will say this: I have no opposition to the RCMP releasing the report, but it is very clear in its information to me that it considers the report its property. So if the member wants to make a freedom-of-information application, as I have said, I have no opposition to the release of the report.
Mr Scott: I am very grateful for that answer and to know the Attorney General will not oppose an application under the freedom-of-information act. I make that point because there are two ways to oppose the release of this report: one on general disclosure grounds and, second, on the basis that it is the RCMP's property. If he will not object to a freedom-of-information request, that will be made and I am confident that under the act the report will in due course be released.
But I want to make one further point to the Attorney General. When Ken Keyes was investigated, and indeed a criminal charge of a minor type was laid against him, that report was made public by the government at the explicit urging of the Leader of the Opposition of the day, who was calling coverup and all the rest of it all over the place when different and easier standards were applied by us.
Here is what the Premier of the day said: "The Attorney General decided to make that police report" -- about Ken Keyes -- "public even though it is not the custom because of the particularly sensitive nature of this matter and given the fact that it was the Solicitor General who was involved."
They required our government to maintain high standards. We hope they will have the guts to maintain those standards themselves with respect to this police report. As long as the Attorney General is going to hide behind the RCMP ownership of the police report, there are two documents in that report that he owns: One is the letter of the Deputy Attorney General and one is the written instructions given by the Solicitor General to his staff. Will the Attorney General please release both those documents which he owns, yes or no?
Hon Mr Hampton: I provided yesterday to the Legislature and to the media a summary of the information that is dealt with in the RCMP report. The only thing that is taken out of the RCMP report in terms of detail are the names of individuals who were interviewed by the RCMP. I can tell the member, as I told him yesterday, that the details of the letter I received from the deputy giving me her report are contained within the summation.
I have given him more and I have given members of the Legislature more in terms of accountability than the member for St George-St David was willing to give on many occasions, and I quoted back for him yesterday his own words, where he said that in general -- and I agree with this -- the details of police reports ought not to be released because they contain secondhand and thirdhand information about parties who are not the subject of the investigation, but who get involved in the investigation and who have comments made about them. They have a privacy interest and that privacy interest deserves to be respected. So the member has the summation which is all of the details, minus the names of innocent individuals who were interviewed.
Mr Scott: The Attorney General emotes at great length, but what we are asking for now is a memo from his deputy to him and a memo from the Solicitor General to the Solicitor General's staff. The interesting thing is, they will not make that available. There is no reason why they should not, and I know why. I have an idea what is in it.
LABOUR DISPUTE
Mr Scott: Now I have a question for the Solicitor General about the next problem that he confronts. Yesterday, while responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Solicitor General failed to tell the Legislature, I am led to believe, why his office was contacted by union officials with regard to the Budd strike. In the words of the union president, who made a substantial contribution to their campaign and is therefore trustworthy, John Coleman, a call was made to see if the Solicitor General would "place pressure upon the police to withdraw."
Can the Solicitor General confirm that his office was contacted by this union official and that the call was made for the purpose Mr Coleman says the call was made for, "to place pressure upon the police to withdraw"?
Hon Mr Farnan: I have very clearly indicated to the House, first of all, that a call was placed to my office and that my staff very correctly took that message and passed it on to the policing services division. In other words, my staff were not going to deal with that issue; they were going to pass it on to the appropriate agency that would deal with it. The policing services division received the message from my staff that the union wanted to make contact with the local police in order to address issues of disturbances upon the picket line. The policing services then transmitted this information to the local chief of police, and the local chief of police is very clearly on record. Chief Harold Basse says there was no attempt to influence.
Mr Scott: We are now putting this together bit by bit. We now have it that the union president made a call to the Solicitor General's own office, not the ministry, which was received by his staff, those staff to whom he gives direction, we understand, and that, according to Mr Coleman, the purpose of that was to place pressure upon the police to withdraw. Following that, three calls were made by the Ministry of the Solicitor General to the police. One was made to the chief of police. A second call was made to the deputy, and the minister has explained that policy directions are obliged to be given by the Ministry of the Solicitor General to police. The third was made to -- let me get his name -- Inspector Westbrook, who was not a chief of police or in charge of policy but who was the man in charge of the day-to-day Budd strike.
I want to ask the minister, in light of what he said today, two things. First of all, did his office staff pass on to the ministry Mr Coleman's request to place pressure upon the police to withdraw and, second, what information would his ministry be giving to Inspector Westbrook on a policy matter, who is standing right there on the picket line supervising?
1430
Hon Mr Farnan: The information I have is that Mr Coleman did contact my ministry staff. In contacting them, the message is this --
Mr Elston: Your office?
Hon Mr Farnan: My office. In contacting, the message is very clear: We have difficulty communicating with the police locally and we are concerned about the situation on the picket line. That is the message -- no more, no less. That message was transferred to the policing services division. The policing services division passes this message on to the local police force and by way of advice suggests that if they are meeting with the union, perhaps it would make good sense to involve the management.
What can be more balanced? What can be more fair? What can be more proactive in preventive policing than the actions taken by my ministry?
Mr Scott: It is becoming increasingly clear that this Solicitor General, the second law officer of the province, has grave difficulty, as does his office staff, apparently, in understanding the difference between politics being conducted as usual and the administration of justice in the province.
He refused to answer my question on whether he passed on to the ministry staff his constituent Mr Coleman's request that pressure be brought on the police to withdraw. He refused to answer that. I wonder why. This may shed some light on it. As the Conservative critic has pointed out, John Westbrook, the police inspector on the picket line, had a conversation with Sudds, who is himself a peace officer, of which Sudds took notes. Here is what Sudds says: that he spoke to Westbrook, the inspector, and Westbrook said to him that the Ministry of the Solicitor General told the police to back off from picket line confrontation and -- wait for this -- that this was the first time in Westbrook's long career that any government had intervened in this way in a labour dispute.
The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary.
Mr Scott: I want to ask the honourable member when he is going to permit this business to be clarified by ordering a thorough investigation or by submitting the issue to the standing committee on administration of justice.
Hon Mr Farnan: This is not "somebody told somebody told somebody told somebody." This is a direct quote from the chief of police of Waterloo regional county: "There was no attempt to influence by the Ministry of the Solicitor General." That is as clear as you can get.
The second point the member should remember is this: As a result of the intervention, as a result of the actions taken by the local police force, goods happened to be moved out of the company to the benefit of management and the peace was kept. The goals and aims of management were met as a result of good, preventive, positive policing.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Willowdale.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre. It is the member for Willowdale who has the floor right now.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mr Harnick: My question is for the Premier. No one ever alleged that the incident and now incidents involving the Solicitor General were criminal in nature, yet --
Interjections.
Mr Harnick: With all due respect, I tell members to read the Hansard. Yet the RCMP was brought in to do a criminal investigation and, lo and behold, in a non-criminal matter it found no criminal charges warranted. However, the evidence continues to show -- and every day it gets worse -- that the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines have been breached by the Solicitor General, and the evidence is that his conduct has been improper.
I refer the Premier to his conflict guideline 4, under fundamental principles. I interpret "fundamental" to mean "basic." It says: "Ministers shall at all times act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny."
The Premier has an opportunity now to permit the closest public scrutiny by referring all these incidents to the justice committee for the closest public scrutiny to clear the name of his Solicitor General. Will he do that?
Hon Mr Rae: I want to just say to the honourable member that I cannot imagine a closer public scrutiny than what we have been through in this House over the last several weeks. Let's be fair in the circumstances. The Attorney General, without any consultation with anyone, as is quite appropriate, decided, on advice and discussion within his own ministry, without any discussion with anybody else, as is entirely his responsibility, to call in the RCMP because of his concern, I am sure, that no stone be left unturned in terms of an investigation. That was carried out.
Now, I have said in this House on a number of occasions with respect to this matter that I believe the accounts I have given to this House have been as clear as I can make them. I am happy to answer questions on this and to have this discussion here in this House in terms of answering these questions as clearly as I can. This is all out in the open in terms of what has taken place.
There were innocent mistakes made that should not have been made by people working in the constituency office of the minister, without the minister's knowledge. We have the RCMP investigation. We have a report from the director of criminal prosecutions of the Ministry of the Attorney General saying that in their opinion, there is no basis for a criminal charge, and that as far as they are concerned, on the terms of the information they had from the RCMP, the minister is a person of complete honesty and integrity with respect to the conduct of his duties.
I do not know what else the members opposite really want. If they are interested in the truth, they have got it right there in front of them.
Mr Harnick: I appreciate the Premier's offer to investigate this in this House. However, he has not provided us with all the documentation that will permit a real investigation.
Let me go on with the conduct of the Solicitor General, the part of the conduct that has not been investigated because it was not subject of a criminal matter.
The Solicitor General told this House that he gave his staff specific instructions to remain at arm's length from the judiciary. He tells us that he gave these instructions in February, in spite of the fact that he had the Premier's guidelines in December. Right away, that has to make his credibility somewhat suspect.
We now see, after that three-month delay, a report of the director of criminal prosecutions that shows that a staff member, referred to as member 2, who was a receptionist, had in fact no written guidelines or directions. The report -- and I refer the Premier to paragraph 25 --
The Speaker: The interrogative part?
Mr Harnick: -- is silent regarding oral instructions to her. I can only conclude, if it is silent, he did not give those oral instructions, or surely that would have been a focus of the report.
The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.
Mr Harnick: What we have is a conflict between what the Solicitor General told this House and what the Solicitor General told the RCMP. Now, if that does not concern the Premier, then all I can say is that the Premier's standards have sunk to the basement. Will he institute an investigation through the justice committee to look into the responsibility of this minister in terms of his activities regarding these matters, or is he going to continue to cover them up and not let him clear his name?
1440
Hon Mr Rae: In terms of the minister's name, I will let the director of criminal prosecutions -- if he wants to talk about clearing someone's name, why does he not read this out one day, page 8: "The Solicitor General impressed the officers" -- he is referring to the RCMP. This is the investigation the member yesterday said was garbage. That was his comment on an RCMP investigation. That is how impressive he was yesterday -- "as being a man of high integrity who was making a concerted effort to serve the people of Ontario in his role as the Solicitor General. No evidence of benefit, directly or indirectly, from the writing of these letters was obtained during the course of the investigation." That represents a significant and fair, independent clearing of the name of the Solicitor General of this province. What more does the member want?
Mr Harnick: That may represent a clearing of his name in so far as a criminal prosecution is concerned. There is more to this matter than a criminal prosecution. It is obvious the Premier's guidelines have become meaningless. It is obvious that what he is doing is being done for political expediency. It is obvious that he is incapable of being the author, the judge and the jury in terms of enforcement of his guidelines. His guidelines are worthless because he will not enforce them.
Now, unless the Premier is prepared to investigate this matter, his guidelines are nothing more than a sham. If his guidelines mean anything and if his guidelines are to be used and respected, he must send this matter to the justice committee for investigation. Will he do that?
Hon Mr Rae: I heard a long and vituperative preamble to a question. I did not hear very much of a question.
I will only say to the honourable member that I have indicated very clearly to the House, and the minister has indicated very clearly, that he at no time authorized or advised any contact with the judiciary, and if the member wants to refer to sections 19 and 20 of the guidelines, they are very clear in that regard.
An innocent mistake was made by members of the minister's constituency office staff, trying in good faith to serve the interests of their constituents. No benefit was received by anyone, no advantage was taken by anyone, and I cannot see how members can turn this into the kind of furore that they are pathetically attempting to do today and on other days.
Mr Scott: What is really pathetic is that this man was prepared to hang Frank Miller, he was prepared to get rid of Ken Keyes because he had a beer on a police boat, but when his troops are at the trough, it is deny, deny, deny, stonewall, stonewall, stonewall, cover up, cover up. That is what it is.
LABOUR DISPUTE
Mr Scott: I have a question for the Solicitor General. It is all coming out slowly. Mr Coleman has now said that he called the minister's office for the minister to put pressure on the police to withdraw. He said that. Inspector Westbrook has said this kind of government interference had never happened before in his career. Let us read some more of what Westbrook says. He says, "I think it is a pretty serious case" --
Interjection.
Mr Scott: The member may laugh, but we are talking about law and order. Here is what Inspector Westbrook says and here is why we want an inquiry, and this is a police officer speaking: "I think it is a pretty serious case when Queen's Park starts interfering with the policing as far as taking sides goes. It is obvious the police were siding with the union in this one." Does that help the Solicitor General come to a conclusion that maybe the committee should examine what happened here?
Hon Mr Farnan: Let me say this: I have tremendous good faith in both Chief Harold Basse of the Waterloo Regional Police and in the board of commissioners of that police service.
If there were any suggestion that anything untoward was happening within that police force, if there were any external influence on that police force, Chief Harold Basse would be the first to straighten this matter out. Chief Basse is on the record as saying there was no influence from my ministry, no attempt to influence. That is the chief, and at this stage that is where it remains.
Mr Scott: We have the opinion of the Solicitor General, but against him we have the expressed intention of the president of the union, which he has given in public, we have Inspector Westbrook against him saying this was Queen's Park interfering and, just to make the record clear, today a representative of our caucus spoke with the deputy chief of police, Miller, who said it was clearly unusual for the union to contact the Solicitor General's office regarding the strike situation. He felt that -- now just a minute.
Interjections.
Mr Speaker: Order. The member for St George-St David has the floor.
Mr Scott: Here is what the deputy chief of the Waterloo Regional Police said. He said the reasons for the contact, in his opinion, could only have been to have the government place political pressure.
We have two senior police officers and the president of the union pointing directly at the Solicitor General. Can the justice committee look at this, or is the minister going to stonewall this second one too?
Hon Mr Farnan: Anybody under the sun can approach my ministry or any other ministry and ask for special favours. That is not what is important. What is important is whether they get those favours, and they get no favours, period.
GEORGIAN LAKELANDS TRAVEL ASSOCIATION
Mr J. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The minister should be aware that the Georgian Lakelands board has passed a motion to dissolve the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association, and that motion will be put forward on 5 June at its annual meeting.
In a letter sent to the minister by the president of Georgian Lakelands, the president said, "This decision was not reached lightly, but as the motion indicates, the constraints placed on Georgian Lakelands by the Ministry of Tourism makes it impossible to continue effectively." This travel association does not want to fold, but is being forced to do so because of the unrealistic funding structure of the Ontario travel association program, OTAP.
