Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Cleary: Under the former government, the Ontario Development Corp was a key player in job creation and regional development. However, it is clear that the decision of the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to eliminate the interest incentives for loans and guarantees to Ontario's businesses will counter this basic goal.

In these exceptionally trying times of high unemployment and a depressed general economy, the extermination of incentives will undoubtedly create undue hardship for businesses and technological entrepreneurs alike who previously relied on this assistance. Specifically, it seems unfathomable that the minister would eliminate interest incentives for Eastern Ontario Development Corp loans and guarantees.

I remind the minister that eastern Ontario does not have alternative support structures available to other parts of the province. In addition, eastern Ontario must compete with Quebec and the northeastern parts of the United States where various incentives already outweigh any advantages eastern Ontario may have had.

Clearly the minister is discouraging small business formation in eastern Ontario. I insist that eastern Ontario be allowed a level playing field. The minister must reinstate the EODC interest-free incentive loans.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Stockwell: Last Thursday and Friday, the Mike Harris task force on the Ontario budget continued its hectic schedule across the province listening to the concerns of citizens of the cities of Ottawa, Cornwall and Kingston and their surrounding regions. We heard a steady flow of witnesses opposed to the concept of raising the provincial deficit to a level which will force future governments to raise taxes and further erode our competitiveness with the neighbouring United States.

Nowhere was the message heard more clearly than in the city of Cornwall where cross-border shopping has become a popular pastime. The Cornwall Chamber of Commerce has recently formed a committee to look into the problem of cross-border shopping. The chair of that committee, Brian Hunt, made a presentation to our task force.

He told us that the phenomenon of same-day return trips to the United States has increased by 87% since 1989 in the Cornwall area. He cites as the major reason for Canadians flocking south the high Canadian gasoline prices buoyed up by 25 cents a litre of tax, a phenomenon which has been exacerbated by gasoline tax increases in this government's budget.

The people of Cornwall recognize that what is needed to help their struggling business is not government grants but a proper business environment.

Our task force has found numerous citizens of this province imploring the politicians to wake up and realize that higher taxes mean diminished competitiveness. I have spoken of only two. I hope that the parliamentary committee on the budget will review the presentations to our task force, which we will make available to it.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Dadamo: It give me great pleasure to speak to members of the Legislature today in honour of Italian National Day, the celebration of the referendum on 2 June 1946 which proclaimed Italy a republic. It is celebrated on the first Sunday of June and is a holiday in Italy. Given the importance of Italian heritage within Canada's multiculturalism, it is now customary to celebrate this festivity right here in Canada.

Italians have made a significant contribution to Canada's social, economic and cultural life. Early-arriving Italians contributed through railroad construction, lumber camps and building projects. Italians helped build the transcontinental and urban communications network in Canada.

Today, Italians are a vital part of this country and help to define the multicultural character of Canada. Children of Italian descent are proud Canadians and are present in every aspect of public life -- in the sciences, education and business as well as political life, as the members know.

Italians form the fourth-largest ethnic group in Canada, after the British, French and Germans. Sixty per cent of all Italians in Canada live in Ontario, with the greatest concentration here in the Toronto area. Celebrating this holiday is a reaffirmation of the multicultural character of our nation.

I am sure members of the Legislature will join me in congratulating the people of Italy, the President of the Republic, Francesco Cossiga, and of course our consul general, Dr Gianluigi Lajolo. Congratulations and best wishes for a festive celebration on Italian National Day.

TOURETTE SYNDROME AWARENESS MONTH

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to stand in the House to continue the tradition established by the former member for Brantford, David Neumann, of making members aware that June is Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month. Tourette's is a neurological disorder that is characterized by rapid, involuntary, sudden motor tics and vocalizations. There is no known cure for Tourette's syndrome.

Early and proper diagnosis is critical for the sufferers and their families. However, that depends on a well-informed medical community. A misdiagnosis can lead to wrong treatment and sometimes severe psychological problems. It can also be frustrating for the family which is trying to understand and cope with this disorder.

Considerable research is being done in locating the gene marker for Tourette's to understand how the disorder is transmitted from one generation to another. Researchers are also studying specific groups of brain chemicals to help identify new and improved medications.

While this exciting research is going on, some families are having difficulty getting appropriate services and treatment in the province. It is my hope that this government will further recognize the special medical needs of Tourette's sufferers and provide appropriate services for them here at home in Ontario.

I know the former member for Brantford, David Neumann, would continue this tradition as he has in the past. On behalf of him and others who have great concern for Tourette's syndrome, I rise today to note June is Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month.

1340

NURSING HOMES

Mr Tilson: As we are all aware, the month of June has been designated Senior Citizens' Month, so it is very appropriate that I stand today to inform this House of a very serious and grave problem involving seniors in my riding of Dufferin-Peel and throughout Ontario.

Avalon Care Centre in Orangeville is threatening to close its beds due to the government's ongoing inequitable treatment of nursing home residents in Ontario. Homes for the aged receive 30% more support than privately run nursing homes. It is becoming increasingly difficult for centres such as Avalon to ensure that regulatory standards set by the Ministry of Health are maintained.

In addition to these problems that Avalon seniors are facing, Avalon Care Centre employs 180 full-time and part-time staff, who are all at risk of losing their jobs. In a desperate attempt to deal with the government's funding and equity stance, the Ontario Nursing Home Association and its 188 members recently made a decision to reduce staffing for over 30,000 nursing home residents by 15 October 1991.

This government is aware of this funding bias and has not announced any major long-term care reform initiatives in the nine months it has been in power. I urge the Minister of Health to examine this serious situation immediately. Her ministry's inaction on this issue has already forced 15 nursing homes into bankruptcy in Ontario and is threatening the livelihood of many more such as Avalon.

It is becoming very clear that this grave situation is a result of the government's obvious hidden agenda to abolish the private sector from the long-term care industry. Unfortunately, this narrow-minded approach is ultimately at the expense of the seniors and the long-term care workers of Ontario.

ENVIRONMENT WEEK

Mr Hansen: As members are aware, it is Environment Week in Canada. I would like to inform the House of an event that took place last weekend. It was the commemoration of the boat NIMBI, which means "Now I must become involved," founded by Pat Potter, a constituent of the member for Brant-Haldimand.

On Saturday, I attended the third annual NIMBI celebration in Port Maitland where the ambassador for the Great Lakes, musician Ken Lonnquist, entertained environmentalists from across our province with an exciting repertoire. There was a shared excitement about the opportunities to increase awareness on environmental issues and there was also a deep concern over the lack of funding for environmental education.

Despite limited financial support, the NIMBI project has received not only national but international attention. On the weekend, a proposal for NIMBI school ships was presented. This included a boat for each of the Great Lakes to operate as a resource centre and provide an opportunity to schoolchildren throughout the province to learn how to get involved and to make Ontario a more healthy place to live. The work of each of the ships will be co-ordinated by the mother ship, NIMBI.

Many say the environment is a top priority, but until people understand how to make the most appropriate decisions, we will be unable to make real progress. We protect diamonds because we are taught they are valuable. People will protect our Great Lakes watershed when they are taught its value. The health of our lakes affects the wellbeing of those who live near them.

NIMBI has shown that the commitment and dedication of the citizens of the province can make a difference. It is now time for those concerned about the environment to get involved. The greatest environmental problem we face is our collective silence.

Mrs Sullivan: I rise in the House to speak to the celebration of Environment Week. In particular, I want to recognize the hardworking people in volunteer enterprises, organized environmental groups, industry and the government sector who have been making great strides in both increasing our awareness of the environment and finding ways to protect it.

While it is hard to visualize the scale, scope and complexity of the environmental challenges that our earth faces, it is important to have events like Environment Week to mark and underline the ramifications of our lifestyles on the planet.

The environmental challenge will only be dealt with successfully if everyone co-operates to achieve the goal of a healthy and clean environment, a goal which I am sure everyone in this House will strive to achieve.

We will all be aware of the environmental consequences of the decisions we make in this House. We must utilize properly the legislative and regulatory tools which have been developed, such as the environmental assessment process, and we must open our minds to sound and creative approaches to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not compounded and that new errors are not made.

WAGE PROTECTION

Mrs Witmer: The Minister of Labour's recent responses to my questions about the wage protection fund would seem to indicate that there is nothing particularly new in Bill 70. The minister stated on 16 May, "Officers and directors...can be liable now under the Ontario Corporations Act." But the minister will be aware that only directors are liable under the Ontario Business Corporations Act. By including officers, Bill 70 will make individuals who may not have any direct control over the operation of a company personally liable.

The definition of "wages" has also been expanded. The Ontario Business Corporations Act holds directors liable for six months' wages and 12 months' vacation pay. Bill 70 adds eight weeks of termination pay and 26 weeks of severance pay for companies with more than 50 employees. The liability could be as high as $20,000 per employee.

The minister has also failed to address the issue of the availability and cost of directors' and officers' insurance to cover the personal liability. In fact, the minister has required that I submit a freedom-of-information request to obtain a report prepared by the Ontario Insurance Commission on this issue.

Bill 70 does represent a significant change in the amount of wages that officers and directors will be held personally liable for. The minister should stop attempting to pass this legislation off as business as usual and start to honestly respond to and address the growing level of concern with this legislation.

PAL PROGRAM

Mr Mammoliti: I rise today to praise the work being done by Pal, a community program in my riding of Yorkview.

The media are not always kind to my riding, and I am very concerned about this. We do not often hear about the good things about Yorkview. Today I am very proud to tell everyone about Pal, a program run by the Jamaican Canadian Association and the Dellcrest Children's Centre. The program matches a black youth and a caring adult and gives a child in need a supportive atmosphere. Volunteers become positive role models for kids in the black community who are having a tough time coping with the problems of growing up. At the same time, it educates the children about black culture and black heritage.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the program's co-ordinators, Newton Van Riel, Christine Brown, Bill Roy, and the very special volunteers for the job they are doing. Keep up the good work.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I would like to invite all members to welcome several guests to our chamber this afternoon: first, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Chief Steve Jourdain and members of the Lac La Croix first nation, Elder John Boshey, Bob Ottertail, the traditional chief, and council members. Welcome.

I also invite you to welcome, seated in the members' gallery, Muriel Smith, who is former Deputy Premier of Manitoba.

Last, but certainly not least, is a long-standing former member from Rainy River, Patrick Reid.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Hon Mr Cooke: Today I am pleased to release two papers about housing policy for public consultation. The first deals with an overall framework for housing, the second with the use of government land for housing.

The government's housing strategy has four parts. I would like to remind members quickly what they are. First, we want to increase the supply of affordable housing, especially co-ops and non-profit housing. Second, we want to make sure that surplus property owned by government is used for housing. Third, we are developing a fair and understandable system of rent control. I will be presenting it to the House very soon. Fourth, I believe we must improve the quality of life for people who live in public housing. I will be releasing a consultation paper about this also in the very near future.

But let me return to the documents we are releasing today. The first paper prepared by the Ministry of Housing is called A Housing Framework for Ontario: Issues for Consultation. It looks at the big picture.

There are many things we already know about housing in Ontario. For instance, we know there are more than 100,000 households without decent, adequate housing. We know that rising land prices have to a large degree driven up the cost of building homes and apartments. We know that most of our existing low-rise apartment buildings and many of our high-rise buildings are over 25 years old. But there are many things we do not know enough about, and they are what we want to consult on.

The paper I am releasing today lays out our objectives and describes some current problems and options. It presents choices on nine topics. For instance, how can we make sure that the non-profit housing we are building today will stay affordable in the future? Should the government provide direct financial assistance to the private sector to encourage construction of affordable houses and apartments? How can we make sure there is enough funding to maintain and repair non-profit housing? How can the costs of housing construction be reduced?

1350

Over the next few months, we at the Ministry of Housing will be meeting with a range of groups and individuals to explore answers to these questions. I want to hear from organizations such as the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, the Co-Operative Housing Association of Ontario, the Ontario Home Builders' Association, the financial institutions and many other groups across the province.

I am also very eager to hear from people who are disadvantaged or poor or homeless. I realize they are harder to reach, but it is important that we hear their views about housing. I believe the best way to develop a sound housing policy is to listen to people who will live in that housing and to groups that will build, manage and finance it.

The second paper we are releasing today is called Government Land for Housing: Questions for Consultation. Starting today, we are implementing changes to make more effective use of government-owned land for housing. My colleague the Minister of Government Services will have more to say about that in just a moment.

We are inviting interested individuals and organizations that want to comment on these papers to give us their views by Friday 30 August. Their views will be considered when we refine the policies.

There are two organizations that represent not-for-profit housing in Ontario: the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association and the Co-Operative Housing Association of Ontario. They will be holding meetings across the province on our consultation papers. At this point, I would like to acknowledge their partnership with us and thank them for their efforts. They have worked hard with us in putting these consultation papers together and I am sure they will continue to support us in our efforts.

The consultations we are beginning today will help us develop an integrated, comprehensive housing strategy to serve the people of Ontario for years to come.

The Speaker: The Minister of Government Services.

[Applause]

Hon F. Wilson: Thank you for that well-deserved applause. As my colleague the Minister of Housing has indicated, the government is making policy changes to make better use of government land for housing, especially affordable housing.

As members know, the province has had a Housing First policy that gives housing priority when government lands become surplus. Under this system only about 5,000 units have been marketed on such lands over the last four years. We believe that we can reform and improve on this performance.

Our new housing priority policy for the government land includes these changes: First, we will give housing priority on government sites when is no longer needed by an individual ministry or agency, not just when the government land is surplus to the government as a whole.

Second, the lands of virtually all government agencies will be covered by this policy, not just selected agencies, as under the previous policy.

Third, we will require all ministries to prepare a list each year of their underutilized properties. This means we can identify many new sites that are now being used for commercial or institutional purposes but which can be redeveloped to include affordable housing.

There are other steps that we believe would increase the amount of affordable housing produced on government land. That is why we are consulting. We want input on measures such as these: By how much should the percentage of affordable housing on government sites be increased, beyond 35%? Should a certain proportion of land be assigned for non-profit or co-operative housing and should a site be held if there is no appropriate housing group that can take it immediately? What about new land? Should the government buy new land for housing in communities that have a strong need for housing but have little suitable government land? Last but not least, should municipalities, school boards and other agencies which receive provincial government funding be required to offer their surplus property to the province to buy for housing?

The consultation paper, which all members have, outlines some approaches that we think would work for each of these issues discussed, but I want to stress that no final decision will be made until after consultations are completed on 30 August.

We realize that, by itself, government land cannot provide the entire answer for the affordable housing problem, but we believe it can be an important part of our overall solution.

LAC LA CROIX BAND

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to inform members of a number of initiatives the government is pursuing to address historic grievances and to improve the economic and social conditions for the Lac La Croix first nation in northwestern Ontario.

The 250 members of the Lac La Croix first nation live on a reserve on the southwestern edge of Quetico Provincial Park, on the international boundary between Ontario and Minnesota. There is no road access to the community and employment is seasonal and restricted because of the isolation of the reserve. One of the few employment opportunities that currently exists is to guide visitors in Quetico Park.

For nearly 90 years, this first nation has demanded that the province honour its rights and provide it with more meaningful economic opportunities. Until now, successive provincial governments, and also the federal government, have not responded positively.

Before I announce our initiatives, I would like to outline some of the history of this area.

The Lac La Croix first nation signed Treaty 3 in 1873. Briefly, Treaty 3 guaranteed that the first nation can exercise its pursuits of hunting and gathering in its traditional area, subject to some conditions, such as non-native settlements, lumbering, mining and other land uses. It was not contemplated in 1873, when this treaty was signed, that the idea of other uses would include establishing a provincial park like Quetico.

It is also important to note that when Quetico Provincial Park was created in 1913, the Lac La Croix first nation was not consulted by the Ontario government.

This lack of consultation has led to a number of injustices since 1913. These injustices include removal of families from their traditional lands; the prevention of first nation members from visiting sacred ceremonial grounds; the disturbance of traplines by provincial officials, and the detention and incarceration of community members for trapping, hunting and fishing.

We cannot undo these injustices. We can, however, recognize that the traditional activities of this first nation have been interfered with.

We understand that the first nation has been hurt by the fact the federal government, as its trustee, has not acted in a manner fitting to the crown. In addition, successive Ontario governments have failed to recognize the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Lac La Croix first nation.

The elders and chief of the Lac La Croix first nation are in the Speaker's gallery today and have been introduced. I want to say very directly and personally to them, as well as to the members of the House, that our government is prepared to make a public apology to the Lac La Croix first nation for the lack of respect that has been shown to its people and to its rights. We are committed to honouring the rights of the first nation. We are also prepared to move ahead and to begin to create conditions that will help solve the economic and social problems of this community.

Lac La Croix has made a proposal to the province to add six new lakes within Quetico Park where its members will be allowed to use motor boats as part of its guiding activities. At present, the community has motor boat access to six lakes on the west side of the park and an aircraft landing site at Beaver House Lake.

The first nation has also requested additional landing sites and docks within the park, again for guiding purposes.

On an interim basis, the province has accepted part of this proposal in order to provide some immediate and much-needed economic stimulus for this community. Through an exemption order under the Environmental Assessment Act, the first nation will be allowed to access three additional lakes, Cirrus, Jean and Conk lakes, which are adjacent to the area where they already have motor boat access and a landing site. The motors for these boats will be small, with a maximum of 10 horsepower.

I recognize that there is considerable and legitimate public interest in any changes to Quetico Park, particularly changes that deal with motorized access. Therefore, I am committed to a program of full public consultation on all the elements of the proposal for more access to the park by the Lac La Croix community. I am very pleased to inform members that the Lac La Croix first nation is willing to participate in public consultations. Public consultation will be conducted in accordance with the Ontario Provincial Park Management Planning Guidelines. In addition, before any amendments are made to the Quetico Park management plan concerning the Lac La Croix proposal, I will ask the Provincial Parks Council to conduct a review of the proposed amendments.

We trust that the public consultation and the parks council review will be completed within a year to conform with the exemption order that provides the community immediate access to three additional lakes.

We are also prepared to move immediately to assist with economic development at Lac La Croix. The province will provide $72,000 so the community may buy its own canoes and motors and increase the benefits from its guiding activities. At the moment, the community rents canoes and motors. The Ministry of Natural Resources will also hire four members of the community to act as a fire protection crew for Quetico Park.

1400

In order to address other outstanding grievances of the community, I am pleased to announce that Ontario has appointed a special representative who will discuss a number of issues with the first nation. Our special representative will be Lloyd Girman, a former Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs and native affairs in the Manitoba government.

A key issue to be resolved is the land claim of the first nation. The claim involves an area referred to as the Sturgeon Lake Indian reserve 24C, which is adjacent to McKenzie Lake in Quetico Park. The area was surveyed for a reserve in 1877.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, this is very important.

The Sturgeon Lake Band settled on the reserve until the reserve was cancelled in 1915 by Ontario. Thereafter, the families were removed.

We will invite the federal government to participate in the land claim discussions. However, the province is prepared to move quickly and negotiate matters that are within provincial jurisdiction. Mr Girman will also discuss with the first nation the exercise of its aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt, fish and trap in its traditional area, which includes Quetico Park.

The discussions between Ontario's special representative and the first nation will also focus on improving housing and social services and on providing road access to the community. The Ministry of Natural Resources is prepared to commit $500,000 to the construction of a road or trail to the community. This road will be outside the boundaries of Quetico Park.

Ontario is determined to move forward quickly, to acknowledge past wrongs and to work constructively and respectfully with the Lac La Croix first nation. The provincial government is also committed to full and fair public consultation with all, with an interest in improving the park values that make Quetico Park a very special place. Meegwetch.

MINING INDUSTRY / INDUSTRY MINIERE

Hon Mr Pouliot: Today we mark the dawn of a new era for mining in Ontario. Today the regulations of the new Mining Act, as well as the balance of the amendments contained in Bill 71, come into effect. It is, I feel, very appropriate that the new regulations are being proclaimed during Mining Week in Ontario.

Le secteur de l'industrie minière constitue un element crucial de l'economie de l'Ontario. Nous sommes d'importants producteurs d'or, de nickel, de cuivre, d'uranium, d'argent, de sel et de zinc, pour ne nommer que quelques-uns de nos minerais. Plus de 85 000 personnes travaillent dans le secteur minier en Ontario. La valeur de notre production de minerais s'elève a plus de 7 milliards de dollars. En tant qu'exportateur, le secteur minier se situe au deuxième rang de la province après le secteur de fabrication d'automobiles.

The new regulations update the administration of Ontario's mineral resources. They address a wide range of environmental and procedural concerns held by the industry and the public. The intent of this act is to encourage the prospecting, staking and exploration for new mineral resources, while ensuring that every phase of mining operations, including closure, will be pursued in an environmentally responsible manner.

Now, for example, public notice and approved closure plans may be required prior to advanced exploration and will be required prior to development. All existing mines will have to submit closure plans and financial assurance will be required for reclamation. New provisions address the growing desire to ensure responsible development of Ontario's resources.

Bill 71, members will recall, was introduced in October 1989 by the previous government, providing for the first major revisions of the Mining Act since 1906. Since then, my ministry has ensured, through public consultation and working groups, that it has sounded out the people who are affected by the proposed changes to the Mining Act. Fully 15 amendments were made to Bill 71, one of which, I am proud to say, I moved as opposition critic for Mines. Bill 71 was given royal assent on 6 December 1989 after consultation and the hard work of our civil service.

De nombreux groupes se sont joints a l'Association minière de l'Ontario ainsi qu'a mon ministère pour planifier les activites de la Semaine de l'exploitation minière 1991. Cette semaine permet d'accentuer l'importance du secteur minier pour les communautes, pour la province et pour le pays.

Par exemple, a Toronto, des elèves visiteront l'exposition sur les mines au pavillon L'Ontario a l'heure du Nord. À Timmins, une emission speciale televisee d'une demi-heure portera sur le secteur minier, et tous les elèves de la quatrième annee visiteront une mine souterraine de l'endroit. La Semaine de l'exploitation minière en Ontario est un evenement communautaire.

Also this week, the Canadian Mine Rescue Competition will be hosted by the defending champions from the Sifto Salt mine in Goderich. Highly trained teams will compete in skills developed to save lives and property in Canadian underground mines.

In this, the centennial year of the Ontario Bureau of Mines, I would urge all members here present, as well as all our constituents, to participate in these events and to reflect upon the vital role mining plays in all of our lives. Let's celebrate mining together.

I would like the members of this House to join me in welcoming Patrick Reid, the president of the Ontario Mining Association, accompanied by Warren Holmes, the chairman of the Ontario Mining Association.

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms Poole: Normally I would be the first to congratulate the government in going into a consultation process but, frankly, given the history of this NDP government towards consultation, I fear it will be a totally meaningless exercise. If we take what they did with their consultation on rent control, for instance, they sent out one million questionnaires in -- believe it or not -- a seven-week consultation period, and 10 days before the consultation period was even up, they were well into their draft legislation. So forgive me if I do not place much credence in this government's commitment to consultation.

I have had only 10 minutes to peruse these two documents of some 200 pages, so I cannot give a comprehensive analysis, but my preview has shown that there is nothing new and creative in these documents and they are simply reinventing the wheel. It is all an exercise in semantics.

For instance, they talk about the fact that the Housing First program is now going to be called the Housing Priority program, as though this in itself is going to make a great deal of difference. Well, I am afraid it does not. They are drowning us in semantics, drowning us in rhetoric and drowning us in consultation instead of acting.

If we look at a number of the major issues in housing and what they should be doing with their lands, it is quite clear they are not showing direction and they are not willing to move. That is why, again, the words are there.