Can the minister tell this House today what he intends to do to prevent the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association from closing shop?
Hon Mr Laughren: Spend, spend, spend.
Hon Mr North: I appreciate the question that has been put forth. I understand, on the one hand, that they wish us to try and control our spending and, on the other hand, that they would like us to spend, spend, spend. I do not want to use that in any way to somehow get away from what the member is saying, and I appreciate his asking the question about Georgian Lakelands. I will attempt with the ministry to see if there is something that can be done and I will attempt to get the member an answer in the short term.
Mr J. Wilson: I am constantly surprised in this House how little the Minister of Tourism and Recreation knows about his own programs. I would like to inform the Treasurer, who says, "Spend, spend, spend," this is not new money. It is already allocated money. There is a problem with the funding structure.
The minister should know that the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association is comprised of four distinct tourist associations.
Interjection.
Mr J. Wilson: The Treasurer will be interested in this, so he should just be quiet for a minute.
These tourist associations raised $1.6 million from the private sector already. The problem is that the umbrella group, the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association, is required to raise another $110,000 because the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation will not recognize the $1.6 million already raised from the private sector.
Why will the minister not recognize this money raised by the four tourist associations? Will he agree today to revise the Ontario travel association program so dollars already allocated under his ministry can have matching funding, can go to meaningful tourism programs, and so Georgian Lakelands will not have to close its doors?
Hon Mr North: Across the province, we have worked with travel associations and we have had a very good relationship with them. I have met with a number of the travel associations just recently. I met with the Southwestern Ontario Travel Association, I met with the James Bay Frontier Travel Association, and the relationship has been good. If the member across the floor suggests that we should have further conversations with travel associations, perhaps it is not a bad idea. I appreciate the suggestion.
1450
LIBRARY BOARD
Mr Waters: My question is addressed to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Last week I received a carbon-copied letter addressed to the minister from a constituent regarding the proposed legislation to dissolve the Mississauga library board. I realize that Mississauga is not in my riding, but what I and many of my constituents are concerned about is how this decision will affect small library boards such as the many dispersed ones in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay and in general the ones in northern Ontario.
Many individuals are concerned that if our government dissolves its dedication to libraries in general, it will discourage reading and promote illiteracy among northern populations who already have limited access. Could the minister outline the purpose of the proposed legislation to abolish the library board of the municipality of Mississauga?
Hon Mr Marchese: I thank the member for the question. The Public Libraries Act requires that libraries be managed by a board appointed for the most part by the municipal councils where they are located. My ministry continues to support the concept of independent library boards. The councils may consider replacing a board with a committee of council through a private bill. To my knowledge, the council of Mississauga is the only council that has come to my attention requesting that a private bill be drawn up by the Attorney General.
Because of the concern over this issue, a concern expressed by many people within libraries, I have asked my parliamentary assistant, the member for Kingston and The Islands, to undertake a consultation process with the library community. I am anticipating a report on that this summer, at which point I will finalize my answer. But at the moment I am not contemplating any legislation that would make the elimination of boards an easy option for municipalities in general.
Mr Waters: How will this affect northern library boards in townships and municipalities?
Hon Mr Marchese: With respect to northern libraries, representatives from smaller libraries have been in contact with my office. They are being consulted as well as part of this consultation with library people in communities. They have told me how vulnerable they would be, how vulnerable they are to budget cuts and other areas of concern. If the library boards were replaced, we would obviously be very sensitive to those arguments. But any decisions we would take would not jeopardize smaller libraries.
WAGE PROTECTION
Mr Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. All members of the House will be aware of the very serious concerns in the business and entrepreneurial sectors about the extension of liability for wages and benefits to corporate officers as contained in the wage protection legislation.
As well, there are very grave concerns about the effect this bill will have on the viability of non-profit corporations such as children's aid societies, co-operatives and others. These groups have made their positions and the reasons for them well known to the minister. On this issue, he must know their position and the reasons for it.
To alleviate their concerns, will the minister today agree to amendments to the bill which would remove officers who are not involved in corporate decision-making and non-profit entities from the legislation?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The honourable member will know that is the third time I have had that question and the answer to it is the same each time. As soon as we get on with the bill in this Legislature, we are prepared to take a look at the areas of concern the member has outlined.
Mr Offer: These individuals and non-profit corporations have made their concerns well known to the minister. All we ask is for the minister to stand up and make a commitment to them that they would be excluded from the legislation.
If the minister is not ready to take this step, and I do believe he is probably ripping the principle of this legislation out, will he at least ensure that all these groups coming forward will have the opportunity to voice their concerns about the wage protection fund? Will the minister commit today to sending this bill out to public hearings throughout the summer?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think once we have gone through the debate in the House here on second reading, the decision will be made as to what is to happen to the bill. At that point in time we will take a look at the arguments that are made to us.
Mrs Caplan: What? You are not going to send them to public hearings?
The Speaker: New question. The member for London North.
Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Education.
Mrs Caplan: That is outrageous.
The Speaker: The member for London North has the floor, not the member for Oriole.
Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the member --
Mrs Caplan: Why did you say yes?
The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, unfortunately it is not your turn to ask a question.
EDUCATION POLICY
Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Education. On 10 May 1991 the minister addressed the London Home and School Association at Oakridge Secondary School. In the opinion of the parents and the teachers and the trustees present, the comments on the subject of destreaming were vague, leaving trustees especially very confused as to the minister's position. Would the minister advise this House when destreaming must be in effect for grade 9 students in Ontario schools?
Hon Mrs Boyd: The previous government had set a deadline of September 1992. By that time the results of the various pilot projects -- I believe there are about 65 in place across the province -- will not have been known and evaluated appropriately for us to make a unilateral and complete decision that everyone must destream.
There are many boards that are ready to destream now. Some are indicating an interest in doing that this September, and they certainly are able to do that if that is their choice. Many are saying they have been heading for the September 1992 deadline and they feel no reason not to carry on on track. There are others who are very distressed by the whole idea of destreaming, particularly when it is strictly focused at grade 9. They have indicated in their responses to the Transition Years report as part of the curriculum review that they would like to see some delay.
We have also had representations from a number of teacher groups that are quite concerned about the nature of teaching that is required in destreamed classrooms as opposed to streamed classrooms where they have been taught to teach. There is good reason for us to be concerned that in fact the destreaming initiative may not work unless we are able to put some professional development dollars into helping those teachers cope with destreamed classrooms.
The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response.
Hon Mrs Boyd: The ministry is basically taking the position that we are prepared to be flexible about the deadline where that is a request from boards, but that we certainly are not backing off from the principle at all. We do believe that destreaming is the route to go, but we think it needs to be supported by the kind of teacher training and by the kind of infrastructure that --
The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her remarks, please.
Hon Mrs Boyd: -- is going to make it work.
Mr. Cunningham: Given the response from the minister today, I will conclude, then, that the policy of the government is that if boards request not to destream by September 1992 for the reasons they would provide to the minister, they will be allowed not to follow the direction of the 1992 destreaming advice that is right now being given to school boards by ministry offices. If this is a clarification we can send out today, then I appreciate that.
I would also say, though, that this debate around destreaming is a very personal one from board to board and from family to family. I think in planning I am not only talking about program. I am talking about funding. I am talking about one-to-one support for students. I am talking about new schools. I am talking about an exodus from other schools. It is important that in fact school boards have very clear policy decisions from this ministry.
The Speaker: And your question?
Mrs Cunningham: Will the minister involve the trustees immediately in the discussions as per her statement today, immediate discussion with the trustees?
1500
Hon Mrs Boyd: I have already had occasion to talk to all the trustee groups and we have discussed this rather thoroughly. They know that from our point of view we are not happy with the set deadline, and when we have talked to the educational councils right across the province we certainly indicated our position of flexibility. We do not want school boards to interpret that as any withdrawal from the principle of destreaming and we are being very clear about that, but we are acknowledging the concerns when the consultation is brought forward.
This member asked a question a few weeks ago that was put forward by the Ontario Teachers' Federation as to whether we wanted to stop and look at where we are going with the whole picture of curriculum review and bring in some of those issues the member mentioned. I indicated at that time that I thought that was an excellent idea and we will indeed be proceeding to do that in the fall.
At that point in time, when we have that overview in terms of that pause time, that whole picture, then it will be appropriate for us to be much clearer about the results of that consultation and exactly how and the timetable. So my message to school boards is that we are being flexible. We will not enforce the September 1992 deadline, but we are still working in that direction and in no way want the boards to stop working in that direction.
ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE DISABLED
Mr Malkowski: This week is National Access Awareness Week and my question is to the Minister of Housing. He made an announcement yesterday regarding changes to the Building Code Act. What changes have been made to improve barrier-free access?
Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the question and the importance of the question. The member and the members will be aware that the Building Code Act introduced yesterday has certain changes proposed to the act, and then the code itself, the regulations associated with the act, will also have to have some changes in the future. There were changes made to the code in the fall that were worked on by the previous government and brought in in October, I believe, that made improvements for access to and exiting from the buildings, building dimensions and the dimensions of rooms and doors and so forth to make buildings more accessible to the physically challenged in the province.
Yesterday's legislation had a section that will enable the province to bring in a code for existing buildings, and we will be able to work in consultation with groups across the province to develop a code for existing buildings which we will have to address as well, the whole issue of access for the physically challenged.
Mr Malkowski: Do these changes provide accessibility in existing buildings, not just for wheelchair access but for all disabled groups? How does the minister propose to deal with this?
Hon Mr Cooke: First of all, we have to pass the legislation and we will want to have a debate and perhaps even hearings on the proposed legislation. After the legislation is passed, our ministry will want to consult with groups in the province as to how to design the regulations associated with the act so that we can bring in access in existing buildings. We will want to consult with groups associated with the physically challenged as well as the private sector in order to strike that appropriate balance necessary to ensure access to existing buildings in the province.
PLANT CLOSURE IN CORBYVILLE
Mr H. O'Neil: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last Thursday, Corby Distilleries Ltd, located north of Belleville, and I believe in one of the government's ridings, the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, announced it would be closing its Corbyville bottling and blending facility and laying off approximately 170 people. This distillery has been in Corbyville since before Confederation, a total of approximately 132 years. Many of the workers have been there all their working years and it is part of their history and their lives that is being taken away.
Could the minister point out what he has done and is prepared to do to prevent this terrible loss of jobs in Corbyville?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I refer that question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
Hon Mr Pilkey: It is indeed very regrettable that Corby Distilleries made the decision it has. Hiram Walker will close its sales and regional office and there will be a termination of some 85 employees, 44 of whom are in Ontario. The reasons given by the company for making these adjustments are increased taxation, global competition and a reduced demand as a result of changing lifestyles by its particular clients.
If there is some avenue in which we can assist to change this company's decision, we certainly are available to do that. But to be quite frank and open with the member who asked the question, I believe this is a decision the corporation has made and we do not see a direct way in which to affect it particularly, although we wish there were one.
Mr H. O'Neil: The statement of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology reads like he has taken it right from their press release. I guess what I am asking the minister and also the Minister of Labour, because he would have been the first to demand that something be done about a major closing, is where he got his figure of 85. The number is 170 jobs.
I am asking him not to mouth the press release they put out. I am asking the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, along with the Minister of Labour, if he is prepared to call in that company and the union and speak to both of those parties to see if something cannot be done to keep that plant open. What is he going to do?
Hon Mr Pilkey: My understanding is that the officials of the Ministry of Labour have met and are going to see that the appropriate adjustments are made. I am indicating to the questioner that there are market forces that come into play that are the basis of some corporate decisions, and from our perspective this is not a particular instance where government programs can assist. I wish that were the case.
The member who asked the question well knows that we supported companies through the Ontario Development Corp in terms of incentives and loan incentives and other programs where they were deemed to be appropriate and might assist. Due to the change of market conditions and changing lifestyles of the public, it would appear that this is not a particular case in which we can be effective in that sense.
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Mr Cousens: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and minister responsible for race relations. The minister will recall my question of 9 May dealing with the tremendous backlog of cases at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The minister acknowledged that the backlog was a serious matter and that the new case management system that was initiated "obviously...has not worked."
We are now aware of a report commissioned last year by Commissioner Frazee that says the commission's Toronto West office is plagued by racial tension, overworked staff, poor training and internal strife. However, according to this article, Commissioner Frazee felt the report's findings were no longer accurate.
I would like to ask the minister if she supports the commissioner's view of this report and, second, just how much this consultant's report cost the taxpayers of Ontario given that its findings are no longer relevant.
Hon Ms Ziemba: I am glad the member has raised this question because it is really a very important question. Before being elected on 6 September, I was very shocked when I heard rumours that in those particular offices racism existed and even in the human rights commission, because I did not see the government of the day showing any concern or working on rectifying that situation.
We have come into a situation we have inherited that is very serious. I agree with the member. I was seriously considering all the initiatives we can take. I looked into the situation and all of the reports and saw that some of the recommendations made by the various consultant groups commissioned by the previous government have been initiated and done. But we also felt it was not enough, and that is why we introduced the anti-racism strategy to make sure this would not happen again in any other agency, commission, board or any other ministry. That is why it was such an important initiative and that is why we decided to make sure we looked at that.
I am not sure of the exact cost of the previous government's consultant's costs, but I can certainly find out and get back to him.
Mr Cousens: The human rights commission's program purpose is "to create at the community level the climate of understanding and mutual respect in which individuals are made to feel equal in dignity and rights." That was given in the estimates summary of 1991-92. In reality, the human rights commission has a base budget of $12 million a year. It got $3 million allocated to improve its backlog of cases that the minister says is still not working. It has documented funds from its own report that the staff are overworked, stressed out, do not have proper training and fear racial reprisals.
I ask the minister, how in the world can the Ontario Human Rights Commission create a climate of understanding and mutual respect at the community level for the people of Ontario when it cannot even do this within its own administration? Just where is all the money going over there? Does the minister have another consultant's report under way, and could I please have a copy of it?
Hon Ms Ziemba: Those are very good points. Because the previous government had allocated quite an increase in the OHRC's budget, we felt this year that it was not right to do that, and because throwing more money after the case log had not diminished the case log, in fact had done nothing at all, we felt we were not going to do that. We were going to make sure the OHRC worked within a very good mode and made sure it addressed those issues.