I will give members a couple of issues, for instance, which will show that this government has been unwilling to move. Bill 152, regarding the disposal of assets by a municipality, was introduced by the Liberal government just about a year ago, and this would enforce that the province would have the first right of refusal for any municipal surplus lands, that the province could buy them. Yet in this document, what does it say? It gives a passing reference to the fact that it is good policy, yet then proceeds to go back and reinvent the wheel and ask whether we should really be doing this.

Second, they skirted the whole issue of co-ops. They talk about it in their statements, but if you look at the real issues in co-ops they are completely missing from this paper. They are not asking who should be in co-ops, what the people in co-ops should be paying. They are not asking if there should be a centralized waiting list, the same as there is for other subsidized housing. They missed the boat, and I think they deliberately missed the boat.

I was looking through it to try to find references to land use planning for housing policy, Planning Act reforms, what is happening with Seaton, what effect this consultation paper is going to have on it. There was very little in there, yet these are issues that are crucial to the housing area.

It is quite obvious that this government, in its rent control legislation, legislated first, before asking the important questions. Questions they are asking here will not even begin to be answered before they go through their legislation later this week. This government should rethink what it is doing. It is time for action, not words.

1410

LAC LA CROIX BAND

Mr Ramsay: We are supportive of allowing natives a greater level of self-determination, as I am sure all members of this House are, and also supportive specifically of allowing the Lac La Croix Band members a greater opportunity for economic development, which certainly includes allowing greater access by motor boat to several more lakes of the Quetico Provincial Park.

I will have to add a note of caution, though. What is the point of consultation after the fact? The minister did not give the previous government credit for allowing the initiation of the opening of six lakes the band presently has access to. We were sensitive to that, and we did that with consultation with the various groups out there. I would just warn the minister that this is obviously a very sensitive area, and one needs to be consulting with the public at large.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Miclash: I would like to congratulate the minister on the announcement he brought forth today. I remember working on a lot of that announcement with two previous ministers, the member for Renfrew North in Red Lake and the member for Quinte in Kenora. I must admit that I appreciate him bringing forth the issues that he did today.

But I must remind the minister that the mining industry today is in a very serious situation. We are talking about a mining industry where in 1990 we had nine mines closed, some 3,715 total layoffs, and 2,920 of these were permanent jobs. I appreciate what the minister has brought forth today, but I would really like to see some movement in the Ministry of Mines, movement that will ensure we do have good mining in this province in the future.

LAC LA CROIX BAND

Mr Harnick: In response to the minister responsible for native affairs, I am pleased that an attempt is being made to improve the economic situation on the band site, and I am pleased there will be public consultation to avoid some of the problems that arose in an earlier and similar situation in Algonquin Park.

I am also pleased that the values of the park will not only be improved and protected but in fact are going to be enhanced. For that, I thank the minister.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr McLean: I want to say briefly to the Minister of Mines that we also recognize the important contribution the mining industry makes in this province. It is great for the economy. We have some of the finest mineral resources in the world, along with the technology and the people to make mining a very viable industry.

However, as I stated in the House last Thursday, we object to the new tax on certain mining lands that will quadruple existing rates over the next five years. We will not tolerate any measure which constitutes a confiscation of property from its rightful owners. I urge the minister again to rescind this tax and get out of the business of forcing land owners to surrender their rights to the government.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Turnbull: I would point out to the Minister of Government Services, that this is the second government to announce the use of government land to alleviate problems of availability of affordable housing. It is significant that at a time when the Metro vacancy rate for rental housing is at the highest level in 16 years -- which, in other words, is at the highest level since rent controls were brought in -- and yet at the same time waiting lists for subsidized housing in Toronto are at historic highs, the government comes forward with this.

It is also significant that the Minister of Housing is going to make his announcement on rent review this week, which is obviously going to dry up all of the private sector initiatives to create housing; that instead of addressing the root problem of affordability, the government once again ducks its responsibility. We need to create private sector housing and get rid of education lot levies. Do not make taxpayers pay 150% of the price for which the private sector can create housing.

We have seen over and over again that this government has created so-called non-profit housing which is more expensive than for-profit housing. How can it possibly do this?

In British Columbia, when there was an NDP government, the then Housing minister sought to take away land from the University of British Columbia to create housing. Fortunately he did not succeed, and the university is now using that for expansion for what we need urgently in this country, increased levels of education.

Mr Tilson: To the Minister of Housing: Certainly his philosophy of making housing a public utility in this province continues, and it is a sad day when I see that after all the Bill 4 hearings we have been having, he is not changing his philosophy. The minister knows, his socialist friends know and everyone else in this chamber knows that the taxpayers of this province cannot afford that policy. We cannot afford the $10-billion deficit this province is encountering.

The minister continues to take no action with respect to the 30% of the tenants of this province who cannot afford any tax increases. He is doing nothing with respect to that all through the Bill 4 hearings and all through these announcements. The quality and standard of life of the tenants in this province are continuing to decline because of his policies. I groan at what this permanent legislation is going to cause to the people of this province when it is introduced this week.

He says there are two main organizations that represent not-for-profit housing providers in Ontario. Why will he not consult with the private home builders of this province? Why will he not ask them how to improve the quality of life of the tenants of this province? With respect to housing and government policy on government land, this question has been raised by his party for years and yet it has taken him all this time to introduce this green paper. Then he is still going to wait to the end of the summer to discuss it even further. This is an amazing policy when you see the devastating effects of Bill 4 and when you see the list of families and individuals seeking affordable housing in Ontario growing daily, and in particular in Metro Toronto. The housing policy on the homeless of both ministers is despicable.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Mr Speaker, I would like to request all-party consent to commemorate seniors' month.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

SENIOR CITIZENS' MONTH

Hon Ms Ziemba: I would like to have the members of the House join me in proclaiming June as Senior Citizens' Month. Hundreds of organizations are planning events that will honour older adults this month. Groups working with or on behalf of seniors, community-based service agencies, municipal offices, schools, recreation and multicultural centres, all of them and more will host special events for seniors' month.

One of the highlights of seniors' month is the series of stage shows produced, promoted and performed by seniors, including francophones, in 35 different communities in Ontario. These shows are a chance for older people to dust off old skills and polish new ones and they are a chance for seniors to give something to their community.

On 6 June we will present senior achievement awards to seniors who have made a significant contribution to their community after the age of 65. The awards, presented at a special ceremony by the Lieutenant Governor, will be held at Queen's Park. These are the highest distinctions presented to senior citizens in this province.

The province supports the many activities planned throughout this month. As a government, we want to emphasize that seniors deserve to live in dignity and, where possible, independently and within their own cultural diversity.

The theme of 1991 Senior Citizens' Month is "Following in Their Footsteps." It reminds all people that who and what we are is a reflection of the wisdom we have inherited from seniors. Seniors are our parents, our grandparents, friends, relatives and neighbours. We have the opportunity to celebrate the contributions of seniors to our society. They have marked a path for us, allowing us to follow and build on what our elders have provided for us. After all, we are a product of our ancestors.

We must work towards diminishing stress and hardship for our seniors. It is our responsibility to work towards such an environment. As well, it is a time when we must focus on the issues that are of concern to seniors. I am proud to say that the government is continuously reviewing the issue of access for seniors to ensure that information and services are provided in a culturally sensitive manner in our diverse multicultural society.

This government has begun several initiatives to address the special needs of seniors. In December, after a recommendation from a coroner's inquest, Mr Lightman was appointed as commissioner to conduct an inquiry into unregulated residential accommodations for vulnerable adults. This included board and lodging homes and rest and retirement homes.

On 18 April, the first Advocacy Act in Canada was introduced. This act is the centrepiece of a legislative package to address the needs of vulnerable adults. The companion acts, the Consent to Treatment Act and the Substitute Decisions Act, were introduced last week. The Advocacy Act will protect vulnerable adults, including seniors, and will empower them to live their lives in dignity.

Together we can reinforce the message to seniors that they are valued, respected and much needed in our communities so that we can continue to build a healthy province.

1420

Mr Mahoney: Unfortunately, the role of critic of senior citizens' affairs has been one of the easiest I have had to perform in this House, because there have been literally no announcements of any substantive nature to criticize, either from a positive perspective or otherwise.

It concerns me that once again we get reannouncements from the minister. It is very revolutionary to stand up and declare Senior Citizens' Month, which of course our party supports. In fact, this is the 21st consecutive year that this particular announcement has been proclaimed. I should point out to members that the minister's statement announced what the seniors are doing in their communities, the stage show, and I think that is all very important. In fact, I participated in the opening of the official senior citizens' games for the province. Many of them occurred in my own riding in Mississauga and in the riding of the member for Mississauga South, where some very wonderful activities took place.

But that is what the seniors are doing. The seniors are out there actively promoting their own existence and their own opportunities and they are helping this province by doing that. Certainly we as a party support everything those seniors are doing.

Hon Mr Laughren: Good.

Mr Mahoney: The Treasurer is probably close to joining the ranks and I am sure he will be out there running in the next senior citizens' games, leading the charge on the way to bigger and better things, because he will not have anything else to do. He certainly will not be around here.

However, let me get back on track. The former minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, the member for Carleton East, my colleague in this House, established a procedure, and I should point out that he was solely the minister for seniors, not for four other portfolios. He established a procedure where he invited members of the opposition parties to sit on a committee to make the decisions on the awards and have input into the very worthwhile awards.

I understand that when the New Democrats were in opposition, in a somewhat belligerent attitude they refused to attend or participate in that process, but I believe the Conservative Party had someone meet with the minister to discuss it. I would just like members to know that I have received no such communication and no such request. Indeed, I have received nothing whatsoever from the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, yet the awards are coming out very soon, as the minister has announced. We are delighted those awards are being given out, but we think that in a true spirit of this being a kinder, gentler place, as the Premier is often quoted as having said, it might have been an appropriate thing to contact the critics, even though he does not practise being kinder or gentler. It would have been an appropriate thing to contact the critics for the parties, to have us participate in that process and give us an opportunity to be involved with whatever is being done.

I should tell members that we as a party fully recognize both the past accomplishments and the continued, ongoing, very valued contribution of the more than one million senior citizens living in this province. We believe their contribution, if the backbenchers care about it at all, is very important to establishing and trying to maintain ongoing prosperity in the face of the damage being done across this province by this particular government. We think if there is anybody who can hold the fort --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Why don't you sit down?

Mr Mahoney: I say to the Minister of Mines that I will not sit down. I will when I am done. If anybody can hold the fort in this province, it will be our seniors, who have wise counsel and hopefully will be able to see us through the very damaging four years ahead.

I would like to quote, if I might -- I am not sure if it was a letter or Hansard -- from the current Solicitor General. If it is a letter, I am sure he authorized, wrote and signed it and probably even sent it out.

"Mr Farnan said in response to this very statement last year: 'If the government really wants to recognize seniors, to recognize the contribution they have made to society, then it would be nice if it did it in a practical, tangible, concrete way by giving them the kinds of services they truly need.'"

I quite heartily agree with that particular statement, but I see nothing that would indicate that type of thing is being done.

I take members back to Hansard during the estimates, when the minister said, "In opposition, my party was concerned about services for seniors," which may mean it is not now; I am not sure. In fact, in 1986 the Speaker, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, introduced a private member's bill, the Seniors' Indpendence Act, which was to provide for the integration of community-based support services with established programs and facilities.

I simply ask the government now, why does it not dust off the honourable gentleman's former private member's bill and bring it into this House so that we can see if there is something? I am sure it was brilliantly drafted. I am sure it would be supported in a very strong way and I for one would like to see the minister consider doing that. Seniors have worked very hard to build this province and it is extremely important that we recognize that contribution.

In closing, there is another quote that concerns me. If this is not the greatest example of an attempt at justification I do not know what is. Again, the minister during the estimates: "As you know, my cabinet responsibilities also include Citizenship, human rights, disabled persons and race relations. In the past, the senior citizens' office was represented by its own minister." I have already alluded to that with the honourable member. The minister goes on to say: "I want to stress, and I stress this emphatically, that the new arrangement in no way lessens the priority our government places on senior citizens. In reality, combining these responsibilities has enlarged and enhanced the role of the minister responsible for their concerns and issues."