Now, we do not have another consultant's report because I feel we have staff within the bureaucracy who can come back. We had several reports that have been tabled over the last number of years and we can follow through with those recommendations. I do not feel the time has come to spend more money on another consultant, so we are looking at the various consultants' reports that have been done over the vast number of years, 15 years, to see how we can implement those recommendations without costing the taxpayers any more money and keeping within the economic restraints as we must do at this particular time.
1510
MOTION
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION
Miss Martel moved that Ms Gigantes be substituted for Mr F. Wilson on the standing committee on administration of justice.
Motion agreed to.
REPORT BY COMMITTEE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr Kormos from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.
The Speaker: Does the member wish to make a brief statement?
Mr Kormos: I thank the members of the opposition parties who generate such cacophonous applause, notwithstanding their small numbers.
Obviously I was not Chair of this committee; the member for Sarnia was Chair of the committee when it did its deliberations and a number of people from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and of course the governing New Democratic Party made significant contributions.
On behalf of the committee, I also want to thank the staff: Harold Brown, the clerk, who made significant contributions, and Lewis Yaeger and Lorraine Luski, both from research, who did a whole lot of hard work.
The report deals with two phenomena here in Ontario: one, the matter of zebra mussels and two, the matter of purple loosestrife. Both of these are matters about which a whole lot of people out there in communities across this province have significant interest. Copies of the report are available in some limited numbers and I invite people to write or call in to obtain copies of that report. It is going to be of particular interest to communities that border on waterways, lakes, rivers, streams. It is also going to be of interest to tourism operators. In addition, the report will be of interest to those people conducting biological or botanical research into those two areas or into similar exotic species.
I also have great anticipation that the government will pay attention to the report and that the Minister of Natural Resources will review its recommendations and give effect to those recommendations, they being sound. Let me tell members something: The problem of zebra mussels did not start on 1 October. It has been around for some chunk of time. It is sad that previous governments never saw fit to deal with it. It fell to this government to conduct an investigation, prepare these recommendations, good recommendations --
Interjections.
Mr Scott: I move that unanimous consent be given to allow the honourable member to continue.
The Speaker: I suppose I should have put a little more stress on the word "brief" when I asked him if he had a brief statement. Has the Chair of the committee completed his brief statement?
On motion by Mr Kormos, the debate was adjourned.
INTRODUCTION OF BILL
MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MINES
Mr Ramsay moved first reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Mining Act.
M. Ramsay propose la première lecture du projet de loi 113, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les mines.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
Mr Ramsay: As I had outlined in my member's statement earlier today, this is a friendly amendment to the new act that will be proclaimed early next week. That is an act that was brought in by our government, and upon looking at the act, we see it is potentially in conflict with the Provincial Parks Act in that the new Mining Act, in defining what a mineral is, deletes sand and gravel from that definition. In the Provincial Parks Act, sand and gravel are included as minerals. Therefore what this act could allow is the excavation of sand and gravel in provincial parks.
I am sure that this government, and certainly the previous government, would not want to see this action take place. As there is some pressure at the moment to do some excavation of sand and gravel in Sleeping Giant Provincial Park in Thunder Bay, we feel this protection should be placed here now.
1520
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon Miss Martel: I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with all of the health professions bills on second reading together as a package.
The Speaker: We require unanimous consent of the House to deal with certain bills all pertaining to the health professions.
Agreed to.
REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES
AUDIOLOGY AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES AUDIOLOGUES ET LES ORTHOPHONISTES
CHIROPODY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PODOLOGUES
CHIROPRACTIC ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES CHIROPRATICIENS
DENTAL HYGIENE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES HYGIÉNISTES DENTAIRES
DENTAL TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS DENTAIRES
DENTISTRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DENTISTES
DENTURISM ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DENTUROLOGUES
DIETETICS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DIÉTÉTISTES
MASSAGE THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES MASSOTHÉRAPEUTES
MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS DE LABORATOIRE MÉDICAL
MEDICAL RADIATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS EN RADIATION MÉDICALE
MEDICINE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES MÉDECINS
MIDWIFERY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES SAGES-FEMMES
NURSING ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INFIRMIÈRES ET INFIRMIERS
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES ERGOTHÉRAPEUTES
OPTICIANRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES OPTICIENS
OPTOMETRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES OPTOMÉTRISTES
PHARMACY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PHARMACIENS
PHYSIOTHERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PHYSIOTHÉRAPEUTES
PSYCHOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PSYCHOLOGUES
RESPIRATORY THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INHALOTHÉRAPEUTES
Ms Lankin moved second reading of Bill 43, An Act respecting the regulation of Health Professions and other matters concerning Health Professions; Bill 44, An Act respecting the regulation of the Professions of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology; Bill 45, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Chiropody; Bill 46, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Chiropractic; Bill 47, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dental Hygiene; Bill 48, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dental Technology; Bill 49, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dentistry; Bill 50, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Denturism; Bill 51, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dietetics; Bill 52, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Massage Therapy; Bill 53, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medical Laboratory Technology; Bill 54, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medical Radiation Technology; Bill 55, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medicine; Bill 56, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Midwifery; Bill 57, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Nursing; Bill 58, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Occupational Therapy; Bill 59, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Opticianry; Bill 60, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Optometry; Bill 61, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Pharmacy; Bill 62, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Physiotherapy; Bill 63, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Psychology, and Bill 64, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Respiratory Therapy.
Mme Lankin propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 43, Loi concernant la réglementation des professions de la santé et d'autres questions relatives aux professions de la santé ; projet de loi 44, Loi concernant la réglementation des professions d'audiologue et d'orthophoniste ; projet de loi 45, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de podologue ; projet de loi 46, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de chiropraticien ; projet de loi 47, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'hygiéniste dentaire ; projet de loi 48, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien dentaire ; projet de loi 49, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de dentiste ; projet de loi 50, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de denturologue ; projet de loi 51, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de diététiste ; projet de loi 52, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de massothérapeute ; projet de loi 53, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien de laboratoire médical ; projet de loi 54, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien en radiation médicale ; projet de loi 55, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de médecin ; projet de loi 56, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de sage-femme ; projet de loi 57, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'infirmière ou d'infirmier ; projet de loi 58, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'ergothérapeute ; projet de loi 59, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'opticien ; projet de loi 60, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'optométriste ; projet de loi 61, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de pharmacien ; projet de loi 62, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de physiothérapeute ; projet de loi 63, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de psychologue ; projet de loi 64, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'inhalothérapeute.
Hon Ms Lankin: I am moving second reading of Bill 43, which is An Act respecting the regulation of Health Professions and other matters concerning Health Professions, and also second reading of Bills 44 to 64, 21 acts respecting the regulation of 24 specific health professions.
Before I carry on, let me take a moment to pay tribute to the former Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre, for her role in introducing this on first reading. May I also take this moment to pay tribute to another former Minister of Health, the member for Oriole, who is here today, who also has played a role with respect to this. May I say that there are probably other former ministers of Health, because in fact the legislative history of this piece of legislation spans three different political parties in government and many years of hard work on behalf of people out there in the community who care about this, people in the Legislature and people in the Ministry of Health, and the staff who are here today who have made a career out of this legislation and are hoping to bring it forward. We are very excited that for the very first time it has actually got to second reading. Let's hope this is an omen and we will be able to carry through.
With this legislation, the public will have a louder, clearer voice than ever before on how our health care system operates. Members of the public will work as partners with health care providers on discipline committee panels and governing councils and regulator colleges to assure Ontarians that the care they receive is of the best quality. I am looking forward to hearing the advice of lay people who will make up the new Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council.
Health professionals also benefit from this legislation. The closer working relationship between themselves and the public will help to create an environment of understanding and trust between the two. It would appear the trust is in need of rebuilding.
Two days ago, the task force on sexual abuse of patients presented its preliminary report and recommendations to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The council has already carried out the first recommendation by confirming its commitment to the philosophy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse. The Ministry of Health also has a zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse, whether committed by a physician or any other care giver.
Over the coming weeks, we will be studying the task force's recommendations, some of which are addressed to the Ministry of Health and include suggestions for amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act and procedural code. We will be discussing these recommendations with the task force, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and with other groups. It is our goal to enact a law that will deter sexual abuse, bring abusers to justice and treat victims with greater sensitivity and respect.
The system of how we receive health service is on the verge of extraordinary change in the quality and the choice of services we receive. For the very first time, every regulated profession must have a program to ensure that its members are competent and provide quality care. We can also expect a wider choice of health care services. Eight health professions, all of them predominantly female, are being added to the current list of fully self-regulated professions.
For health professionals, this will mean opportunities to work on teams with other professionals they may never have worked with before and where all members are equally important to the task of keeping patients healthy. The new dialogue will result in learning and growing experiences for health professionals in a health care system that will serve the needs of Ontario's citizens better than ever before.
Among the new choices being offered consumers with this legislation is a choice in how childbirth is conducted. Those who want to be cared for by midwives during pregnancy, labour and delivery will have that option. The inclusion of midwives in this legislative package represents a change in policy direction set by the Ontario Legislature a little more than a century ago. It was in 1865 that midwives lost the exemption from the Medicine Act that had made it possible for them to practice midwifery without a licence to practice medicine.
The Midwifery Act included in this legislative package gives legal recognition to midwives. This reversal in policy is largely due to the efforts of hundreds of individual women and a smaller number of practising midwives who through public education, lobbying and education of other health professionals demonstrated the need and the consumer demand for midwives. Thanks to them, women will soon have the choice of obtaining care from a midwife, a choice available to women virtually everywhere except in Canada.
It should not have been so difficult for these women to bring about change, and it should not have taken so long. That it did take so long demonstrates the lack of input women and indeed the entire public have had in the health care system. People ought to have a say in the kind of health care they get and how health care is provided to them. With this legislation, which will make future policy-making flexible to change and be responsive to public opinion, it will be possible for their voices to be heard.
As the legislation continues through the legislative process, I would like to extend an invitation to the public and to professional groups in Ontario to take part in the committee hearings that I will ask for after the House debate. I am particularly looking forward to hearing from interested members of the public, since over the years of this legislation's evolution most of the consultations with both my ministry and with previous ministers of Health have been dominated by professional groups. I will be asking the committee to make special efforts to hear from those consumers who wish to make their submissions.
Mr Phillips: I am pleased to participate in the debate on second reading of this important series of bills, and I would just take a moment to congratulate, as well as the minister, all the people who have been involved in getting it to this stage. I think, if I am not mistaken, that eight ministers of Health over three different series of administrations have been involved. I hope the House will not mind if I particularly recognize my colleague the member for Oriole in that this is, as I think we will find out when we get to the public hearings, not an easy matter, for a couple of reasons. One is that this issue is extremely important and people care deeply about it, and second, the various professions have a very major stake in how this legislation is in the final analysis crafted and enacted.
1530
I particularly want to recognize my colleague, the former minister and the member for Oriole, in that I know to get to this stage required an enormous amount of work, balancing a variety of interests. The bills were introduced for first reading almost exactly a year ago; I think it was 6 June that the previous legislation, which is very similar to what we see before us, was introduced. I know how much effort was involved in getting it there, but I also want to congratulate all the Ministry of Health staff and the various health professionals who have helped shape it to the position it is in now.
As I say, we will find this an extremely important series of bills. It will in a very major way bring the health services into this century, and hopefully will give us a foundation for the next century. It is fair to say that it will indeed provide the public with a substantially improved measure of protection. I think the establishment of the new colleges in a more open process for public participation will prove to be extremely important and also will enhance public protection.
Also, it is clear to everyone who looks at the health field now that the way health will be delivered in the years ahead is very different than we have seen in the past. There are competent, professional health givers out there who need what this will provide: regulations, the scope of practice, and necessary definitions of quality of service and the areas that they can and cannot practise in.
When we look at the series of health providers, these acts will now regulate 24 different professions, each of which provides valuable and important service. This is an important step forward in backing up what all of us believe in, that community-based health care is going to be a cornerstone of our effective health care system in the future.
Health care should not be a dollar-and-cents issue, but none the less I am quick to recognize that our health budget is under stress and strain. The ministers and all of us know it now occupies a third of our provincial budget. It has been growing far more rapidly than the rest of the budget, and that pressure is not going to ease in the years ahead. By the regulation of a broader scope of professions, it will be helpful in managing our health care system.
There can be no mistake that these bills are extremely important for the future health care in the province, and therefore we are pleased that we now have them before us for second reading.
We in the official opposition look forward to a quite extensive debate at the committee stage. As the minister quite correctly pointed out, the public to a very large extent has not been involved in this as yet. We have not heard from consumers, the public, who after all have a stake in this. Indeed, we have not necessarily heard from the rank and file of the health professions. We have heard from the leadership of the health professions, but I think it is important that we hear in committee from the rank and file.
Each of the members in the Legislature, and certainly those members on the committee, will find that while there is no question there is broad support for proceeding with this, we all are going to be inundated -- and I think that may be an understatement -- with each profession having some suggestions for improvement, and they will be strongly felt because the members will find that each profession believes -- thank goodness they believe this -- that it is perhaps best able to deal with certain areas and that therefore its scope should be enhanced or expanded.
Make no mistake, we have now reached another stage in this process. But in many respects the hard work will begin, because it will be up to the members on that committee to sift through the various proposals that will come before it, to sort out in the end what makes the most sense for the health of this province and to try and shape the final recommendations that will come back to this House.
It is obvious as well that there will be some unregulated groups who have some concerns. The committee will find that many of the clergy and social workers in the province have already expressed some concerns. It is going to be important for the committee to listen to those concerns and to ensure that particularly those two groups are comforted with the final bills. Certainly it was the feeling when we looked at the diagnostic section that the clergy and the social workers should not be apprehensive of it. But having said that, they still are. So one of the jobs of the committee will be to listen to those extremely important groups and find a way that they are able to feel comfort with the final product of this work.
We will also find that on the other side are some fairly strongly held feelings that what was called the harm provision, which the minister has indicated it is not her intention to proceed with, causes some of the professions some considerable concern as well, the removal of that harm provision. The minister of the day in her remarks, not today but introducing this at first reading, indicated that it was her feeling that the harm provision was not necessary. That, as the minister will know, is not necessarily shared by everyone. So at the committee we will be looking to ensure that if the harm provision is not there, there are the necessary safeguards for some of the professions that worry about individuals practising in areas they are not competent to practise in.