I would have some difficulty understanding how the government could take a single-minister ministry, turn it into a five-ministry operation with one minister in charge and seriously try to suggest that enhances the role the minister could play in the eyes of the senior citizens.

We find that extremely hypocritical and simply not acceptable, and we call on this government to appoint one minister -- the member for Durham East would be fine, or anyone else the Premier chooses -- who could be responsible for senior citizens' affairs. We hope this minister will become an advocate for senior citizens, not only during this one very important month of the year, but during the entire year.

Mr Jackson: It is one thing for the member for Mississauga West to express concern at the lack of statements coming from the government, but it is quite another for him to have saved them all up for the last nine months to treat the House to them this afternoon.

Having said that, I certainly would like to commend the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs for her announcement. I, on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, would like to pay tribute to and acknowledge Ontario Senior Citizens' Month. I would like to take particular note of those citizens across this province who serve on the Ontario advisory council on Senior Citizens who have occasion to examine in an arm's-length way various issues and recommend to the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs certain changes they would like to see in legislation and regulation and procedures in this province.

I would also like to acknowledge some very positive signs of the manner in which seniors in Ontario are becoming less an identified group and more an integrated part of a healthier, growing community. I would like to acknowledge, for example, a long-time friend of seniors, Earl Warren, who was known to many people for his over 30 years on CFRB. Earl Warren began a special program on Saturday 1 June at the beginning of seniors' month entitled Saturdays are for Seniors, on CING radio -- that is FM-108, for those members who would like to listen -- in the great riding of Burlington South.

I had the pleasure of sitting in with Earl and opening his program, and he has an exciting program every Saturday --

Interjections.

1430

Mr Jackson: My colleagues the members in the Liberal Party suggest the ratings are down. Well, for a tired old party I should say it is required listening. They should listen in.

Let me suggest as well that with seniors living longer, healthier lives, having more meaningful and more active lives in our communities, it is all the more reason that we in this House, in all political parties, do not necessarily just sit back and observe a celebration, but rather use this as an occasion whence we can understand more the kinds of concerns that are being expressed by the seniors in our communities.

Certainly from our caucus's point of view, we have seen some initiatives because we have been trying to listen. The member for Carleton has brought in his Bills 7 and 8 on the living will to give dignity to those requiring medical treatment. The member for Dufferin-Peel has mentioned the problems with nursing home funding in this province. He is joined by persons such as Justice Howland, who in a recent court ruling indicated that it would be appropriate to base the funding on individual need, whether the individual be a resident in a nursing home, a home for the aged or a private home.

So we see that there is much room for this government to be listening to some of the kinds of concerns being expressed, not only by all members of this House and by the seniors community, but even by members of the bench who have been called upon from time to time to examine whether the rights of seniors are being affected adversely.

It has been brought to the attention of the Treasurer that this is the first budget in modern history in this province which has nowhere within it reference to senior citizens. That has raised some concerns, and we are hopeful that the Treasurer has earmarked some funds for senior citizens in that $10-billion deficit.

Interjections.

Mr Jackson: Well, it is going to be a rather large deficit, and the absence of a reference in the budget raises some legitimate questions. Even Seniors Today, a noted magazine read all across this province, has expressed concern. The verdict is not in; it is appropriate that the minister be given an opportunity to comment.

Certainly seniors are telling us that standards of safety are important for them, and if not met, seniors respond by becoming prisoners in their own homes. If the government will put a higher value on safety in our communities, it is appropriate that we recognize its effect on senior citizens.

We have reduction in access to beds in homes for the aged and nursing homes. Chronic care hospital beds are being cut back, and of course geriatric bed cuts are perhaps the cruellest cut of all to those seniors who are afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, with its absolute denial of any form of dignity for those who are afflicted with it.

There are many things which this government will be called upon to recognize during its term. The seniors of this province simply ask that they be treated with equal dignity and respect. If community living with dignity is to be an objective of this province for all its senior citizens, we must be mindful that they must be able to afford where they live; they must feel safe where they live and have security of their person, and they must be able to live out their remaining years with dignity.

On behalf of my caucus and all members of the House, I would like to pay our tribute to seniors during this very special month in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Solicitor General about the affair of the letters.

From the very beginning of this affair a little over a month ago, the Solicitor General has said that he was not aware of and did not authorize the letter, one of the three letters that were sent by his constituency staff to the justices.

His second line of defence from the beginning has been that in order to comply with the Premier's guidelines, which require him to take steps to alert his staff about the guidelines, he gave his constituency staff oral and written direction.

On 25 April he told the House, "I want to make it very clear that both in writing, through the conflict guidelines, and verbally through myself, I have consistently repeated the principle" that there can be no contact between the constituency staff and the justices. On 29 April he told the House: "I have communicated very clearly," orally and in writing, "that there had to be an arm's-length difference between my office and the judiciary. I have re-emphasized that, it has been in writing...." On a number of other occasions, he gave the same answer, that there was written confirmation of these instructions.

On Wednesday last, the Solicitor General released the only written communication to his Cambridge constituency office before 25 April, which was a memorandum to the Solicitor General from David Agnew headed "Conflict Guidelines and Constituency Work," dated 25 February. This memorandum makes no reference whatever to contacts between constituency staff and justices. Indeed, as the Toronto Star observed, it tells constituency workers that they may represent constituents in their dealings with tribunals.

Will the Solicitor General now at last confirm, notwithstanding his previous answers, that there was at no time any written communication to his constituency office before 25 April prohibiting contact between that staff and the justices?

Hon Mr Farnan: Obviously in the member's answer, he has clearly indicated that there was indeed a written communication. That written communication must be taken in conjunction with all the verbal directives I gave, not at the time the Premier introduced conflict guidelines but long before that. From the moment I assumed the office of Solicitor General, from my first conversations with my deputy, I went back to my office and I reiterated over and over again the principle of separation. That written communication reinforces my verbal communication, and I certainly will not withdraw what the member suggests.

Mr Scott: The Solicitor General is constitutionally unable to answer a question. The only written memorandum makes no reference whatever to contact with the justices. He knows it and it is about time he admitted it up front.

Now the Solicitor General goes on and says, "If you are going to talk about written, I want to talk about oral communications to my staff." From the beginning he said that. On 24 April he told the assembly, "I went back to Cambridge and I took my ministry staff and I said, 'Look, our policy is arm's length....I have emphasized it by telling them.'" On 29 April he repeated in this House that he had verbally communicated the principle to his constituency staff, and he went on to say, "I have from the very beginning transmitted that message to everybody I come into contact with." On 29 April he repeated: "I have re-emphasized that, it has been in writing, it has been oral...."

The summary of the RCMP investigation which has now been revealed indicates that not one of the three constituency staff who were interviewed by the RCMP had received directions or guidelines, written or oral, in relation to corresponding with the judiciary. It is now the Solicitor General's word against his three constituency staff. If they had received oral advice from him as he says, I am sure they would be anxious to tell the RCMP that.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Scott: The question I have for the Solicitor General, with himself on one side, his three staff on the other, on the question of advice is: Whom should we believe, the Solicitor General or his staff? Who is telling the truth about this matter?

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me be very clear. There are two letters in question around which the RCMP investigation took place. One of these was a part-time worker; one of these was a worker who was three weeks on probation. They are not on my ministry payroll; they are constituency staff. Their letters were not on ministry letterhead, they were on constituency letterhead, using my name and staff initials. It was my name as MPP and not as minister.

I am going to repeat to the member once again: I did not sign the letter. I did not approve the letter. I did not send the letter. I did not authorize the letter. In fact, the opposite is true. I have from the very beginning reiterated the principle of separation.

1440

Mr Scott: From the beginning, the Solicitor General, to defend himself in this House, has said he gave written communication to his constituency staff. If the only memo is the memo of 25 February, that is mistaken. There is nothing in there about the justices at all. He says, when confronted with that, that he has given an oral instruction to them. The three who were interviewed by the RCMP in what I am sure was a thorough investigation, though we have not seen it, deny that. They received no advice from the Solicitor General.

The fact is, we are now getting to a more serious problem than the letters themselves, which is the answers the Solicitor General has given in this House about his instruction to his staff. What I want to ask the Solicitor General to do is to produce someone who will say, "I received advice from the Solicitor General," instead of saying to his staff, "I say; I know you deny it." We are raising real questions about the kind of information the Solicitor General is presenting to this House.

The Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mr Scott: I want to ask the minister, will he now submit his resignation?

Hon Mr Farnan: I am not going to be lectured in this House by the member for St George-St David. Let me put on the record that what I say in this House I say outside the House. On 24 April the member opposite made a scurrilous, unfounded accusation of criminal activity on my part. He had to withdraw that accusation in this House. He has been afraid to make the accusation outside the House because he knows if he does he will end up in the courts.

Mr Scott: I am saying in the House that there is no evidence from his own files that the Solicitor General gave any written communication to his staff, and his three staff members -- he has not got any more in Cambridge -- have all denied that he gave oral advice. I will say that here and I will say that out there any time the Solicitor General wants to hear it. How does that square with his answers in this House?

The Speaker: Your second question?

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Premier as a result of this. The Solicitor General, as the Premier has heard, has persistently said that he did not write or authorize the letters and that he had given written and oral instructions to his Cambridge office staff that such contact was not to occur.

In this House on 23 April, the Premier indicated that he had received and accepted the word of the Solicitor General in this regard. On 24 April, the Premier said: "I have the word of the Solicitor General. No one has suggested that he is not telling the truth."

As a result of the release of the summary of the RCMP report and the release by the Solicitor General of his written communication of 25 February, it is now clear that there was no written direction. At least three members of his constituency staff, two explicitly -- the third apparently was either not asked the question or it was not summarized -- have denied, contrary to his assertion, that they received oral advice or direction from him.

I want to suggest to the Premier that this matter is escalating, that a real problem about credibility exists, and a problem about the propriety of answers that have been given in this House. Will he now give consideration, as was suggested by the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen last week, to accepting or demanding the resignation of the Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Rae: In a word, no. But I want to say to the member for St George-St David that I think he is drawing conclusions from the report, drawing conclusions from what has been said, that are at variance. I have read the same summary which the member for St George-St David has read, and I would say to the honourable member that I think he is grossly exaggerating -- I will simply leave it at that -- what flows from that, and the level of his personal attack on the Solicitor General is simply not called for.

Mr Scott: I respect the right of anybody to read the summary of the judgement, but if there is one thing clear from that summary report it is that the Solicitor General says he gave oral advice and that the three people who worked for him say they received no advice. The Premier cannot get around that reality.

The RCMP report was commissioned to get to the bottom of the matter. The crown law staff, on the basis of the investigation, recommended, as we expected, that there was no breach of the Criminal Code. They, of course, made no observation about whether the Premier's guidelines had been breached. That was not their affair.

Last week in the House the Premier made plain that he had not read the report, as if there were something wrong in reading the report of the RCMP. It would be wrong to interfere with it; it is not wrong to read it after it is done. Presumably, he has not read the depositions obtained by the RCMP from the constituency staff and others.

In order to get to the bottom of this matter and to ascertain whether this House has heard the entire story or the correct story, will the Premier now undertake to read the RCMP investigative report, and the depositions associated with it, to determine who is telling the truth?

Hon Mr Rae: My initial reaction -- and I will obviously be taking advice on it -- is that this would not be appropriate on my part. I am saying that, but I have one other point.

The member for St George-St David has on a number of occasions in the House today asserted as a matter of fact -- he has not quoted directly, but he has asserted -- that staff members said they had never received any oral or verbal instructions from the Solicitor General. I am quoting from page 10 of the report of the summary provided by the office of the Attorney General. It quotes staff member 2, who said she did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to corresponding with the judiciary. The report is entirely silent on the question of what other conversations she may have had with the Solicitor General with regard to her obligations as a constituency assistant.