The areas I wanted to cover I have perhaps covered now that there is no question that there is broad support for this legislation. There is no question that it is extremely important and that once properly framed and amended as we work our way through it, it will be an extremely important set of laws to guide our health care system in the future.
There is no question that many of the new professions that are going to be regulated under this should be regulated and will benefit from it. The minister mentioned in her remarks that midwives will be regulated. But in addition, I think there are six other groups that previously were not regulated that will be: the dental hygienists, the dietitians, midwives, as I said, occupational therapists, audiologists and speech-language people, and respiratory technologists.
In addition, we will have for the first time a common set of regulations involving all of the professions. We will have much more broadly publicly based participation in the colleges, which is important. We will have, as I say, a common set of guidelines for each of these professions, and a recognition that there is not a hierarchy of professions. Each of these 24 professions plays an equally important role, some larger than others, some occupying a larger part of the health care budget than others, but each in its own way plays an equally important role.
Therefore, I am looking forward to this heading to the public hearings over the summer months. I hope the committee would also find a way to be travelling the province, to not just focus these hearings in Toronto, because when these laws are finally passed it will, believe me, deeply impact people right across the province.
As the minister said in her opening remarks, I think we have only to look at the report that was presented this week to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to see the importance these colleges will play in the future, to see the importance of opening the colleges up to a more public participation and a more public scrutiny.
1540
As I said earlier, we should and we will anticipate an awful lot of input from the various groups. The members should also anticipate that some of the groups that were not proposed for regulation perhaps will still be looking for that, and that is understandable. The minister in her announcement at first reading dealt with the naturopaths, and that was probably the right move, to have that group looked at and to have the new health professions committee look at how and when those could be regulated. But there will be other groups as well that will no doubt be appearing before the committee. We are fortunate in the amount of work that has already been done in looking at this area. As I say, I think we have now been eight years at it. Mr Schwartz, I believe, did an awful lot of the legwork along with a large input from various staff and various public.
We are now at the stage where we take it to the public, where we can now move it into the field where the consumers can at last have their say in it. So on behalf of the official opposition I look forward to a very lively debate at committee -- I think that is the logical place for it to take place -- a good exchange and an opportunity to improve the bill, because I can almost guarantee it is not perfect and there are opportunities for improvement. It will be a lot of work, because every group has a major stake in it professionally and in terms of the role they want to play in the future health care of the province.
Having said all of that, it has to be one of the more important things we will deal with. If there is one thing that sets Ontario and indeed Canada apart, it is the quality of our health care system, as all of us know and appreciate. This will provide a very important improvement in the health care of the province. I look forward to seeing this approved at second reading and moving on to the committee stage.
Mr Eves: It is my pleasure on behalf of our party to rise and participate in the second reading debate on what I still -- I guess I have been around here too long -- refer to as HPLR legislation.
We have supported the regulation of health care professionals and this approach for some period of time; since 1982 to be exact. I think the point the member for Scarborough-Agincourt makes is very well received, that of course the ultimate factor or principle we have to be guided by in terms of this legislation is protection for the public as well as regulation of health care professionals. We obviously have to have some pretty full and deliberate public consultation after second reading of these numerous pieces of legislation to achieve our goal.
It was the Davis government, of course, that introduced the health professions legislation review in 1982. Alan Schwartz was appointed at that point in time to examine Ontario's health care professions legislation and to recommend a new regulatory system which would provide better protection to consumers or to the public, allow consumers more choice from a larger range of health care options that are out there in today's world, and also encourage the most use of the skills that health care providers have and of health resources in the province. I think the comments that have been made both by the minister and by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt have struck on those factors.
The recommendations of the review called Striking A New Balance: A Blueprint for Regulation of Ontario's Health Care Professions were released in January 1989. As the minister has said, I believe, the current statutory regulatory patchwork is certainly not a very consistent set of circumstances at all. Of the 18 health professions that are now regulated by statute, five are governed by a 1925 statute, the Drugless Practitioners Act, six by the Health Disciplines Act, and seven by six different individual statutes dating as far back as 1944, hardly, I think, what we would consider a very satisfactory state of affairs in the health care system in the province today in 1991.
I think that, of course, now we have reached the stage of our deliberations where it is time that the public receive the opportunity to exercise a freedom of choice within the health care system that has a range of safe options for all members of the public. We certainly are interested in working together with the other two parties in the Legislature and interested parties from various health care professions and members of the public through the committee process to ensure that the legislation meets the goal we want it to meet.
I think it might be a little helpful if we talked a little bit about the patchwork system that exists today, how we got to where we are, and hopefully where we want to go and how we want to get there.
As I said, currently eight different statutes regulate 18 health care professions. This new legislation will bring forward 24 health care professions into a uniform regulatory system, including seven professions that are currently unregulated: audiologists, dietitians, medical laboratory technologists, midwives, occupational therapists, respiratory technologists and speech-language pathologists. Four, as I have indicated, are regulated by the Drugless Practitioners Act of 1925: chiropractors, massage therapists, osteopaths and physiotherapists. Seven are now regulated by individual statutes and there are six that are currently regulated by the Health Disciplines Act.
Under the new legislation it is proposed that each profession will have a college which will govern the profession in accordance with its health professionals' act and the health professions procedural code. The bill provides that potentially harmful health care activities, known as controlled acts, may only be performed by appropriate, regulated health care professionals. The controlled acts are set out in, I believe, subsection 26(2) of the legislation.
There are some exceptions to the controlled acts that are set out, and further exceptions can be prescribed by regulation. The act restricts the use of the title "doctor" in the course of providing health care, to chiropractors, dentists, optometrists, physicians and psychologists. Controlled acts that each health care profession is authorized to perform are set out in the Health Professions Act. There are 13 categories of controlled acts.
The act establishes a Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council to provide advice to the Minister of Health on matters concerning the regulation of any health profession. The Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council will be composed of persons who are not health professionals. The Health Disciplines Board is to be continued as the Health Professions Board with an expanded membership.
Procedural code is set out by schedule. It contains the main structural and procedural elements of the regulatory system, including registration, complaints, discipline and incapacity procedures in college bylaw and regulation making authority. The procedural code requires the council of every regulatory college to establish a quality assurance program within three years of proclamation of each health professional act.
1550
The bill is accompanied by 22 individual acts covering health professions to be regulated. Some are grouped together under one piece of legislation. These acts, as proposed, outline but do not license the profession's scope of practice, its authorized controlled acts and composition of its councils and committees.
As I indicated, the current statutory patchwork offers no uniform system of regulatory control and is difficult, at best, to update. There has been considerable pressure to change the existing regulatory framework, both from members of the public who lack confidence in the current complaints and disciplinary processes and from regulated and unregulated professions which realize that the system is awkward, at best.
In 1982 the health professions legislation review was created to examine Ontario's health care professions legislation and to recommend a new regulatory system which would provide better protection of the public and consumers, allow consumers more choice from a larger range of safe health care options, and encourage efficient use.
The following criteria were used to select the professions which were to be regulated, and this is still a subject matter of some contention out there. I believe there were 75 groups, if my memory serves me correctly, which sought to be recognized as health care professional groups, and only some 24 are being brought in under this umbrella legislation that we are talking about today. I am sure we will hear from some of the others during the course of our committee deliberations because we have heard from them for some months if not years now in some cases. I can speak from personal experience about that.
The following criteria were used to select professions to be regulated, and I think perhaps it is important that some of these groups out there and members of the public understand this: (1) Responsibility for the profession falls within the mandate of the Ministry of Health; (2) regulation is necessary because the profession's activities pose a risk of harm to patients, the profession's members are not supervised by another regulated profession, or there is no other mechanism to regulate the profession; (3) the profession has a body of knowledge that can form the basis for standards of practice; and (4) the profession is able to regulate itself, in that its leaders are able to favour public interest over professional self-interest, its members will comply with professional standards and rules, and its members are willing to bear the cost of self-regulation.
The previous government introduced this act and accompanying pieces of legislation into the Legislative Assembly on 6 June 1990, as has been stated by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. The most noticeable difference between the health professions legislation introduced by the current government and that by the former government, I think it is fair to say, is the title. The Health Professions Regulation Act, as it was referred to by the previous government, is now called the Regulated Health Professions Act by the current government.
The former Minister of Health claimed that amendments would be enacted to increase public membership on governing councils when the legislation was introduced. One question I have is why these feature amendments were not included in the legislation that is being tabled here this afternoon, seeing that obviously the government decided some weeks if not months ago that that was going to be its intention.
The only other question I have, I would say at the outset, about the legislation is why the government has not taken the initiative to include naturopaths in this legislation being tabled today. There was some talk about this under the previous government and it just was not ready to proceed, but we are here now today one year later almost to the day, within a week of one year later, from when this legislation was introduced by the former government, and I would have thought that one year would have been more than enough time to include naturopaths in the legislation. As it stands now, the advisory council will give advice on its scope of practice and any controlled acts after the legislation is passed.
Another aspect that I do not think we have really touched upon is the financial impact of the legislation. While that is certainly not first and foremost with respect to provision of health care in the province, it is at least a concern. So far I have not seen any estimates as to what it is going to cost to implement the legislation. The advisory council is apparently going to be a continuous committee, and we would ask that the government provide the Legislature with details as to what this continuous committee activity is going to cost and whether or not indeed it is going to be necessary for the committee to be continuous. It is also going to incur some costs, of course, with respect to those professions, to establish regulatory colleges along with regulation complaints, discipline and incapacity procedures.
We look forward to working with all interested groups throughout the committee process to hear any concerns with respect to this very significant legislation. A number of groups have already expressed concern with the controlled acts, in that some are not listed in enough detail.
There are still a number of so-called turf battles going on that are causing health care providers considerable concern, not to mention members of the public. A number of unregulated practitioners have raised a number of points over the past year, and valid points, I think. They are not certain that the legislation is not intended to prevent alternative and unregulated health providers from practising, so I think we have to address those matters, and I am sure that we will be able to do that during the committee process.
There were two particular clauses, as I can recall, that these health care providers, some of whom have formed a coalition of unregulated practitioners, had some problems with, as I understand it. One was the harm clause, which was talked about. To be fair to the government and to be fair to the minister and the people in the Ministry of Health, I think that some of these unregulated practitioners have changed their minds a couple of times with respect to the harm clause. Initially there was some pressure brought to bear that the harm clause be removed. That has been done. Now there is some pressure being brought to bear, because I think they have sought legal advice in some cases and seem to be getting input back that without a harm clause they may be worse off legally than they would have been with a harm clause, and perhaps they would like to see a restructured harm clause reinserted in the act, if anybody can dream up valid enough and practical enough and legal enough wording --
Ms Gigantes: Good luck.
Mr Eves: One former minister says "No one," and I am sure that --
Ms Gigantes: I said "Good luck."
Mr Eves: Good luck. That is almost the same thing, and that may well be the case.
The other clause is the diagnostic or diagnosis clause, and this coalition of unregulated practitioners has at least talked to me -- and I am sure that they have expressed these same concerns to the minister, previous ministers and Health critics present -- that they would prefer to see the diagnosis clause in some more, I guess, exact or specific definition with respect to each of the regulated health care professions. Whether or not that is within the realm of practical possibility and working out, I do not know, but I am sure we will hear more of that concern during the committee deliberation process.
Nurses are rightly concerned that their controlled acts do not cover all of their duties in emergency situations and remote settings.
A number of professions have expressed concern with the restriction of the use of the title "doctor."
There are also possible problems if a college and an arbitration hearing come up with conflicting judgements or decisions.
Dentists are concerned that the controlled act regarding the use of prescribed forms of energy has not been extended to their profession, as laser treatment is now quite common. They have also asserted that the design and construction of dental devices should be a controlled act within the legislation.
Retail optical outlets are concerned that without a definition of "dispensing" there is no certainty as to what the government intends to control and therefore is to be limited to the professions of opticians and what is permitted to be done by their unregulated assistants.
A number of these concerns have been raised, and I think it is very important that all interested groups will now have an opportunity to make their viewpoint known and talked about during committee deliberations. I am sure that we on this side of the House, in our party, and from listening to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and the minister before me, can work together in a constructive atmosphere to take this first step with respect to regulation of health care professionals, all health care professionals, in the province and help in our own small way to make the health care system in the province a somewhat more efficient and responsive regulation process than it is today.
1600
Hon Ms Lankin: Just in response, briefly, I appreciate the comments of support. In fact, I feel fortunate, as a minister bringing forward her first bill for second reading, that there is three-party support. I think that is because it has been around for 10 years and it has been through three parties' administrations.
Just a couple of comments. With respect to the naturopaths, I understand the comment the member made, but as I understand the history of this, there was not an agreement that came out of the review with respect to the scope of practice for that professional group, and there needs to be an objective review of that. The advisory council is a place where that can take place once the legislation is in place. There has not been the opportunity for that objective review to take place since the tabling of the review itself.
The member mentioned the amendments regarding the numbers, and why did we not bring them forward at this point in time? We have not had a chance to actually consult with the colleges in order to rework the numbers, and what we want to do is make sure we have the confidence of the colleges that the numbers will be workable and the balance will be workable, but we are committed to bringing those forward and, through the committee process, to ensuring that we have a full debate about that enhanced role for the public.
Also, with respect to the costs of the advisory council, I will undertake to have those numbers available for discussion when we move to committee on this; as much as can be predicted, of course, at this point in time. I think it is important to know that there is going to be value to the system and it will make the cost worth while. I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt spoke to that in his remarks with respect to our ability to have flexibility in the delivery of health care services. This legislation removes barriers to that in many ways, so some of the costs will be cost avoidances, and the improved health care delivery will be difficult to quantify, but to the best of our ability I will try and have those numbers available for the committee to look at.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Parry Sound, you have two minutes to reply, if you so wish.
Mr Eves: I do not think I will require two minutes, Mr Speaker. I thank the minister for her comments. The only point of contention or disagreement, if you want to even call it that -- I would not go so far as to call it that -- is that I think the naturopaths feel that during the past year perhaps something could have been done. Perhaps that is water under the bridge. I do appreciate the fact that there was an event that took place in the province last 6 September. Events do change and sometimes ministers change.
I hope their concerns will be seriously addressed, because I think they have to be.
Mr Owens: I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak on the Regulated Health Professions Act. This very important piece of legislation will accomplish two goals: (1) it will open up what to date has been a very rigid and hierarchical process and system of health care delivery; (2) it will provide a high level of consumer protection and public accountability.
This issue has been around the government and successive governments since 1982, when a review body, the health professions legislation review, was set up to recommend ways of providing better consumer protection, to give consumers a wider range of services to choose from and to encourage the efficient use of the skills which health care providers possess. This group was led by Alan Schwartz, who is now considered to be the father of this legislation.
There are currently 18 health professions that are regulated by eight different acts. Some of these acts date back as far as 1944. The way in which our consumers choose their medical practitioners has certainly changed since that time. This system is clearly outdated and badly in need of reform.
Reformation will take place by adding seven new professions -- audiology, medical laboratory technologists, occupational therapists, midwives, respiratory therapists and speech-language pathologists -- and placing all regulated professions under one umbrella piece of legislation. Naturopaths, which the member for Parry Sound was just referring to, will continue to be regulated under current legislation until their scope of practice can be set out. Once this has been accomplished, then they will have their own act under the Regulated Health Professions Act.
One of the most important goals of this legislation is one that I addressed earlier. That is public accountability. We are seeking to find a balance between the independence of trained professionals and accountability, which consumers badly need.
Accountability will be increased in the following manner: raising the number of public members on councils and committees; opening up of discipline hearings and complaint reviews to the public; giving greater public access to college registers; requiring colleges to file annual reports with the Ministry of Health and, finally, publication of disciplinary decisions and the reasons for those decisions.
Through the implementation of changes such as these, those people who have provided an excellent standard of care will be able to continue to do so with more freedom and with professional recognition of their years of training and hard work.
In my past life, prior to my election to this House, I was employed at the Toronto General Hospital, now known as the Toronto Hospital Corp. During this time I had the pleasure of working with two of the groups that will now be given professional recognition -- medical laboratory technologists and respiratory therapists. These two professions require their members to undergo rigorous academic and clinical training before they are allowed to go near a patient. Further, once these folks have earned their professional designations, continuing education is provided through groups such as the Canadian Society of Laboratory Technologists and the Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists.
Medical laboratory technologists, among others, will have their own college and council to regulate their standards of practice. There will also be a complaints committee, a discipline committee, a fitness-to-practise committee and a quality assurance committee. There will be not only practitioners on these committees but also consumers. It will be the presence of these consumers, working in conjunction with the practitioners, that will ensure a continuing standard of excellence.
The final issue I would like to address is that this legislation will also give women choices with respect to who attends the birth of their children. Women will now have the legal choice to have a midwife in attendance, rather than having to follow traditional methods. Women will no longer have to place another person in potential legal jeopardy by having a midwife in attendance at the birth of their child.
Further, this legislation will recognize the important role women play in health care. Most practitioners in these seven newly regulated professions are women, and it is time to recognize their contributions to health care and the excellence of practice.
To summarize, this legislation will provide enhanced consumer protection and public accountability, as well as provide consumers with a wider range of health care services. I look forward to the public hearings. I look forward to working with the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and whoever the person from the third party sitting on the standing committee for social development will be during these hearings.
I further look forward to visiting the four corners of the province, where the consultations will be carried out with consumers and the health care providers. I would like to take this opportunity to thank our minister, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, for introducing this legislation, and also a tip of the hat to the member for Ottawa Centre for bringing forward this legislation earlier in the legislative session.
1610
Mrs Caplan: I am very pleased to rise and participate in this debate. I had the opportunity of reviewing Hansard of 6 June 1990. It has been alluded to before in the discussions today, and I wanted to thank the Minister of Health for her kind comments, as well as my colleague, our critic, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, for his very kind comments about my participation in this legislation.
I thought, if I might, I would take this opportunity to make some comments, some of which will be similar to that which I said in June 1990 and others which were unsaid. I realize that this may be the only opportunity I have to comment on this piece of legislation.
I have the unique experience of having put in, as Minister of Health, some 350 hours of meeting time and discussion over the course of three years with the groups and individuals with interests in this, as well as working with a very fine cadre of ministry officials who had been working on this for a very extended period of time.
As Chairman of the standing committee on social development -- it will be that committee over the course of the next few months that will be scrutinizing the bill -- it will be my role to see that this committee is conducted in a fair, impartial manner so that all can be heard in the proper parliamentary procedures. I do not intend to actively participate in the debate at committee, so with everyone's indulgence, I would like to take a few minutes now and perhaps even do a little bit of musing.
Yes, this review of Ontario health professions began almost a decade ago. It was in 1982 that the then Minister of Health, Larry Grossman, the member at the time for St Andrew-St Patrick, commissioned Alan Schwartz to begin the review. The story I heard about why that review began was that Mr Grossman, as Minister of Health, was spending upwards of 40% of his time attempting to arbitrate, meet with and discuss the real, serious issues that were intraprofessional as well as profession-specific.
It seemed that all of the professions at that time, as well as the public, who wanted to see a more open process, greater public accountability, more consumer protection, that everyone at that time in 1982 had dissatisfaction with the regulatory regime for the self-governing and self-regulating of Ontario health professions. So the minister at the time, Mr Grossman, commissioned Mr Schwartz, gave him a very clear mandate and said to him that he would like a report in 18 months, because he was anxious to see this resolved.
That was the story I was aware of as, some eight years after that, I was confronted with the Schwartz review, and it was to myself that the final report was delivered. Here we are, and it will be a full decade before this legislation is actually proclaimed, a full 10 years after the review was begun in 1982.
It is, I believe, unique in the fact that it was as extensive and as consultative as it was, and what we see before us in an extensive, complex and extremely interesting package of legislation is, I think, an example of the kind of consensus that can be achieved when all of the special interests involved believe that something will happen if they do not participate.
I was very pleased to have had the opportunity, at a meeting of Interhealth, to ask each and every one of the groups present, those that were being included in this package of legislation, if they thought the legislation should move forward with all of its imperfections, because everyone agreed that in fact he had concerns about the legislation. It was not just a consensus but unanimous that the package should move forward into the legislative process after a decade of debate and discussion between the professions and with a succession of now eight ministers of Health.
So here we are. I believe this is the primary view that has been expressed by the minister, and that is protection of the public in the provision of health services, as well as to create an environment among the health professions which will allow them to work together as co-operatively as possible, to ensure that the professions are accountable to the public fully, that consumers have greater choice, that people will be able to decide on the basis of knowledge who can provide what services and how those services can then be accessed in Ontario.
That the professions will be held accountable through their governing councils I think is an extremely important part of this legislation. People have been asking for more open investigative and disciplinary processes within those governing bodies, and the one thing that occurred to me over the three years that I served as Minister of Health was how little the people of Ontario, the consumers, understood how the professions governed themselves, how few people understood the process of self-governing and self regulating.
I would say to the minister and to the government that this is, I believe, also a time of real opportunity. In her opening comments the minister said she hoped the consumers would come forward to the committee and participate in the discussion and the debates. I would say to her that the consumer associations have been very active over the years in advocating for consumer interests.
The concern I have is that there is a great need for public education. There is a great opportunity now for this government to show leadership, to see that this information is provided to consumers, so that there can be the balance of different interests. In fact, it is interesting to note that Mr Schwartz's report was called Striking A New Balance and that the balance of interests between the rights of the individual professional, the rights of the professions and the rights of the consumer is really the essence of what this legislation is all about.
The legislation has gone through numerous name changes and I think that is significant. At the beginning it was called the health professions legislation review, referred to as HPLR for a long time. When the acts were tabled almost a year ago now, the package was called the Health Professions Regulation Act, HPRA. I found it quite significant. I would like people to think about this, particularly as we go through committee hearings, and because what is proposed is framework legislation for self-regulating and self-governing health professions in the province of Ontario.
The name change to the Regulated Health Professions Act is very significant and could add confusion to the public mind and suggest to the public that in fact we do not have a self-regulating framework and a self-governing framework but we have a framework potentially being developed which could lead to far more government intervention and government intrusion than has been proposed.
I am concerned about that because of the philosophy of the governing party, which has always opposed a self-regulating and self-governing professional framework. I am pleased that this is moving forward in a self-regulating, self-governing framework model which has been developed over a period of 10 years, but I am concerned that the name change to the Regulated Health Professions Act signals a change in the status and the relationship of the professions with the government.
I want that on the record and I hope that as the debate continues there will be some assurance that what is intended is a self-regulating, self-governing model so that the public of Ontario will know that is the professional status that is being accorded to the professions, and that the professions as self-governing, self-regulating bodies will then stand publicly accountable and discipline their members and the professional status that has been accorded to them will be because of their ability to convince the government and the health professions advisory body that they are competent to deliver services, that they are mature enough to be able to be a self-governing and self regulating body.
The next point I would like to make is that the other thing this legislative framework does is it achieves equality among the professions. I think that is a very important point that should not be overlooked.
I wanted to say that the primary goal of this legislation is to better serve and protect the public interest. Including for the very first time in a piece of legislation the obligation for the professions to engage in quality assurance, ongoing competency and mandatory continuing education is one of the most positive aspects of this bill and the aspect of the bill that will ensure public protection when individuals are making informed choices about accessing professionals to provide health services.
As I said, the level of consensus among the professions, often called the stakeholders, is remarkable. I believe there is a real need for the public to more fully understand what is being proposed and I would urge the minister and the government to ensure that this opportunity for extensive public hearings and public education is not lost.
1620
I am not going to go into any of the specifics of the pieces of legislation. My colleague our Health critic has done a very able and excellent job. I worked very closely with the Health critic from the Conservative Party and his knowledge of the legislation is also excellent. Both critics in fact raise a couple of issues that I would like to comment on in the time I have available to me.
I believe there are some who have concerns about this legislation, and those concerns should be fully debated at the committee. I said on 6 June that it was not our intention to in any way impede the important work of social workers or clergy or other unregulated health professionals from carrying on their important work. I believe that this legislation, through the committee process, can ensure that in fact the legitimate work they do is not impeded.
It was my view that the harm clause or the basket clause could have been reworked at committee so that we could have had that balance to give comfort. I know the former minister said that would be deleted. I think there will be a lot of discussion around that. I know my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, our Health critic, has pointed out that there is a great debate raging on whether or not there should be a harm clause and whether it is possible to achieve one in the legislation that would satisfy the public interest. I was confident that it was possible and I hope the minister will look very seriously at what everyone has to say about this during the discussions.
I think much can also be achieved that is in the public interest and yet, through appropriate exemption, give comfort to those who have concerns. I hope that during the committee process the minister will, on the record, make commitments as to what exemptions will be put forward. For example, just one that comes to mind is acupuncture, for which it will be necessary to formulate a regulation. I think it will be important for those kinds of issues to be fully discussed at the committee as well.
Similarly, there is concern by some in the disabled community that personal care attendants not be impacted by some of the controlled acts. We made that commitment and I am sure the new minister will follow through on that. I think it is important that the disabled community take comfort that this act is to give consumers more choice to receive competent care. It was our facility that health professionals should be able to provide services which they are well trained, educated and competent to deliver. We also do not believe that this act should be a barrier to anyone accessing services from someone who is competent to be able to deliver the services. I think that stands as a general principle.
I would comment, again, that there are some principles that should be restated. I think there is a real opportunity for greater public participation. Mr Schwartz had recommended that the governing councils, the colleges, have one third public members. I hope there will be some debate over what the change in that balance will mean.
Ultimately what is important in the public interest will be the accountability by the professions, by the professionals, to the public, and for them to understand fully that this framework legislation empowers the professions to act in the public interest. It grants status. It grants, in some cases, economic monopoly. That is why there are very many often-referred-to turf issues between the professions. There are interprofessional rivalries which we will hear when we come before committee. I do not think anyone will believe that he has everything he wants. When I say everyone, I am talking about the professions that are impacted by this legislation. It is my hope that we will always remember, as we go through the debate and the discussion of this historic package of legislation, that the primary and overriding interest must always be the public interest. I believe that is possible.
I cannot stress enough the need for public education if the public interest is to be given the supremacy that it should have.
I want to thank all of those people who have spoken to this point, and I know that when I thank them I thank them because all the debate has been so positive. I think there are many features of this bill which will generate some very heated debate, and I think that is appropriate. As I said, it seemed to me today that this would be the only opportunity I would have, not to criticize the bill but to put on the record some of the concerns that I have and to also express the fact that I am looking forward to the committee hearings as Chairman of the committee.
I will pledge at this time, as someone who has such an interest in this package of legislation because of the work in the past, to do the very best I can to ensure that all interested persons fairly have an opportunity to be heard. I hope that the public hearings will be extensive. Further, I predict that this package of legislation will be living legislation, that it will not be perfect at any point through the legislative process, simply by the very nature of being landmark and new.
My advice to the minister is to expect, as soon as it is passed, to have requests for changes, amendments and regulations. I think that is appropriate. I think it is also appropriate, given the fact that there have been three governments, three parties and eight ministers who have all looked at this. In my musings I can tell members that each new minister who arrived would probably have said what I said, and that is, "Why would I want to do this now when there are so many other things that I might want to do instead?" Each one would look at it as I did to see that this was significant work, significant energy, the kind of principles that would in fact enhance the delivery of health services, not just enhancing professional interest but enhancing the public interest, that this work was worthy and deserving of the heated debate, the discussion, the energy that it will require.
I wish the minister good luck. She is not going to have an easy time of this one. There are many, many interests at stake, but I do believe that we will see the successful completion of this bill in a timely manner.
1630
Mrs Witmer: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I speak to this bill today. Before I begin, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all those people who have for the past 10 years been involved with this legislation. I would like to pay particular tribute today to the Minister of Health, who is here with us, for the leadership she has provided and also express my appreciation to the former ministers of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Oriole, for the work they have done.
As has been pointed out, our party has supported regulation of health professionals to ensure public protection for almost a decade. It was the Davis government that initiated the health professions legislation review committee in 1982. This bill has certainly had a very long gestation period. However, it is obvious that there is a significant amount of consensus, because all three parties have continued with the review and it has been able to survive three separate governments.
The 1982 health professions legislation review that was created by the Ontario PC Party was created to examine Ontario's health professions legislation and it was to recommend a new regulatory system. The goals were this: At that time, the PC Party wanted to broaden the access to health care, it wanted to provide better protection for consumers, it wanted to allow consumers more choice from a large range of safe health care options, and it wanted to encourage the most efficient possible use of the skills of the health providers and of health resources. We were certainly pleased that the recommendations of this 1982 review were finally released in January 1989.