Mr Scott: That is about as thin a reed as you can get. If any of the witnesses had said, "Yes, the Solicitor General, just as he said, came down to Cambridge and told us," that would appear right in the report. The fact is he did not and that is apparent from the report. There is no question about how this has to be read. Five minutes in a courtroom and this explanation would not stand up.

On 24 April, Richard Johnston, a former member of the Assembly, a senior adviser to the Premier from time to time, said on the CBC that if the Solicitor General had not made it unequivocally clear to his Cambridge staff -- I presume so they would remember it -- that they were never to sign his name to a letter to a justice of the peace, he would clearly be obliged to resign. That is Richard Johnston. He was then and, of course, this is now.

What we now know is that no written instruction about communicating with justices was ever given by the Solicitor General to his staff. There is grave doubt, three to one, whether any oral instruction was given. In light of the fact that the Premier persists in refusing to read the RCMP report -- which no doubt got to the heart of the matter -- would the Premier now agree that what is required is an independent investigation in which the evidence and conclusions can be made public or, alternatively, that the advice of Richard Johnston should finally be accepted and the Premier should demand the resignation of the Solicitor General forthwith?

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David has already reached his conclusions with regard to what has happened. I want to read out for the benefit of the member for St George-St David, because in all of his reading of the reports he has never had the courtesy to do so, the one conclusion with respect to the conduct and character of the Solicitor General that the police officers did reach.

On page 8: "The Solicitor General impressed the officers 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."

Mr Scott: That is the way he impresses me, but the facts are against him.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David.

Mr Scott: It is too late, Premier.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: It seems to me that in all fairness, that aspect of an independent RCMP investigation might have been considered by the member from St George-St David.

1450

Mr Carr: My question is also to the Solicitor General. He has repeatedly told us that he clearly instructed his staff never to communicate with members of the justice system, but the RCMP report just as clearly states that one member of his staff did not receive this instruction. Who is not telling the truth, the Solicitor General or his staff?

Hon Mr Farnan: I want to commend the critic for the Conservative Party. He points out that one member of my staff clearly indicated that, in her view, she was not given that instruction. I will reiterate that I gave those directions.

One of the members of the staff was a member of three weeks' probation. The other member of the staff we are talking about who is quoted in this report is a part-time member. The full-time member of my staff can be asked -- I am sure she was asked -- and I know she will reaffirm, because it was discussed on several occasions, about the principle of separation, and the principle of arm's length.

Mr Carr: I would like to quote the Solicitor General of 24 April where he said: "So the answer is yes, both in writing and verbally I have said there must be an arm's length from the Solicitor General to the judiciary. Yes, yes, yes."

The RCMP report says staff member 2 did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to corresponding with the judiciary.

The Solicitor General says yes, yes, yes; the RCMP says no, no, no; the public says explain, explain, explain. He has a choice now, explain to the people why there are the contradictions. How does he explain it?

Hon Mr Farnan: Very clearly, when the opposition parties look at any document they are selective. The member for St George-St David was very selective on the communication that was sent to my constituency staff. The critic for the Conservative Party is very selective. I would suggest to them that one must take all of this in its entirety. The statements to my staff, reinforced with the written communication, clearly indicate a separation, clearly indicate an arm's length.

I say inside the House what I say outside. Unfortunately, the members of the opposition keep to their slander inside the House.

Mr Carr: The Solicitor General sounds like Bart Simpson, "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove a thing." The fact is that there are contradictions and the public cannot stand the cynicism any longer.

Will he admit that the mistake that was made was on the part of himself, yes or no? Did he mislead this House when he told us clearly that he informed his staff that they must never, never, never communicate with a member of the justice system?

Hon Mr Farnan: When I say to this House that I have talked to my staff, that I have given a written communication to my staff, of course I stand by that.

Mr Carr: Very clearly what we have here is a contradiction. The RCMP report says that they did not receive it.

We received copies of a couple of letters that were forwarded to us today. One, on 18 February, says very clearly that there was interference. Another letter was sent to the Attorney General. Therefore, he has in his constituency office in Cambridge two individuals, one sending to the Attorney General, the other sending to a justice of the peace within days of each other. Can the Solicitor General explain why one letter goes to the Attorney General and the other goes directly to the justice of the peace? How does he explain these two differences?

Hon Mr Farnan: In everything that has happened in this House concerning this matter, I have been totally open. From the time it has been possible to make information available, I have made it available. I have made it very clear that I want this to be like an open book. I took the same attitude with the RCMP; my office was open to the RCMP. If there is any evidence, if there is any information, if there is any request at all, and I have information that I can give to the opposition and give to the public, provided it is permissible for me to do that, I will give it to them. I have been asked on two occasions for requests. I have complied with those requests. There is a fundamental principle here. When you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide -- period.

Mr Carr: That is why we would like to go to the standing committee on administration of justice. We have contradictions. We would like to get all the facts out so the public can rest assured that there has been no interference.

As chief law enforcement officer in this province, it was the Solicitor General's responsibility, and his alone, to instruct his staff that they were never to communicate with a justice of the peace or a judge in Ontario. The Solicitor General took office on 1 October. He should have informed them about this arm's-length policy on 2 October, not on 4 March. Why did it take him five months before he was able to communicate to his staff that they should never, never, never interfere with justice in this province?

Hon Mr Farnan: The member is precisely correct. On 1 October, after I was sworn in, I met with my Deputy Solicitor General. We had a very important conversation in which he impressed upon me the most fundamental principle. I went back to my office in Cambridge and I discussed that conversation with my staff. The substance of that conversation was that there has to be a separation, that there has to be an arm's length. That has been my consistent message. It is the model by which I work and it is the direction I asked my staff to follow.

Mr Carr: The problem is, this situation is clear only in the Solicitor General's mind. The rest of the public is not clear about it. If he was clear in his directions, then how does he explain that three different people on three separate occasions did not get the message? What does he say to the public? Why did they not get the message clearly? Was it his fault or was it theirs? Who is to blame for this?

Hon Mr Farnan: A part-time member of my staff made a mistake and a three-week probationary made a mistake. In every case where a minister has been forced to resign there has been --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Has the minister completed his remarks?

Hon Mr Farnan: It is very clear that in every case where a minister has been forced to resign, it has been because of direct involvement of the minister in an impropriety of contacting the judiciary, of contacting the police. I did not pick up the phone. I did not write a letter. I did not put my hand on a staff member's shoulder and say, "I want you to contact the justice of the peace." There is clearly arm's length.

Mr Scott: The Solicitor General is using words as if they are made of Plasticine. He said he gave written instructions to his Cambridge staff. I have offered him the opportunity to correct that, but in response to the member for Oakville South he again said he had given them written instructions. I have sent to him the one-and-a-half-page memo that he sent to Cambridge. Will he just read any paragraph, if there is one, in that memorandum that relates to writing to justices? Would he just read the bit that he says was the written advice?

Hon Mr Farnan: I am going to make two points. The first is that the written communication is taken in the context of verbal directives. If the member opposite will look at this particular document, he will note that it says, "In any adjudicative process." An adjudicative process, I would suggest to him, would include a justice of the peace. If you cannot interfere with the WCB, surely to goodness interfering with a judge is obviously more serious. Does the member not realize that?

1500

Mr Scott: The Solicitor General is just getting in deeper and deeper every single day. When you ask him about a written instruction -- and there clearly is not one -- he says it was verbal. When you ask him about a verbal one, then he says it was a written one, as he said to the member for Oakville South. He cannot play fast and loose like this. Now I assume what I think is obvious, that there is no written instruction, contrary to what he said.

We cannot get the police report. We have to see the summary of it, which indicates to me that three -- to my honourable friend, two of his constituency staff; that must be the whole staff -- not one of them remembered these trips to Cambridge that the minister made to give them instruction, which he did repeatedly, he says. Not one of them remembers it.

Will the honourable member permit these servants to come and answer questions about it before a parliamentary committee? If he wants the truth, he will agree to do that. If he is not prepared to do that, he will have to accept that every member of the House and the general public will draw their own conclusions, not about whether he signed the letter but about his attitude in this House, which at the end of the day is more important. Will the honourable member release the names of those people so they can be subpoenaed by a committee?

Hon Mr Farnan: The honourable member continues to confuse facts. One member of the staff was there three weeks into a probationary period, so if I were giving repeated messages I do not think the member can include this in his summary.

Second, as the member for the third party had pointed out, two members perhaps can be identified; of those two, one is the three weeks' probationary. Now we are reduced to one member, and I am prepared to go on the record and say, if people wish to contact that other member of staff, they will find out very clearly that she supports my position, that I indeed discussed this matter repeatedly within my constituency.

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Premier. I have listened for some days now to the questions and the answers regarding the conduct of the Solicitor General. There are obviously a lot of questions as to what happened or what did not happen, who said what, who received what type of instructions. I think the credibility of the Solicitor General and, quite frankly, of the government is in question, as was stated in a number of leading newspapers across this province. What harm can come of the Premier's referring this to a committee of the Legislature to determine what the facts really are?

Hon Mr Rae: In my view, the facts have been presented to the public as clearly as possible. The Solicitor General has made the position clear in the House. The investigation has taken place with respect to the RCMP, and in my view the facts are out.

Mr Sterling: Back in 1980, I was a member of this Legislature, and at that time there were some serious questions with regard to an Astra/Re-Mor Trust Co matter. At that time, there was a serious criminal investigation under way with regard to the principal of the Astra Trust Co. The New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, in a minority Parliament, forced the government of the day to divulge all of the criminal investigations that were going on with regard to that very, very sensitive matter.

I sat in room 163 of this Legislature with a number of members of the other party going through 20 or 30 four-drawer file cabinets of criminal investigation material. The material that appears to have come to light or might be there, I am certain, does not equal the sensitivity of that kind of information. As a result of those hearings, three members from each party were given the right to look at those criminal investigation reports. They were held in confidence by those members. In fact, as a result of the criminal investigation there was a serious criminal charge laid, which resulted in a conviction and a subsequent severe sentence for the principal of Astra Trust.

In light of the record of this Parliament in looking at criminal investigation reports, why would the Premier deny in this case, where there are no criminal charges being laid, members of the justice committee, or perhaps two or three members of the justice committee, the right to look at the criminal investigation report of the RCMP so that the facts can really be determined as to whether the Solicitor General was in fact fulfilling his obligations as a minister of the crown?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member that I do not see any parallel between the situation at Astra Trust and the situation today.

Mr Fletcher: I have a lot of faith in the Solicitor General and he has my support.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Fletcher: My question is for the Minister of Education. On Friday I was pleased to hear the minister announce $2 million in capital funding for the rebuilding of Paisley Road Public School in my riding of Guelph. This school consists of five run-down metal satellite buildings built about 40 years ago. The minister will remember that I endorsed this project and the efforts of the Paisley Road Parent-Teacher Association.

I am also aware that the capital requests from Ontario schools totalled more than $2 billion, while the ministry had only $300 million available. I commend the minister for recognizing the special need at this school. My question for the minister is whether she can clarify when the money will be available for the construction so that construction may begin.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The previous government, recognizing the really major space problems that were occurring in the province, entered into a long-term plan of preflowing funds. The funds that we flowed the other day were for the 1994-95 year, the next year after the program. What has happened in the past is that some school boards, recognizing the need of their communities for these schools, have gone into debenture situations in order to finance the building of schools earlier than the year in which the funds will be released by the government. But these funds are for the 1994-95 fiscal year in terms of government grants.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Scott: I want to ask the Attorney General, now that the decision has been made that there will be no criminal charges arising out of the affair of the letters, if he sees any reason at all why the Premier of Ontario should not be allowed, as the Attorney General has done, to read the full investigative report, together with any depositions that are attached to it. Is there any reason why the Premier should not read it?