This new bill is going to bring 24 health professions, with all of the responsibilities that are inherent to a profession, into a uniform regulatory system, including seven professions that are currently unregulated.
Our party is very committed to working with all of these interested parties through the committee process to ensure that this legislation does indeed give the public the opportunity to exercise freedom of choice of health care providers within a range of safe options. I was very pleased to hear the minister say today that she was looking forward to this bill going to committee for full public consultation. That is certainly necessary. It has taken 10 years to bring it this far, and I am sure that each one of us here in the House has been receiving phone calls and visits from people in our community and in the province who certainly have a vested interest in this new bill.
In looking at the new legislation, the only noticeable difference that I did see was the change in the title between that introduced by the NDP and the Liberals. However, one of the concerns that has been brought to my attention is that people such as naturopaths, psychologists and social workers are disappointed because they were not included in the legislation.
I would like also to share at this time some of the other concerns that have been expressed to me about the proposed legislation, and I would like to stress again the importance of all of these people with concerns at some time participating in the committee process so that they can share their concerns.
As has been pointed out, this legislation is going to have a very significant financial impact and it is going to be extremely important that the government does provide us with some estimates as to what it is going to cost, because the public does have the right to know how much more it is going to be paying for health care in this province.
There is also some concern about the cost for the professions to establish the regulatory colleges, along with registration, complaints, discipline and incapacity procedures.
Nurses have expressed their concern to me that their controlled acts do not cover all of their duties in emergency situations and remote settings.
A number of professions have expressed their concern with the restriction of the title "doctor."
There has also been a concern expressed that problems could arise if a college and an arbitration hearing come up with conflicting judgements.
As has been pointed out by the member for Parry Sound, dentists are concerned that the controlled act regarding the use of prescribed forms of energy has not been extended to their profession, since laser treatment is now quite common.
There is also some concern about the definition of a controlled act. I have received several letters from my constituents regarding Bill 44, which makes it illegal for a consumer to obtain a hearing aid from a dispenser without a prescription from an audiologist. It is important to note that there are less than 150 audiologists in this province. Unfortunately, it appears that this legislation could eliminate access and choice for consumers, especially those people in rural and isolated communities where alternative services do not exist.
Psychologists are very concerned that they are not included in the legislation. They feel it is important that they be so for the protection of the public.
However, my greatest disappointment with the legislation is that social workers have been left out. Ontario lags behind all other provinces in not regulating its social workers. Presently the public has no formal assurance a social worker is competent or qualified. Very obviously, social workers should be regulated, just as midwives and other groups will be.
I would like to quote from a recent editorial in the Toronto Star: "For a number of years, the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers, which has no legal authority over its voluntary members, has been calling for regulation and a college to set licensing standards. As it is, anyone can call himself or herself a social worker, hang up a shingle and go into business. This has led to abuse throughout this province." I have certainly seen examples of this in my own community. "The public deserves protection, and that can only be accomplished by the regulation of qualified social workers."
These are some of the concerns that have been expressed to me. I hope that these individuals who have expressed the concerns will have the opportunity to share them with the committee.
Also, although this bill does provide for significantly more openness on the part of health professions and for far greater involvement in health care decision-making, it is extremely important to remember that an appropriate balance be struck and that we continue to protect the public from harm. I hope this balance will be accomplished by this bill.
It is important to remember that there are still certain matters upon which we need the perspective of the professions, and we should insist that they continue to have this responsibility. It is the professionals who have the specific training, skill, knowledge and experience that they use in the interest of others.
In conclusion, I would like to express my very strong support for full and widespread public consultation. It is extremely important that the professions and the public have an opportunity for input so that a fair balance can be struck. However, I hope that not only will there be consultation but that the ministry will receive and act on the advice and the concerns received and that changes and amendments will be included. It is only in this way that we can provide for the people in this province the best possible health care.
Hon Ms Lankin: Very briefly, I just want to correct the record to say that in fact psychologists are included in this legislation, if members will look at Bill 63, An act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Psychology.
With respect to social workers, the member may be aware that the profession has had ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and that those discussions will continue there, as opposed to in the health care field in the health regulations.
Last, just with respect to the member's comments, I appreciate her supportive comments with respect to the legislation. With respect to her comments about concerns on consultation in the committee process, I have indicated, and I think she has heard from all of the speakers, that all of us, and the Chair of the committee, I appreciate, have a real stake in making sure that this legislation is well aired through that committee process and that people have a real say in it. We are particularly concerned that the consumers have an opportunity to have input in this discussion and we will be asking the committee to take special efforts to make sure their voices are heard.
Ms Gigantes: I will be brief. I want to comment on only one element of the legislation that is before us today. That is the act which will regulate midwifery. I would like to express my personal delight that this legislation is finally moving ahead. It may not be the most important as we look at the overall legislation and the number of regulatory acts. In fact, the whole scope of the legislation really proposes a new way of dealing with the regulation of health professions in Ontario, which is in and of itself very important for the future of health care. However, for me personally, and I believe for thousands and thousands of women in Ontario, the introduction of self-regulation and the acknowledgement and recognition which the legislation will give to the profession of midwifery is of overwhelming significance.
I think it is also fair to say that probably historically in the development of the legislation now before us, the pressure built up by women in Ontario on behalf of recognition for midwifery as a health service has been part of the reason why we have the overall legislation. Consumers, the women who give birth to children in this province, were not satisfied with the options which were available over recent decades for the delivery of children.
1640
It is interesting to note that one of my colleagues, the member for Scarborough Centre, referred earlier to the traditional methods of giving birth. In fact, the methods that we have all known over the last few decades, which are quite medicalized, are not the traditional methods at all. The traditional methods are ones which employ midwifery services of one kind or another and which have been known throughout the world and have been known for long periods of time, even within our own cultural traditions. It is only in the relatively recent past, in terms of decades or a century, that the process of giving birth to a child has become such a hospitalized, such a medicalized business.
In fact, I think it is important for us to acknowledge that there is such a thing as overmedicalization, there is such a thing as a surfeit of medicalization when it comes to such very natural kinds of physical acts as the bearing of children. I think the medical profession itself will now acknowledge that the desire and the fight expressed by women over the last several years to have midwifery once again established, recognized, acknowledged and self-governed, put within a process of an educated system which will make sure that we have high-quality service -- I think even medical practitioners in Ontario recognize now, and with good grace, that the profession of midwifery should be recognized now and, in fact, should have been many years back.
I would like to add a personal note in talking about how I learned, first, how important it is for women to be able to make choices around childbirth. My own mother and father married at a relatively late age. They were 30 when they got married, and mother became pregnant two years later. She ended up having four children. Her fourth was born when she was 47. It was a struggle through three of those births to find a setting in which she could give birth in the way she wanted. She wanted to give birth without anaesthetic and it was not until her fourth pregnancy and her 47th year of age that she was permitted to give birth without anaesthetic.
I remember very well -- because I was 13, almost 14, at the time -- the intense joy and the intense pride she felt as she went through that birth. It was the birth of the only boy among the four children which, of course, gave rise to a certain amount of joy, too, but she was so pleased to have gone through the birth consciously. She had not been permitted that option in the other three births and she very much resented that. I think it would be fair to say that she felt bitter about it, and I, as a teenager, was enormously impressed by the fact that it had taken her so long and so much struggle and effort to be able to give birth the way she wanted.
From that time forward, I became conscious of the fact that for hundreds of thousands, for millions of women, in North America in particular, the options around how to deliver children have been extremely limited for many decades. It has been, I think, an injustice for women. I think that what we do in this legislation as we acknowledge midwifery and provide the mechanisms so that high- quality midwifery services will be available to those women who choose to use them, is to move towards justice for women in an area of their lives which is of enormous intimacy and enormous importance.
Mrs Caplan: I am really delighted that the member for Ottawa Centre raised the issue of midwifery. I do not think, as we discuss this package of legislation and the fact that it evolved over a period of 10 years and there were eight ministers, that there is anyone in this House who would not acknowledge that when it came to midwifery, a former minister who is in this House today really deserves great thanks. That is the member for Bruce. I remember the pride I felt as a member of the government caucus on the day he announced that midwifery would be a legalized profession in the province of Ontario. Without his efforts -- and he is here today -- I do not think we would see the kind of program and progress that has made Ontario the leader in Canada in the implementation of midwifery.
I remember on one occasion when Quebec announced that it was going to be regulating and legislating, bringing midwifery into the mainstream of practice, there was an editorial in a newspaper saying, "Look at that: Quebec is doing it and Ontario is still dragging its feet." In fact, what happened was that a week after that editorial took place and that announcement, I happened to see the Quebec Health minister, and she said: "We've made this announcement. Now could you please tell us how you're doing it so that we could catch up to you, because you have been the leaders."
It was with great pride that was set in place not only by our government but by our very first Minister of Health, the member for Bruce, who is here today. I think for all women who will have the opportunity to be served by midwives in the province of Ontario, not only in hospital but in out-of-hospital birthing centres -- as was the policy of our government, which I know is being continued by the new government -- the credit is due and owing to the member for Bruce. I take great pleasure in sharing that with the House today.
Hon Ms Lankin: I think the comments that we have heard from all sides indicate the kind of support there is for this legislation having come through 10 years of birthing pains. Perhaps if we had midwives who had been able to help deliver it, we would have had it faster.
However, it is historic. This is the first time this legislation, although it had been tabled before, has gotten to second reading. I am delighted to be here and to be sharing in this occasion. I think it is also quite remarkable that we have a situation where there are three of the eight ministers of Health who have been able to comment on this today. I appreciate the fact also that the member for Bruce, who is a former Minister of Health, is here and supportive of this initiative.
When I was listening to the member for Ottawa Centre, I was thinking how remarkable this actually is, that we are finally moving to a point in time where we will have legalized midwifery in this province and show leadership in Canada in terms of establishing the practice of midwifery and the support for that profession. I think of it myself in personal terms as a young woman who has yet to have her first child. I hope I will have that opportunity in my life and I hope I will be able to have that opportunity to choose to have a child in my home with the assistance of a midwife. I am thrilled that that prospect may become a reality for me and for many other women in this province.
I hear the tribute that was made to the member for Bruce as the Minister of Health who first made the announcement about the legalization of midwifery and I pay tribute to that. I also, as I did in my opening comments, pay tribute to the hundreds and hundreds of women and the handful of midwives themselves who have been so much a part of working and fighting and struggling to make this a reality against many odds in terms of other professions' support and acceptance of the establishment of legalized, regulated midwifery; in fact for many years in terms of a political unwillingness to act on this.
It is an exciting day to bring to fruition the work of all of those hundreds of women, to hear their voices heard here today in the Legislature as other women, former ministers of Health and myself, are able to say this is going to be a reality. I am very excited.
1650
There have been comments made, and I just want to assure people that the issues of concern are certainly the ones we wish to hear about from people during the committee process. There has been reference to the harm clause. Certainly it has been a controversial clause within the legislation from whatever side you look at it, and I am sure that we will hear from people -- I would be naïve to suggest that this would not be an issue of debate -- and particularly to hear from the public again, as I said the consumers, as to how they feel about this.
With respect to the issue of the diagnosis clause, I myself have been well lobbied during the election and since by members of the coalition of unregulated health professionals, who have a view, who have a concern. They will be there and they will be heard, and the other professions that have a concern about moving in the direction that the unregulated professions would like will be heard. I think we will have a full and thorough debate about this.
The principles, however, that have meant that this legislative initiative has sustained itself through three administrations and through eight ministers of Health are the important ones and the ones that we all agree upon. At the end of the day, I believe that with that public debate, with whatever amendments may come from that process, we will have legislation that will see all-party support and broad public and professional group support because of the process it has been through to arrive at this point and, as I said, the overriding principles.
We will be removing obstacles to new ways of providing service in this province, and that is critically important. We will be moving to make sure that there is proper public protection, and that is critically important. We will be establishing new standards of accountability and openness in the governance of the professions, and that is critically important. As we have all just said, with respect to midwifery and others, we will be recognizing new professions, and that is most definitely critically important.
I look forward to the committee hearings. I look forward in particular, as I have said already today, to hearing from consumers. I am pleased that the Chair of the committee is an individual who has such an interest in the outcome of this legislative process. I would ask her and urge her to ensure that the committee finds ways to reach out and involve consumers in that debate. I think that is important for us all.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 43.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 43.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 44.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 44.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 45.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 45.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 46.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 46.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 47.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 47.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 48.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 48.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 49.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 49.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 50.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 50.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 51.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 51.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 52.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 52.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 53.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 53.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 54.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 54.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 55.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 55.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 56.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 56.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 57.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 57.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 58.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 58.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 59.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 59.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 60.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 60.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 61.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 61.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 62.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 62.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 63.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 63.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
The Deputy Speaker: Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 64.
Mme Lankin a proposé la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 64.
Motion agreed to.
La motion est adoptée.
Bills ordered for the standing committee on social development.
Les projets de loi sont déférés au comité permanent des affaires sociales.
House in committee of the whole.
La Chambre en comité plénier.
FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE RÉGIME DES OBLIGATIONS ALIMENTAIRES ENVERS LA FAMILLE
Resuming consideration of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.
Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 17, Loi portant modification des lois relatives à l'exécution d'ordonnances alimentaires et de garde d'enfants.
The First Deputy Chair: When we left this the last day, the member for Willowdale was making his general comments on section 1. Would the member like to continue.
Mr Harnick: Madam Chair, at the outset, I wish to withdraw several of the amendments I made. If you would like me to read them all off, I can read them all off, or I can read the ones that I wish to continue and you can delete all the others, whatever is easier.
I would like to withdraw my amendment to section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.3(4.1). I would like to withdraw section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection --
The First Deputy Chair: Would you start again. I am going to be recording these.
Mr Harnick: Would it be easier if I just read the amendments I wish to proceed on and then assume that all of --
The First Deputy Chair: Are they fewer than the ones you are withdrawing?
Mr Fletcher: Why don't you just sit down?
Mr Harnick: I appreciate the member indicates that it would be easier if I just sat down, but I am trying to facilitate moving Bill 17 through the Legislature. We have heard --
The First Deputy Chair: I asked you whether the number you are keeping is less than the number you are withdrawing.
Mr Harnick: Yes.
The First Deputy Chair: Fine. Why do you not read the numbers we are keeping and we will record them.
Mr Harnick: I am keeping section 4 of the bill, proposed subsections 3.4(11.1) to (11.3), and I am keeping section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.8(10). All of the other amendments are withdrawn.
The First Deputy Chair: Thank you.
1700
Section/article 1:
Mr Harnick: Just as some preliminary remarks, this is a bill that people have great expectations about, but it is also a bill that I predict is going to have a great deal of difficulty associated with it. Some of the problems with the support payment legislation in the past will remain in spite of this bill, and I would like to indicate very briefly some of the deficiencies that I see in this bill. Later on when I have the opportunity, I will speak on behalf of the amendments I am proposing, which I believe will go in part to solve some of these problems.
First of all, as to the numbers we have had thrown around indicating that 75% of people are in default and that 25% comply, I do not know about the accuracy of those figures. The fact of the matter is that if 25% of those who have support orders against them are complying with those orders without the necessity of being forced into the support and custody orders enforcement office, then it seems to me we would be much better off if we left those people alone. Why overburden an already overburdened system with people who do not need the system to force them to comply with their obligations? That I see is a very significant problem with this bill, the difficulty being that those 25% pay. They should not be forced to pay in this manner. It only clogs the system, which already does not work.
The evidence given by witnesses indicated that the ratio of SCOE staff responsible for collecting this money to the number of people who have payments outstanding is astronomical. In some offices there were two, three or four people for 500, 600 or 700 claimants. I do not know if anybody in this Legislature has had any practice and practical experience in trying to do collection work, but for two, three or four people to try to collect outstanding debts from 500, 600, 700 or 800 people, that is asking your staff to do the impossible. By forcing 25% of the people involved with this particular procedure into the system, all you are doing is making that system more difficult.
Philosophically, the problem I have with this piece of legislation is that it is making the concept of universality applicable to family law. It seems to me that universality is not something that is going to be benefited in terms of the way this act operates, and I know the Attorney General laughs when I say that --
Hon Mr Hampton: Just commenting on your choice of words -- universality.
Mr Harnick: Well, that is what it is. The Attorney General does not like my choice of words. It strikes a chord with him. I only say to the Attorney General that I am making the comments sincerely in an effort to make this legislation better. He obviously doubts my sincerity. Quite honestly, this is a very serious problem and I believe that --
Hon Mr Hampton: Charles, don't be so thin-skinned. We were merely appreciating your conservativeness.
Mr Harnick: Well, my conservativeness is really not the issue. The issue is whether we are going to have a bill that works, and the way this bill is set up now it is not going to work. Obviously the Attorney General is not prepared to listen to what I am saying and it is not making any impact on him, so let's move on and do it section by section.
The First Deputy Chair: Are there any other members who wish to debate on section 1?
Mr Elston: I was under the impression those were sort of the opening statements and we are doing them under the auspices of section 1. That was more or less how I think we agreed to do it. Just because I am partly substituting, were there any amendments at all to section 1 that we are dealing with?
The First Deputy Chair: None.
Mr Elston: Since I was not here when the original tabling of amendments occurred, it might be convenient for me if I could have a package of the materials from the table, if that were possible.
The First Deputy Chair: On the amendments?
Mr Elston: On the amendments only.
The First Deputy Chair: We are in the process of remaking a package, I believe, because of the withdrawal of the member for Willowdale, and when that package comes we will give that to you.
Mr Elston: They will be made available?
The First Deputy Chair: Yes.
Mr Elston: Okay. Thanks very much.
Hon Mr Hampton: We can give you one and we will tell you when an amendment should be torn out.
The First Deputy Chair: Fine.
Section 1 agreed to.
L'article 1 est adopté.
Section/article 2:
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Hampton moved that the definition of "director" in subsection 2(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "child and family support office" and substituting "family support plan."
Hon Mr Hampton: It is my understanding that this change of name has been discussed previously in committee and we feel that it more accurately reflects the way in which the program will work and the issues it will address.
Mr Elston: Just very briefly, and I may take a couple of opportunities to talk about this; I do not wish to do it at length because Hansard of the committee will show where my mind has been with respect to whether or not this is really child and family support and therefore whether this is really totally an appropriate name to be giving to what was formerly called the director's office.
We had moved an amendment and we had spoken at length about the issue of whether all of the money that will be collected under the auspices of this office will actually get to the children and the family for whom the support order was made. It is quite clear, if you review those committee reports and follow some of the arguments that were made, perhaps at length but with certain feelings of dedication to the principles espoused at that time, that the money collected, at least in a fairly large number of cases, will be taken by the government from the spouse who is required to make the payment, and rather than being sent on to the woman, in most cases, not always, the spouse in need of support and the children, that money will be sent to the Treasurer. In that case, the support being given by the office, whether it is under the director or under this new name, child and family support office, will be to the Treasurer of Ontario as well as the family in need of support, if those people are receiving any social assistance benefits.
I made the argument at length, and there is an amendment later on that we will talk to, about the principle of that. While people have voted against my amendment there, I will be making the argument again, because the amendment which will come up later will truly make this a family and child support office if there is an acknowledgement that the money collected by the government, in this case under a support order, would go first to any family that is living below the poverty line on social benefits.
As we know, right at the very moment when support is received, there is an assignment of the right to receive further moneys by the receiving spouse on behalf of herself or himself and the children. When the money is received on their behalf, there is a deduction made, against the money they have received, to the social agency.
1710
From my point of view, it seems that we could allow the people to receive money up to the poverty line, at least to the poverty line; acknowledge that they have a right to receive that much money before there is a dollar-for-dollar deduction by the government of the amount received that was first to go to support the children.
This all comes about because there has been a fairly lengthy explanation of the government's position that this is a first step in the fight against child poverty. While I would not wish to get into the merits of that communication and the style of the announcement of this to the public, it is quite clear to me that if we refuse to send enough money to the family from the moneys collected by the government to take the family at least to the poverty line or even, God forbid, above the poverty line, then I think that we are really not doing what this name connotes.
A fair bit of the money collected by this office is going to be paid directly to the Treasurer. We know the Treasurer needs the money these days, and we know that there will be application to all kinds of worthy programs, but there is no more worthy recipient of this than the families and the children who need it first. If I am mistaken, and if the money is designed only to go to support-requiring spouses and children, then I stand corrected. But I will bet the Treasurer stands to get a fair number of dollars, and I will bet there are lots of people who will live below the poverty line while the Treasurer receives money which was paid to the government by the supporting spouse.
That is why I make the very short interjection of my views, because this makes it look very nice for the public consumption. It makes it nice as well because you can change the name of the organization that has had problems associated with it. I understand the problems associated with SCOE, as it was called. I can tell members that trying to fight against some of those backlogs consumed some of our time. Obviously it was not addressed well enough, but you cannot eliminate the problems merely by changing the name. You cannot eliminate the problems of people living on less than sufficient funds by increasing the number of people who are caught by this whole operation and indicate that you have actually implemented something that is a child and family support activity.
I just want to make those remarks clear, because I still think there are a number of items which ought to be considered if they really think that the name of the office should reflect fully the activity it is undertaking. Perhaps the Attorney General can make a couple of changes here and there that would alleviate my concerns that he is collecting money for the Treasurer first and then secondarily collecting money for children and families in need of support.
Motion agreed to.
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Hampton moves that the definition of "Director's office" in subsection 2(3) of the bill be struck out.
Hon Mr Hampton: When the name of the act was changed, it became apparent to legislative counsel that this definition was self-explanatory and therefore unnecessary, so it can be struck.
Motion agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 2, modifié, est adopté.
Section/article 3:
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Hampton moves that subsection 2(1) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out "child and family support office" and substituting "family support plan."
Hon Mr Hampton: Again, this is to reflect the change of name of the act.
Motion agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 3, modifié, est adopté.
Section/article 4:
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Hampton moves that subsection 3.3(4) of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(4) The director shall enforce a support deduction order, subject to any suspension order or variation, until the support order to which it relates is terminated and there are no arrears owing and despite the fact that the support order to which it relates has not been filed in or has been withdrawn from the director's office."
1720
Hon Mr Hampton: By way of explanation, this subsection, as originally drafted, did not contemplate the situation in which a recipient files a notice not to enforce which results in a support order never being filed in the director's office. The subsection was amended to reflect the fact that a support order may not be filed in the director's office for two reasons: One, it was never filed with the director or, two, it was withdrawn after filing. It merely addresses that practical point.
Motion agreed to.
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Hampton moves that subsection 3.3(24) of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by striking out "(18)" in the fourth line and substituting "(19)."
Motion agreed to.
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Hampton moves that section 3.3 of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"(30.1) A support deduction order is effective against the crown only in respect of amounts payable on behalf of the administrative unit served with notice of the support deduction order to the pay or named in the notice.
"(30.2) In subsection (30.1), 'administrative unit' means a ministry of the government of Ontario, a crown agency within the meaning of the Crown Agency Act or the Office of the Assembly under the Legislative Assembly Act."
Mr Elston: We talked a little bit about whether or not this would be binding on the government of Ontario, I recall. I might just ask, because we know that there is certain mobility within the public service, if the deduction order would have to be filed, for instance, if someone moved from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Correctional Services, or changed to becoming an employee of the Pension Commission of Ontario, or whatever. Perhaps you could advise us as to the procedure, or if there is some sense that the procedure will not have to be formally repeated but there can be some informal, internal government working of the notices given rather than having to make a refiling all the way through.
Hon Mr Hampton: We do not have the answer to that, but I can tell the member that the intention behind the amendment was to ensure that service was made on the agency that would be able to respond, and also to place garnishments with respect to government on the same footing as garnishments that might occur in the private sector. But as to the member's direct question, we will have an answer from the Ministry of Government Services, hopefully fairly soon, if an informal procedure can be set up to transfer from one agency to another.
Mr Elston: While that is helpful, I guess, having been asked to make the change, I want to commend the minister in making the change to allow the government to expose itself to these rules the same as everybody else, because in many cases, of course, the crown is not subject to these sorts of applications of rules. But I think my problem comes in the fact that perhaps we have not gotten things nailed down and, while the minister suggests that we took some weeks to go through the committee stages, there still is a sense that I am left with, even though I am happy enough to vote in favour of this amendment, that perhaps the minister has not yet gotten the procedure down to where he could do what could be described as, in the vernacular of public service, operationalize this whole activity.
I am concerned, as well -- just while I am on my feet -- that while we have asked for some copies, or at least drafts of the regulations surrounding the operation of this act, we have not yet received those. I do know that we had anticipated that a good part of the bill, when being considered in the committee, would be left unwritten but would result in the generation of a whole series of regulations that followed in line with the passage of some of the sections. In fairness to those people who suggested that until you have the final bill you do not know what the regulations are going to look like, there is a pretty good sense of what amendments are going to pass and which ones are not going to pass, and I wonder if I might ask the minister responsible if we could possibly --
Hon Mr Wildman: You would not prejudge the legislative process.
Mr Elston: The Minister of Natural Resources really is silly today. Just so that the public of Ontario knows what is happening, the Minister of Natural Resources suggested he did not want to prejudge the legislative process. Liberals have known how to count for a long time, and we know how to count backwards now as well as forwards, and we know the difference in the numbers of the government members as against the opposition. We know what amendments are going to pass, but just let me say this: One of the things that would be helpful, as we go through this clause by clause in committee of the whole House, is something we suggested at the time we were in committee, that we would feel more comfortable about voting for some of this stuff if we could see some of the details attached to the act in regulation form.
Perhaps I could pose again the question that was asked in committee and on several occasions to the parliamentary assistant, who again I say was very helpful during our committee hearings. That will help him get a promotion, I know. Can we see some of the draft regulations so that it would help us decide just how many minutes we might want to spend on some of the proposed amendments that the minister has introduced in committee of the whole?
Hon Mr Hampton: The draft regulations are not ready yet. They will likely be ready some time this summer.
1730
Mr Elston: I do not want to take a lot of time here but, as I stated at the time we were in committee, the deliberations around the bill generate a whole series of questions about how -- and I might even be out of order here, but just to complete my question. The arguments about a lot of these issues that we are now considering by way of amendment here in committee of the whole House to complete the government's legislation -- arguments may have been based upon a degree of, again using a public service word, specificity that we did not have, and I wonder if there are not even some general draft regulations. I am sure there are. I know the process that goes on.
There must be some pieces of information that would help us feel a little more secure about the completion of the bill, because really we are going to take it on faith, when we pass this thing, that it is all going to work. We have had some substantial concerns about two things in the development of our position on this bill, one being about the resources, because the resources were one of the things that confronted the people who had the bill in its current operational form. Resources was a point that was made by a whole series of presenters at our committee hearings as key to the success of the new bill, the continuation of the old procedures plus the addition of the new numbers of people caught by this bill. That is one.
The other is the details of how certain things will be done by -- do we still have a director? I will use the old word. The bill is not passed yet. I will call the position "director" -- the director to make some fair and evenhanded sorts of communications to various individuals, for instance, or in dealing with the money that is in trust for people from whom it has been collected and for whom it is to be disbursed. I just wonder if there is not at least some initial drafting of regulations that we might see before we complete the entire bill. I know we are just kind of tinkering with some of this stuff, but some of it is important for us.
Hon Mr Hampton: Madam Chair, he asked a question. To give a short answer to the member's long question, the regulations are being drafted at this time and are being worked on at this time. There is no intent here to deny them to anyone; it is just that they are being worked on as we speak.
Motion agreed to.
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Hampton moves that section 3.4 of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2.1) If the support order has been assigned to an agency described in subsection 33(3) of the Family Law Act, 1986 or if there are arrears owing to the agency from a past assignment, the court shall not suspend the support deduction order in the circumstances described in clause 2(b) without the agency's consent."
Mr Elston: Again, I feel like I am spoiling the progress, but I will tell members to read this, it is not just sort of self-explanatory. Can the minister tell me what this really does mean?
Hon Mr Hampton: This amendment ensures that the Minister of Community and Social Services or another statutory assignee of a support order, for example a municipal corporation, a district welfare administration board or an Indian band, has the right to consent to the agreement of the parties to suspend support deduction. As originally drafted, the assignee's consent was not required. The assignee was required to rely solely on the terms of the assignment agreement.