Hon Mr Hampton: I suspect the member for St George-St David knows that when an investigation is undertaken by police for a particular person, the report that comes out of that investigation is to be used for that purpose and that purpose alone. That is the situation here. When I requested the RCMP to investigate, it was from the perspective of seeing if anyone had obstructed justice or anyone had attempted to obstruct justice. That was the basis upon which the report was prepared. That was the basis upon which the RCMP clearly was operating. It would be improper for me to release the report for any other reason.

Mr Scott: Once an investigative report has been made, the Premier has not the right, and would not exercise it even if he had it, to interfere in an investigation or to interfere before a decision has been made to lay charges. But once an investigative report has been made to the Attorney General and read by the Attorney General, can it really be that under this government the Premier of the province is not going to be allowed to read it? I leave that there. I have never heard of any such proposition in Ontario, anywhere else in Canada or in England, where most of this practice comes from.

But having got the Attorney General to make that very odd remark, may I say this: The investigative report was prepared for the Attorney General or the government by the RCMP, which acted as agent for the government in conducting an investigation. Will the Attorney General ask the RCMP to permit release of the report to the Premier or the public? We have often in government asked for that, and that permission has always been granted. I am sure if the Attorney General will undertake today to ask the RCMP to permit the release of the report, it will do so. Will he undertake that today?

1510

Hon Mr Hampton: I have had a number of discussions, through senior legal advisers in the Ministry of the Attorney General, with the RCMP, and the RCMP is very clear. They regard their report as a report that has to deal with the criminal investigation. There are several privacy matters that they regard as important. They have asked that the report be used for the purposes of ascertaining whether or not criminal charges ought to be laid, and for no other reason.

LANDFILL SITE

Mrs Marland: My question is to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area on the subject of waste management. I understand that she met last week with the mayor of Mississauga to discuss one of the regions in the GTA that is facing a garbage crisis. I also understand she was informed again by the mayor that there is a signed agreement as to the closing date of the Britannia landfill site. She has said she does not want Peel to close it because she may need it in an emergency to take more garbage.

However, as the mayor has pointed out, if that were to be the move, it would not be the result the minister needs. It would not be the solution she needs because there would be lawsuits from the people around that site, who were assured by a written agreement that the site was going to close.

I am asking the minister today if she will promise the people of Mississauga that she will not expand that site, which she herself in the past has criticized, because originally it was approved under the Environmental Protection Act and she was opposed to it when she was in opposition.

Hon Mrs Grier: The site to which the member refers was approved some years ago. I do not think I was in this House to criticize the approval process at that time, but I am certainly aware of the member's concern and that of the mayor of Mississauga, who has expressed to me on a number of occasions her desire that this site close as soon as possible. The reality is that no contingency planning had been done, until this government took office, about what happened in the long term with waste disposal.

As the member is well aware, I have undertaken to report back to this House about the measures my ministry has been investigating with respect to short-term contingency actions that would have to be taken if we ran out of landfill capacity within the GTA prior to the opening of the new landfill site. That undertaking still stands.

Mrs Marland: This minister was not in office when that site was approved. However, this minister sat in this House and criticized the fact that the site was approved under the Environmental Protection Act. Furthermore, the minister has stopped the progression of an approval of a site in Peel because it was under the Environmental Protection Act, the same as the site in Durham. She put a whole cap on that progress that was being made when those regions were independently finding a solution to their own garbage crisis.

Based on the fact that the minister now has an authority that has set up firms to go and do research into site selection for long-term sites, and one of those sites is to be in the region of Peel, is she going to reimburse the region of Peel any of the $4.5 million it has already spent on site selection? That information will, of course, be requested by the agents of the minister's waste authority. Is she now going to reimburse the taxpayers of the region of Peel for any of the work that has already been done in that site selection process?

Hon Mrs Grier: As the member has said, in fact the site selection process for the new long-term sites has begun, and I hope the site selection criteria will be available for consultation very soon. I think I have already addressed a question on that issue in the House.

I am also glad to be able to tell the member that while it was anticipated that the Britannia Road site to which she refers was due to close in the middle of 1991, the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga have been extremely helpful in sharing information with the GTA authority and it is now obvious that the Britannia Road site is going to be available for waste until March 1992, which is a tribute to the waste reduction efforts being undertaken within the region of Peel.

The issues the member raises with respect to the financing of the long-term search, the work that has already been undertaken, are all going to be part of the discussions and the negotiations the new waste authority will have with the regions as we proceed in the long-term site search.

PESTICIDES

Mr Drainville: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Last week, the American Journal of Public Health released a study on bacillus thuringiensis, otherwise known as BT. This is a bacterial agent that is used in fighting gypsy moth. In my riding of Victoria-Haliburton, since the release of that report, there have been concerns and questions raised by residents in my riding as to this agent, BT, and whether there are some hazards related to it. I ask the minister whether he could tell us how that is used by the ministry and what its disposition is towards using BT.

Hon Mr Wildman: This is a very important question. I am familiar with the study to which the member refers and I want to emphasize that the study concluded that BT has a remarkable safety record, considering how widely it is used in North America. However, it is important to recognize that the medical community is reluctant to label any bacterium as absolutely non-pathogenic to humans.

BT, it should be remembered, is a naturally occurring bacterium. The study did not provide any clear evidence that there is any threat, or what threat there might be, to people with weak immune systems. Having said that, however, if there is any municipality or individual or community that wishes to withdraw from the program, the ministry would accommodate that. It should be recognized that where municipalities have asked for participation, the spray program is advertised 30 days and seven days prior to any spraying.

Interjections.

Mr Drainville: I found it hard at times to hear what the minister was saying because of some of the outpourings of the opposition. This is a very serious issue and affects the whole of the north country in terms of the gypsy moth. I was wondering if the minister would be willing to talk specifically also about the gypsy moth program in Ontario and how that is being used by the ministry to fight the gypsy moth problem.

Hon Mr Wildman: This is a very popular program for fighting the gypsy moth in southern Ontario and, in northern Ontario, the spruce budworm. In the member's own riding we have 525 and 716 private land owners, respectively, in Victoria and Haliburton participating in the program. The ministry sprays a total of 36,500 hectares for gypsy moth. The program is cost-shared by the land owner and the municipality, with the administration of the program shared between the ministry and the municipality.

I should re-emphasize that the ministry only uses BT in an aerial treatment for insect pests. There are no chemical pesticides used in aerial applications in this regard.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Kwinter: I have a question of the Treasurer and Minister of Economics. Today the Liberal budget review tours in Sudbury, examining the impact of the NDP budget and what effect it is having right in the Treasurer's backyard.

Melinda Dozzi, the president of the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, told the task force that her two main concerns are gasoline prices and loans for small business. For northern consumers and small businesses alike, the 30% increase in gasoline taxes is an incredible financial burden. This was recognized by the current Minister of Mines when, in a debate on 28 May 1986 and, more recently, on 26 June 1990, he decried the fact that gasoline prices were higher in the north. On both occasions, he said all it took was a stroke of a pen to change it.

Again in the Sudbury Star of Tuesday 21 August, the then leader of the official opposition said that if he were Premier, he would bring in one-price gasoline across the province. Could the Treasurer tell us what happened to that promise by the Treasurer and his government about gasoline prices in the north?

1520

Hon Mr Laughren: There has been considerable debate across the north on the whole question of gasoline prices. As a matter of fact, I can recall some of my own utterances over the years about the unfairness of the pricing of gasoline.

During the time leading up to the preparation of the budget when we had groups in expressing their views and giving their advice, some of which I took and some of which I did not, that was one of the issues bothering me the most, the whole question of gasoline prices in the north. No matter which model we looked at in terms of making sure that prices were fair across the province, it seemed that it became ever more complex when we looked at all the possible solutions.

Since then, I have expressed the hope that rather than relying on the government in this particular case to move in and impose price controls on gasoline across the north, the private sector, without engaging in any collusive behaviour whatsoever of course, might think of a more logical way in which it, as individual companies, would price its product across northern Ontario.

Mr Kwinter: I would like to turn to the other concern that was expressed. According to the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, the small business person has become a nonentity in the NDP government.

During the election campaign, the NDP proposed "to introduce a program of reduced-interest loans to small business for startup costs and to refinance existing high-interest loans." Some $40 million would be available. The Treasurer did not deliver this in his budget, and one of the things that is crushing small business in this recession is the refusal by financial institutions to lend it money.

Could the Treasurer tell us why he ignored the reality of this situation in his April 1991 budget, when in August 1990 he and his party were making promises about it?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I must say I felt that the $9.7-billion deficit was high enough to start with and that to make it higher by a further program of more loans or grants simply would not be acceptable.

In thinking about the motel and hotel industry, when I was in New York recently being so warmly received, I noticed, when I paid my bill when I checked out of the very modestly priced hotel, three different taxes that applied to the hotel bill came to over 20% of the price of the bill. I think sometimes when we are comparing the whole question of taxes here versus other jurisdictions we simply do not take into consideration all of the taxes in other jurisdictions, and I think we should start doing that.

CHILD CARE

Mr Jackson: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. It is no secret that the NDP government is pursuing a course of action designed to wipe out private child care delivery service in this province.

The minister would be aware that a non-profit day care centre which was built at considerable expense to Ontario taxpayers on Observatory Lane in Richmond Hill was scheduled to open last September, but it still remains empty to this day. The doors have never opened. It did not open because an insufficient number of children applied and they could not pull together a management team.

It is my understanding that this is not the first case of a non-profit centre failing to open its doors after the taxpayers have built it. Can the minister inform all members of this House just how many centres in Ontario have been built and have not opened?

Hon Ms Akande: I thank the member for the question. I do want to once again correct the premise upon which this question is based. It is not a well-known fact that this government is trying to put for-profit child care out of business. I must say, though, that I have no knowledge of the centre to which the member refers. However, I certainly will look into it and I will promptly get back to this House with the answer.

Mr Jackson: In the minister's former life as a teacher, I do not know what the penalty for not having done her homework was, but in this instance we are looking at a $700,000 government screwup, and she does not know anything about it. That really shocks me.

I do believe that this minister is dancing to the tune of her ideology and not listening to the concerns of taxpayers. The truth of the matter is that on 7 March of this year, this minister announced a further $700,000 to go towards the building of another non-profit day care centre in Richmond Hill, less than two minutes' drive away from the Observatory Lane centre which has never opened its doors. This was all in her announcement under an anti-recession package.

The mayor and the members of municipal council visited these sites. They have expressed concern as to why the minister is spending millions of dollars building centres that never open, when that centre could have provided 110 subsidized child care spaces, where there is clear demand and where the public is asking for support and yet she has not given it in this area. Will the minister tell this House just how many centres are involved and how many dollars are involved in these non-profit centres that never open under her government's programs?

Hon Ms Akande: In actual fact, in my previous life the penalty for not doing one's homework was doing one's homework, and that is what I have suggested I will do. I will find out exactly the information the member requests and present it in this House tomorrow. However, I must say once again that the particular incident to which the member refers is being generalized in his question and we have no indication at this time that this is in fact a general concern.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mrs Haslam: In my riding we do have a number of seniors. A couple of weeks ago I was attending the Ritz Lutheran Villa to open its new wing. I am pleased to report that we are giving consideration to some new housing for seniors in my riding, so I would like to ask the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, since this is Senior Citizens' Month, how this government is making changes that will affect the seniors in our ridings and in all of Ontario.

Hon Ms Ziemba: We believe, as a government, that seniors have played a very important role in all of our lives, and we also believe it is not just to make announcements during Senior Citizens' Month but to make announcements all through the year.

We have been making some very substantial changes to seniors' lives by introducing the Advocacy Act, which will have second reading this afternoon, and by appointing a commissioner last December to look into unregulated homes. The commissioner will come back in July with his recommendations on unregulated homes for the frail and for seniors. We have also introduced for first reading the Substitute Decisions Act -- the Attorney General introduced that last week -- and a new health consent act.