Mr Elston: I appreciate the gentleman providing us with some explanation, but that sounds like there is a introduction of another party to the negotiations between former spouses or something. I wonder again if he might develop an example, or if one of his assistants might develop for him an example, that would clearly outline the effect of this particular amendment. It sometimes is easier for us to follow when an example is given to see how this is going to work. If that would be possible, I think it would help me understand the wording just a little bit better.
Hon Mr Hampton: Oftentimes, where there is a support order, there may be an assignment to, for example, an Indian band or a district welfare board or the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This amendment directs itself to the situation where there has been an assignment and now the support receiver and the support payor desire to suspend the support deduction model. But if there are still arrears owing, for example, and some of those are owing to the Indian band or to the district welfare board or possibly to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, before the order can be suspended the agreement of whatever the agency is, which is possibly owed arrears, must be sought.
Mr Elston: I am glad that I raised this as an issue, because this actually takes me back to the change of name section that I talked about earlier. What this really does is, I guess, provide protection for those agencies and in fact could protect the Treasurer of Ontario, because if there is an assignment from a spouse receiving support under a support order and a deduction order, this really protects the interests of the third party that has the assignment. In fact, that means that if there was an agreement between the supporting spouse and the spouse in need of support to deal directly, ie, transfer the money from the supporting spouse to his or her family, that could not be done unless the treasuries of those various groups first mentioned, like Community and Social Services or the Treasurer of Ontario, who would stand in the place of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Indian band or the local municipal social assistance board, are provided a paramount protection at a time when, in fact, there may be an agreement to pay directly, ie, get the money more quickly from the supporting spouse to his or her family, perhaps even take that spouse beyond the poverty limit we have talked about before.
Again, I want to make the point that if this is proposed to become the first step in the fight against child poverty and poverty in families with single parents who are receiving support, both on social assistance or a variation of the same and receiving support also from a supporting spouse, then perhaps we could take into consideration my concern that the assignments are being protected much more than the children or the spouse in need of support.
Basically, we are given the money. We are putting all sorts of protections in place for these big treasuries that do not feel the pain and the hurt the same way as the hungry child or the child in need of clothes or food or whatever. I wonder if there is not some way the government could put a limitation along the lines I have proposed before, that the assignment be honoured only after the people in need of support receive at least an amount of money that takes them to the poverty line area.
I do not think that is too much to ask. I just think it is easily passed over when we talk about protecting interests, because really, when you start thinking about it, people assign the assignments to get the money they require to live. It just makes me a little bit concerned that we so easily pass over the argument about the poverty line and the need for support by saying we have to protect and honour assignments when the assignments first arc taken from people who, in desperation, will practically sign anything to allow them to get a meal or a roof over their heads. Again, I am taking much too long, I understand that, but I really do want to press the point that if this is a fight against poverty, then we have to change the whole thrust of the statute when it comes to honouring assignments, or at least put self-imposed limitations on the government, so that people can earn up to the poverty line as calculated by several agencies. We can choose what definition we want, but at least we can pursue it to that limit.
1740
Mr Harnick: I wonder if the minister could tell me, just as a technical point, where this section fits in relation to the new numbering system that has been used. I see that section 3.4 is on page 9 -- that is the section that deals with suspension of support deduction orders -- and this is subsection 3.4(2.1). I do not understand where that would fit in.
Hon Mr Hampton: I will attempt to deal with both questions at once here. If we are on page 9 of the printed bill, it is correct. You have subsection 3.4(1); then you have subsection (2), clauses (a) and (b). This would come in directly following that, so it would be subsection 3.4(2.1).
To deal with the comments of the member for Bruce, I want to first of all make two points. The statistics we have indicate that in about 10% of cases the money flowing by way of a support order makes its way to the Ministry of Community and Social Services; so currently about 10%.
The purpose of the subsection, so that the member understands it, is so that the ministry will have an understanding and will have a right to know what steps the parties are taking. If the parties are taking steps to suspend orders, the ministry needs to know that, because they may already be part of a social assistance payment scheme with respect to the support receiver. It is necessary for the ministry or the Indian band or the district welfare board to know what the current relationship is with respect to paying the support deduction order. If they did not know, that creates some difficulties and it can tie the procedure up.
The member is saying there should be a stipulation that the support receivers are brought up to a certain level before payments must then go to the Indian band or the district welfare board or the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Those bodies can always waive. They cannot always waive their right to receive the assignment. The indication I have is that on a case-by-case procedure, that is sometimes done.
Mr Elston: This is something I pursued at some length and I do not want to go on a whole long time, but I really do get a little bit concerned when the minister responsible for this fight against poverty is designating that a movement of a minimum receipt of assistance from both sources of welfare or social assistance -- family benefits, general welfare assistance -- and from supporting spouses not be dealt with on a reasonable or rational basis.
Interestingly enough, in this bill we spent a long time telling a judge that he or she could not take into consideration certain things because we believed there should be direction given to judges about what would be reasonable in terms of making a decision to issue a deduction order. But in this case, the minister is not prepared to put one small piece of advice, one small signal that this really is a fight against poverty in this bill. Instead, he is prepared to say that there will be the securement of the position of privilege for those people who got an assignment executed by the spouse in need of support for his or her children so that they could actually get something to eat and a place to stay.
I just think the contradiction is too terrible for him to fully contemplate standing up and putting in front of his caucus colleagues. The government has been known in days past as being an organization that spoke about making sure the people got at least to the poverty level, and here what it has said is that it is prepared to put its support first and primarily behind the Ministry of Community and Social Services or some agency that does not feel the pain of hunger or of going without clothes or shelter.
I am pretty vigorous about this, and some of the time that was taken up during the debate -- and I see some of my colleagues the members on the opposition benches and the government benches who were there and heard me speak about this.
Here we are with another provision which is designed to ensure the administrative integrity of this whole process. That is the point I kept trying to make to the people who listened to us during the debate. Basically, the member for Simcoe Centre lent us his ears for long periods of time, and he heard us, but generally I think it is fair to say the effort was made by the government to dismiss as much as possible the proposition that this was merely an administrative tightening of the stranglehold of resources that were bound for people in need of support.
It will certainly also do a couple of other things -- that is, increase the positive statistics of the Ministry of the Attorney General -- because a big bulk of the people who will be newly captured by this program will be people who are already voluntarily complying with their support orders. But the results will be fairly good in terms of the statistics generated by the new office, whatever we just renamed it through the amendments.
Can the Attorney General not at least acknowledge that it would be very simple, very easy, to extend the concept of a minimum level before he gives primacy to the Treasurer of Ontario, rather than just saying we will let the Treasurer of Ontario decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not he needs the money more than the people in need of support?
It has been a long argument with me, and it seems to me that is rational. It seems to me that it ought to be a priority and it ought to be, from my position anyway, pretty consistent with what we saw in the election campaign in August and September 1990 about the primacy of people over the administrative features of either government or any other organization.
I only plead again that he consider, maybe not in this particular section but as we have some time probably to deal with more of the clause-by-clause, maybe in a general fashion, by introducing a government amendment to ensure and secure at least poverty line funding for families in need of support prior to deducting amounts of money under assignments to go off to the various treasuries. I know that not too many folks are interested in this plea again, but I think it ought to tweak the consciences of those people who have been known for a long time to fight for these things. They ought, in the days after we complete our hearings today, to go back and ask individually, one on one, both the minister and the parliamentary assistant, and even the people who are in the policy units and in the legal units of the Attorney General's ministry, why he cannot have one very simple feature, one very almost painless feature introduced. It will not cost the taxpayers anything more.
What he is saying to people is that this is a bill to provide for the elimination of at least a campaign against the reduction of the effects of poverty. Why can he not be consistent in moving that one simple amendment, rather than moving a new amendment which guarantees the primacy of the organizations over the people in need of help? I do not understand it. It does not take, it seems to me, too much of a movement. It is no defeat. It is a victory for people who need help. It is not a defeat for the party, it is not a defeat for the organization that sponsors the legislation and it is such a tiny thing to do, but for those individuals receiving it, it is such a huge relief.
1750
I do not understand how on balance, how on any sense of balance, the minister can refuse what I think is reasonable, unless he thinks it is right to refuse something reasonable that comes from over here. I am happy, if the Chair will let me, to make this speech from the minister's side. I will come right back after I make it, but I am prepared to make it over there if that makes the minister more comfortable in accepting it. Please, really think about it, because that is a need of this bill if the minister is going to make it a fight against poverty. Please consider it.
Mrs Caplan: I listened very carefully to the debate and the comments of my colleague the member for Bruce. I too would ask that the minister at least explain why, given his intent and the purpose of this bill, he will not accept the premise which has been put forward so eloquently by the member for Bruce. If this is supposed to achieve the goal of fighting poverty in this province, here is an excellent opportunity for this government to do what it says it wants to do. I have been sitting here and I cannot understand why the minister would not amend his bill to achieve this goal.
Hon Mr Hampton: To get back on track, the member for Bruce makes an eloquent plea that he might make the next time the Ministry of Community and Social Services brings its estimates forward. As he knows, and I think as other members of the House know, Comsoc has a formula for the payment of social welfare benefits to a family in need and that formula will change based upon whether there is one dependent, two dependents, three dependents, basic shelter allowance, etc. That formula already exists.
On the one hand, what the member for Bruce is talking about is somehow, if you conceptualize this, putting a particular group of support receivers in a better position than the family that lives next door to them where both may be receiving social welfare benefits but one is also due support. That is one potential interpretation of his point.
The other potential interpretation is that where a support payor is able to avoid paying support for, let us say, a year and the district social services board or Community and Social Services picks up the support payor's responsibility, once the support payor is contacted and the income source is contacted, the support payor should be able to avoid paying the back payments. That is the other possible interpretation.
Neither of those will benefit, I would suggest, the support receivers in a real sense. The latter one, I would suggest, would definitely benefit the support payor who is able to skip out and avoid paying support for, let us say, a year or a year and a half. The former one creates a situation whereby you could have two families living next door to one another, one is receiving social welfare benefits only, the other is receiving social welfare benefits plus support deduction, and they are placed in a different position. That creates inequality and that creates problems in society. I think the member knows that.
Finally, the member is trying to put into this bill, which is designed to simplify and to make more effective the collection of support payments, something which could be technically fairly complicated and result in even further administrative costs. I accept the principle of his point, but if he wants to make that point, I think he should make it when the Ministry of Community and Social Services presents its estimates.
Mr Elston: I cannot believe what I just heard the Attorney General say. Basically, what he said was that as long as two families are below the poverty line, it would be unfair to allow somebody to get a little bit more money because there was an extra source of income that would take them to the poverty line. I find that reprehensible. I find it absolutely unacceptable from you. I cannot understand your standing up at the very start of this whole debate on second reading and saying this is the first stab against the great problems created by child poverty. I do not understand how you can stand there and say that a family ought to remain poor because the person next door is poor, when there is some money.
What is more, do you know what you have done, Howard? You have basically said the Treasurer and his people need the money more than somebody who goes to bed hungry, who has a hard time keeping himself or herself or their children under a roof.
Hon Mr Hampton: It seems to me the only welfare you're interested in is the welfare of auto insurance companies.
The First Deputy Chair: Minister, please. Your time will come.
Mr Elston: You know something, Howard? That just does not become you. I will tell you we are talking about a particular problem that is associated with poverty.
The First Deputy Chair: Member for Bruce, would you please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr Elston: Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity of telling the Attorney General that he had better mind his Ps and Qs because I am prepared to start making very long speeches about the types of commitment to social policy if he is not willing to just drop some of this other nonsense he has been putting into this.
There is not a sense of dignity left when the Attorney General tells me that when he has a chance to amend a bill to allow people to get up to the poverty limit, when he has a chance to allow people to creep to the poverty level, they should stay poor, or poorer, because the people next door are poor. I do not understand that. This is a situation where we can put people first, just like the Attorney General has said he wants.
I am not even going to get into the rhetoric around whether election promises are really meant to be kept or not, but this government has a doctrine that says people are first and that organizations come second. Why in the world would the Attorney General not take one small step when he has the chance to direct the director that she will be allowed to release funds to the family in need of support until at least it hits the poverty limit? That is not technically complex. All it requires is some indication of what the poverty limit is, some indication of the amount of support that is going to those people, and then away you go.
To tell me to go and see the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the minister when she and her minions make their presentations on estimates is like assigning me to some kind of problem that will never, ever be unravelled. It will be a labyrinth from which I will get no result.
The fact of the matter remains that we have a bill in front of us now. A bill is here. Legislation is here. We can make a very simple amendment which will direct the people to work out the complexities. The Attorney General's people sat in front of our committee when we were out in the standing committee and said: "Don't worry about it being complex. We're going to put together regulations that will make it work. Trust us."
What could be more trustworthy now than a requirement that these same people who can take the complexity out of this piece of stuff by regulation merely put regulations together that direct the calculation of the limit to which each person is entitled to receive income before the Treasurer gets his pound of flesh for these people requiring social assistance? What in the world can the Attorney General be afraid of?
If the Attorney General is going to go out in the community and he is going to sell this as an attack on poverty, how can he give the first dollar to the Treasurer or to any other organization before he at least takes the people in need of support to a certain limit, the poverty limit? The poverty line seems to me to be such a very minimum standard to deal with.
Interjections.
The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. The member for Bruce has the floor for a little bit more.
Interjection.
The First Deputy Chair: The member for St Catharines, please.
Mr Elston: I appreciate your intervention, Madam Chair, because I think what we have to do is really assess whether this bill becomes anything more than an administrative tightening up so that the collection agencies, which really is the office's proper name, can be more efficient in harvesting money from the pockets of the people of the province, and they are going to make a direct transfer to the Treasurer at a time when women and children and, yes, men who are spouses, who are single parents with children who are receiving support are in need of help to get them to a minimum level of support.
The Attorney General shakes his head. I can appreciate it, but I really wish to continue this line of debate on another day, because if folks opposite are not going to ask the question whether people come first, then they really are retreating a long, long way from where they have been and where I know a lot of them are, the point of conscience.
On motion by Mr Elston, the committee of the whole reported progress.
À la suite d'une motion présentée par M. Elston, l'étude du projet de loi en comité plénier de la Chambre est ajournée.
The House adjourned at 1801.