We have made provisions for more commitment to transportation: accessible taxis. We have announcements coming up which will address the needs of seniors when it comes to long-term care and also for housing.

We have also looked at the fact that affordable housing is very important for seniors and that Bill 4, when it comes to affordable housing, is extremely important and that we are making sure that seniors are well looked after in housing needs.

1530

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development, if I could have his attention for a moment. The minister may recall that on 15 May my Liberal colleague the member for Renfrew North asked the Treasurer about new training initiatives and new training funds in his budget. In his response the Treasurer said, "We are working within government to put together a very serious proposal and effort on the whole question of training in the province."

I would like to ask the minister, is the $3.5-million worker adjustment program that he announced some 10 days ago all we can expect from his government on retraining, or will he keep the Treasurer's promise for a very serious proposal and effort on training, and if so, when will we see it happen?

Hon Mr Allen: The short answer is "soon," but I think the member would want a little bit more than that. He knows that recently we have put $6 million into ensuring that apprentices are able to complete their training regardless of depression circumstances; that we have put an extra $2 million into technology and technicians' upgrading programs; that we have put a further $1 million into pre-apprenticeship programs for women and for designated minorities so that they will be able to access apprenticeship programs.

But beyond that, there are two other initiatives that the member needs to be aware of. He may not realize it, but with 38% of the labour market in Ontario, we have been getting 23% of the federal training dollars, and our past governments, for some reason or other, have let about 14 or 15 percentage points slip out of their hands in terms of accessing federal training dollars. We are in the midst of negotiations with the federal government to make sure that it antes up its fair share of training dollars to Ontario so that we can in turn beef up training in the midst of our Ottawa-made recession.

Mr Daigeler: I am pleased to hear that the minister is in fact taking a very serious look at the whole question of training, and I am certainly looking forward to receiving some details on his plans very, very soon, because I think we all are agreed that the whole labour-adjustment industrial restructuring that is happening at this time and the effects of the recession are very tremendous for our whole economic future.

The minister will remember that some very valuable work has already been done by the previous government on this whole question of training, and I refer to the report which was issued last August, People and Skills in the New Global Economy. So clearly the minister has some very excellent work already on his desk, and I certainly hope that he will be coming forward very soon and very quickly with a comprehensive training outline and training plans for this province.

The minister also referred to the federal and provincial training agreements. I am glad he mentioned that, because we were supposed to hear very shortly -- in fact, by now -- that a new training agreement has been signed with the federal government. Can the minister advise this House when that training agreement with the federal government will be signed, what position he is taking and what we can expect from that new training agreement?

Hon Mr Allen: Globally, I think I indicated what we expect to achieve under the agreement, but there have been a number of very important technical discussions around the terms of reference, for example, as to what would constitute the fair treatment of Ontario in the context of the allocation of federal training dollars. It has been matters like that, like coming to an agreed-upon structure for the delivery of training dollars through local training boards, that have protracted these discussions at some length. But I expect it will not be long before that agreement has been signed.

The member should also know that we have been working very much on a fast track in order to develop an Ontario training and adjustment board not unlike but considerably different from the model that was presented in the People and Skills in the New Global Economy report from the previous Premier's Council, and that is at the same time, almost concurrently with the training agreement, coming to a head at this point in time.

I would expect the member should keep his eyes and ears open and there will be some good news fairly soon.

PETITIONS NURSING HOMES

Mr Tilson: I have a petition from the residents' families and staff of Avalon Care Centre in Orangeville that consists of 83 signatures. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the residents' families and staff of Avalon Care Centre, are very concerned about the funding inequities of nursing homes in the province of Ontario, and

"Whereas it is our understanding that the government funds homes for the aged at a much higher rate than nursing homes,

"We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We demand equality in funding and staffing between homes for the aged and nursing homes in order to meet the increased needs and maintain the quality of life of nursing homes."

AMALGAMATION OF TOWNSHIPS

Mr Eves: I have a petition for the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We are against the amalgamation of Cameron and Papineau townships. If not stopped, we demand a plebiscite vote."

I have affixed my signature thereto in accordance with standing order 35(e).

CHILD CARE

Mr Mahoney: I wish to table a petition to the Honourable Zanana Akande, Minister of Community and Social Services, from 17 early childhood educators in Mississauga. They are protesting the minister's decision to provide funding to enhance the salaries of child care workers in non-profit day care centres only. This policy discriminates against workers in the commercial licensed day care centres in Ontario and they are demanding responses from the minister to their petition. I am affixing my signature as well.

Hon Miss Martel: May I ask for the consent of the House to revert back to motions, please?

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to return to motions?

Agreed to.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that Mr Callahan and Mr Cordiano exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Miss Martel moved that Mr Curling be substituted for Mr Beer on the select committee on Ontario in Confederation.

Motion agreed to.

1540

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADVOCACY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'INTERVENTION

Ms Ziemba moved second reading of Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons.

Mme Ziemba propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 74, Loi concernant la prestation de services d'intervenants en faveur des personnes vulnerables.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Just over six months ago I told members about this government's plan to protect the rights and wellbeing of vulnerable adults by introducing legislation that addresses the long-standing issues of advocacy, substitute decision-making and consent to health treatment.

On 18 April I presented for first reading the centrepiece of this legislative package, the Advocacy Act, which, for the first time, will give our vulnerable fellow citizens access to a province-wide system of non-legal advocacy that respects their human dignity and safeguards their fundamental human rights. I am here today to ask for the support of all members on second reading of Bill 74.

As I said in April, Ontario has approximately 600,000 citizens, including the frail elderly, who have moderate to severe disabilities. While the majority of these people may be quite capable of making their wishes known, a great many, because of their disabilities, cannot. Some of them have been able to rely on the assistance of caring and competent family members, friends or service providers in making decisions. This type of advocacy often works very well, but when it does not, the consequences for vulnerable adults, whose disabilities make them unable to protest or to protect themselves against abuse, neglect or exploitation, have too often been tragic.

After widespread consultation I came to believe that this problem could only be solved through concerted and systematic action. The proposed legislation is thorough and far-reaching. I further believe that it will usher in a new era of empowerment for vulnerable adults. The heart of the Advocacy Act is the creation of a province-wide system of non-legal advocacy that will assert and promote respect for the rights and dignity of vulnerable adults.

Instead of often being forced, in effect, to accept whatever treatment is meted out to them, vulnerable adults will have access to the services of trained advocates. The advocates will assist vulnerable adults to make their own decisions, communicate their wishes and exercise their rights on matters affecting their own lives in the same way as all of us here take for granted.

While advocates will provide information and perhaps make recommendations, they will in all cases abide by the wishes of the individuals they represent. The advocates will assist vulnerable adults to engage in mutual aid, form organizations to advance their interests and bring about changes on all levels -- political, social, economic, legal and institutional.

The foundation of the system will be an advocacy commission which will operate at arm's length from government. A majority of the members of the commission will be disabled or will have experienced a disability, illness or infirmity. The commission members will be selected through a process that, to my knowledge, is unprecedented and in which people with disabilities are assured of leading and decisive roles.

Grass-roots consumer organizations representing people with disabilities and senior citizens will be asked to nominate the members of the appointments advisory committee. The committee will develop criteria and procedures for the selection of commissioners and interview applicants. It will also be the committee's responsibility to submit a list of the most qualified candidates for my consideration and subsequent appointment by the Lieutenant Governor. Once appointed, the commission will determine how advocacy services should be delivered, establish qualifications for advocates and select and train staff. The commission will develop the policies, procedures and codes of conduct governing the service of advocates and establish procedures for monitoring and evaluating their performance.

Let me stress that advocacy services will be provided in a manner that is sensitive to the religion, culture and traditions of vulnerable adults. It is also our goal to ensure that aboriginal communities provide their own advocacy services whenever possible.

The commission will have the authority to make regulations and will play an active role in public education and awareness programs. To reinforce its connections with grass-roots organizations it will also have authority to enter into contractual agreements with or give grants to non-profit community programs which provide advocacy services on either a paid or voluntary basis.

Let me turn now to the three forms of advocacy that will be provided under the new system. Rights advocacy is specifically designed to help individuals who, because of an alleged mental incapacity, are at risk of losing control over some or all aspects of their lives. In such situations, the advocates' roles will be to advise vulnerable adults of their rights and options, to help them articulate their wishes and to ensure that they are not placed under unnecessary guardianship or subjected to medical treatment which they do not want.

Case advocacy comes into play when a vulnerable adult has a particular problem, such as obtaining appropriate health care or social services. Here the advocate's job is to uncover the problem and determine the person's wishes. The advocate will then speak on the individual's behalf to a person in authority about resolving the problem.

Systemic advocacy has enormous potential for changing the way in which vulnerable persons are treated. I believe that this level of advocacy is critically important and long overlooked. Its focus will be to uncover and change, wherever they are found, the institutionalized regulations, programs and practices that adversely affect vulnerable adults.

For example, an advocate working in a particular institution may encounter several individuals who are experiencing similar problems with their treatment. The advocate's function will be to investigate and to document the problems for the consideration of the Advocacy Commission. The commissioners may then bring pressure to bear to see that the problems are corrected.

Let me emphasize that the government is prepared to act on the recommendations and advice of the commission. If advocates' inquiries reveal widespread or chronic abuse or neglect, then we are ready to initiate systemic changes, including new laws, practices and policies. This is social policy geared towards social change through the identification and resolution of problems at their source.

It is obvious that advocates must have legal authority to visit vulnerable adults and examine the records relating to their care. Under this act, advocates will be able to enter publicly funded or regulated entities such as institutions for people with disabilities, nursing homes, hospitals and municipal homes for the aged. With the consent of a vulnerable adult, they will be able to meet in privacy and without interference at any hour that is reasonable under the circumstances. With the individual's consent, they will also have access to the institution's records relating to that person.

Advocates will also be available to vulnerable adults who live in premises that are operated for remuneration. Although advocates will not have access to the records held by the owners of these premises, they will have full authority to visit vulnerable residents in privacy and at any reasonable time.

Advocates will certainly encounter vulnerable adults living in private homes who may want or could benefit from their services. Again, with the person's consent, they will be authorized to visit between the hours of 8 am and 8 pm.

May I stress that the advocates, together with the commissioners and their staff, will be sworn to protect the confidentiality of any and all information obtained from vulnerable adults.

I would like to tell members that the response we have received so far to the proposed advocacy legislation has been overwhelmingly positive. Naturally, concerns and questions have also been raised which deserve serious and careful attention. We are anxious to proceed on this and I hope members will send this bill to a standing committee of this Legislature for consultation with all interested groups and individuals.

I would like to conclude by saying there are quality programs providing advocacy services already in existence as well as informal, community-based support systems. Dismantling such programs is not the purpose of this legislation -- quite the opposite. In fact, one of the act's major objectives is to encourage and stimulate informal support systems and community development.

We all know this demographic fact: Our population is aging. As the ranks of vulnerable adults generally grow larger, their needs are also becoming ever more diverse and complex. It is up to all of us to marshal our selective resources to address them.

It is my conviction that this act will go a very long way towards correcting some long-standing social injustices. It contains some strong measures and it will not be expensive to implement. In our view, however, we cannot afford to do anything less.

1550

Mr Cordiano: I rise to speak on Bill 74 and would like to congratulate the minister for bringing forward this very important legislation. I would add at this time that I am glad to see that the government of the day is setting forward initiatives we undertook when we were in government and is bringing those forward.

Bill 74 and the companion pieces of legislation are clearly the offspring of the Fram report and other reports which we initiated when we were in government. The total legislative package the government has put before us includes the proposed Substitute Decisions Act and the Consent to Treatment Act. This means a three-part combination, as was contemplated when we were considering these acts in totality.

The decision of the government to debate these bills separately, however, I must say at this point, leads us to question whether the government recognizes the interrelationship between these three acts and how important that is. The three acts are interwoven and I think it is necessary. It would have been better if we could have dealt with all three acts together. I have that as a major concern.

Bill 74 and the companion pieces of legislation should be discussed together so that we can look at what omissions there might be and what overlap there certainly needs to be between the three acts, because I think that in order to fully protect the people we are talking about here, it requires that substitute decision-making be in place while preserving the individual freedoms of those who require perhaps a little less interventionist approach. I point that out to the minister as basically the concern I have at the outset.

There are five areas of concern in particular that I have with the bill and I am going to deal with each of those.

First, one of the major concerns I have is the broadness of scope and the vagueness of definition. The minister -- I heard her remarks -- tried to be a little more specific with respect to some of the areas of the bill and some of the provisions.

Second, there is a concern that I have with balancing of rights within the bill.

Third, there is also a failure to establish a rights advocacy program in any detail.

Fourth, the bill does not speak to a variety of items which perhaps will be dealt with in regulations, but there are a great many matters to be dealt with, with regulations coming after the bill is passed, that I want to speak to with respect to specifics on the bill.

Finally, the minister made some remarks with respect to rights of entry and I want to deal with that as well.

Let me start off with the broadness of the scope of the legislation and the vagueness of the definition in the bill. Clearly the government has elected to provide advocacy services to the broadest population possible. Section 2 of the bill defines a vulnerable person as "a person who, because of mental of physical disability, illness or infirmity, whether temporary or permanent, has difficulty expressing or acting on his or her wishes or in ascertaining or exercising his or her rights." This definition is rather vague and it is difficult to assess precisely what range of advocacy needs will have to be filled from that definition.

While there are certain common advocacy needs that all groups share, there are certainly specialized needs that other groups of people will require. For example, psychiatric patients will have to have particular expertise applied to their needs and their demands for services. For such groups and individuals, specialized advocacy will be needed in order to have the most effective services provided to them. I would emphasize to the minister that we do not see that in the provisions of the bill as they now stand. I hope that could be dealt with at some point in time later on.

In the area of balancing rights, there is a concern with respect to certain sections of the bill. Section 1, for example, sets out the mandate of the legislation, including among other things the empowerment of vulnerable persons and helping vulnerable persons make their own decisions and exercise their rights. Absent from this section is reference to recognition of the need to balance the desire to protect persons against neglect or abuse with the need to prevent undue interference with personal freedom.

Absent as well from the mandate of this bill is the concept of self-advocacy, which assists persons in learning how to solve their own problems, which may require prolonged guidance and additional support. I think that is quite a difficult undertaking which is not addressed in the bill and I have concerns about that.

These omissions are of vital importance to the actual as opposed to the conceptual empowerment of vulnerable persons and so in practical ways these concerns will have an immediate impact if they are not addressed. Furthermore, these rights are not entrenched in the bill and it would seem that the proposed legislation leans more heavily in favour of protecting the rights of the advocate as opposed to the rights of vulnerable persons to self-determination. This leads to concerns that vulnerable persons will not be adequately protected from undue intervention, well-meaning or otherwise, on the part of the advocates. I have a great deal of concern with respect to that. As a result, the bill lacks adequate safeguards to prevent the interference I am talking about from taking place.

The rights of families are also noticeably absent from the proposed legislation. While clause 7(1)(h) provides that the Advocacy Commission, as established by the bill, will "acknowledge, encourage and enhance individual, family and community support for the security and wellbeing of vulnerable persons," no mechanisms have been established to ensure that the family and individual participation is actually maintained or encouraged or that individual decision-making will be preserved to the extent possible. In fact, the bill seems to emphasize, as I said earlier, the rights of advocates over all else. Families therefore are relegated to a secondary role as service consumers when advocates have the potential to undermine the integrity of families in dealing with vulnerable persons. Therefore, I say balancing rights in this bill is of the utmost importance and, I think, needs to be re-examined.

Failure to establish a rights advocacy program is of concern to me as well. At best, there is uncertainty about whether this bill specifically establishes a rights advocacy program which would make it mandatory to provide the services of rights advocates to persons who are the subject of guardianship application pursuant to the Substitute Decisions Act or other legislation which might affect their right to make decisions. If this bill does not provide more clearly the nature of the role and the mandate of advocates, then it must be concluded that this omission is a glaring one and of extreme importance.

I would also say, furthermore, that the fact the three bills -- the Advocacy Act, the Substitute Decisions Act and the Consent to Treatment Act -- are not going to be dealt with and debated in this House as a package makes it very difficult to evaluate the effect of this omission from Bill 74. I have a concern, as I expressed earlier, with respect to the vagueness, the definition of the advocate's role and, at this point, saying that there is an advocacy program that is missing here.

In deciding not to include the provision explicitly tying the role of the advocates to the processes set out in the Substitute Decisions Act, it appears that the drafting of this bill as vaguely as possible would enable the government to present a piece of legislation that covers a great range of philosophical bases at once. I hope that is not the case. I hope that the real desire here is to see to it that vulnerable persons get the best and most effective service possible through the Advocacy Act, but the stroke is broad in its sweep and I have a concern with respect to the vagueness.

In drafting the legislation in such a manner then, the need to resort to clear and enforceable duties is removed and issues that were perceived by the Fram report as crucial are thus de-emphasized in this Advocacy Act as it is presented today. Again, vagueness in terms of the way in which we are dealing with the three acts and the nature of the interrelationship between the three acts is overlooked by the failure to bring the three acts before the Legislature to be debated and discussed thoroughly.

1600

I think it would be helpful in committee, since the bill is going to committee, to examine this a little further and to clarify those aspects of the bill which omit the relationship between the Substitute Decisions Act and the need for rights' advocates to be concerned about their vulnerable person, the person they are advocating on behalf of, becoming the subject of a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act. That is a major concern with that section.

Next is regulations. Sections 5 through 13 provide for the establishment of the Advocacy Commission and the procedure for making appointments of members and the chair. There are many concerns that are left to be decided by regulation in this act, as I said from the outset.

Take, for example, section 7, which refers in general terms to the provision of advocacy services to vulnerable persons. It is a glaring example of what I mean. The bill establishes no actual mechanisms for the provision of such services, nor does it outline the exact nature of the services to be provided. Absent as well is a discussion of such options as mediation and other non-adversarial dispute resolution techniques that could have been provided for in this bill.

The bill also focuses to a great extent on the enforcement of the rights of advocates to gain access to persons, places and records. I will say more about that in a moment. However, the bill does not contemplate dispute resolution involving all the partners in care giving, be they the family, friends, facility operators and/or government bureaucracies.

In addition, the bill also speaks in general terms about programs of public education and information. It does not discuss in detail, however, the sorts of procedures that may be used by vulnerable persons who wish to access an advocate. There is once again vagueness, imprecision, about how a person goes about accessing the services of an advocate, and while that may be provided for in regulations, we will not have a chance to discuss that during this debate. Hopefully we will when it is brought to committee.

Rights of entry is the last concern that I have under that major heading. As mentioned earlier, Bill 74 devotes a great deal of attention to the right of entry of advocates to facilities, to be defined by regulation, when providing advocacy services to vulnerable persons. Section 19 provides that advocates may enter a facility without a warrant and at any time reasonable, given the circumstances. Section 20 authorizes a justice of the peace to issue a warrant for entry if satisfied that the advocate has been prevented from meeting with a vulnerable person there. Section 22 also speaks to the right of entry, which permits a warrant to be issued for entry to the premises if (a) the advocate has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a vulnerable person on the premises who wants or could benefit from the services of an advocate, and (b) the advocate has been prevented from entering the premises or from meeting with a vulnerable person there.

Clause 22(1)(a) is very broad in scope. There is no definition of "premises." It is too vague. We need to further define that, because in effect, with this vagueness, what could conceivably happen is that this would allow advocates to enter into private homes and dwellings on the barest of pretexts, particularly as the criteria for entry are totally subjective. Consequently, you might have a great deal of trouble with that whole section.

Moreover, the provision would appear to be rather inconsistent with the section of the bill which stipulates that one of the functions of the Advocacy Commission is to enhance individual and family participation. This would seem to rather undermine that whole concept. The concern I have is that if this section is carried too far in the extreme, the integrity of family decision-making and individual freedom could be rather seriously undermined.

I say to the minister, who is sitting in the House, those five major concerns are the areas I would like to deal with when this bill does go to committee.

In conclusion, advocacy and guardianship have long been issues of concern in this province. The previous Liberal government recognized that through the many years of hard work that went into these reports that were made over the previous years we have come to the point where this seems to have gotten a unanimous approval from the House in terms of the principle of the bill. I feel pleased that we are at this point discussing the Advocacy Act and would hope that we can deal with the matters in committee at some speedy time in the future.

I welcome this legislation, but I feel it is necessary to consider -- to have considered, and we are not going to be able to do that -- all three pieces of legislation together in order to ensure, as I said earlier, that there are no gaps and that the omissions that were made could be looked at with a view to corrections being made some time during committee. I do not know if that is going to be possible with the way in which we are proceeding.

I hope that there will be time and indeed an occasion to look at the other bills, which I understand will be forthcoming in the near future, if I am not mistaken. We will have to deal with it at that point, but these bills were meant to be part of a comprehensive package in which each facilitates and complements the others. Now we are having to deal with them singly, which is going to be rather difficult.

The scope of the legislation is extremely broad, which raises concerns regarding service inadequacies, and in the worst case, potential abuses of the authority granted to advocates pursuant to the legislation.

As well, the bill seems to favour the rights of advocates to advocate over the rights of vulnerable persons and their families to retain some individual decision-making ability, relegating families to a secondary role. Families would be indispensable, I think, as partners in the decision-making process, and they have not been given a clear role in the bill as it stands now.

The bill also creates the potential for the undermining of the integrity of families by well-meaning but possibly misguided advocates by failing to create safeguards against what would be seen as unwarranted interference.

Finally, as I pointed out earlier, Bill 74 leaves the bulk of the details pertaining to specific mechanisms for the implementation of its goals to regulations, and that will not be done in this Legislature.

A complaint mechanism for the public and the establishment of a rights advocacy program or mechanisms to ensure that family and individuals' participation are actually maintained or encouraged all appear to be absent from this bill. I would ask the minister to consider a complaint mechanism for the public.

The time for advocacy and guardianship legislation in Ontario has certainly come and I think the legislation before us gives us an opportunity to seriously consider the implications of the legislation that is proposed. I think to the extent possible we must include the other bills that the minister will be bringing forward at a future date, not too long afterward, I hope, because it will not give us an opportunity to consider all three bills as they should have been considered, together. As I said from the outset, I think that is a rather glaring omission and that is a real problem, but I hope that the minister understands that and I hope she will bring in the other pieces of legislation to follow at some future point not too far in the distance. I look forward to further debate on this matter.

1610

Hon Ms Ziemba: I just have a few comments. I am very pleased that my colleague has understood how important the Advocacy Act is, because it really is. We congratulate two previous governments, because there were actually two previous reports in the last 15 years that addressed the need for an Advocacy Act. Having come from the community, we worried and we wondered why they were put on the shelves and why it took 15 years to finally bring them off the shelves and to address the needs of vulnerable adults.

There are a couple of comments I do want to make. This is an extremely important bill. We felt these acts were so extremely important that we did want to separate them, because we felt that all three worked together and they certainly are integral to each other. The Advocacy Act had to be put in place and discussed in its context so that we could have a full discussion.

The other two pieces of legislation had their first reading last week, and we hope, with consent from opposition parties, we can bring them forth very quickly for second reading, because the member is right, they are very important. We had wanted to introduce them earlier, but unfortunately things that were happening in the House --

Mr Jackson: Now, come on.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am just saying things that happened in the House prevented us from doing so.

I also want to talk about a few other things that the member addressed. I take them very seriously. I think we do have to have a full discussion because it is such a very important act.

I want to make it very clear that advocates are not expressing their wishes; they are expressing the wishes of vulnerable adults. They are not overriding a family; they are just proceeding with instructions from the vulnerable adult and making sure that the vulnerable adult's rights and wishes are entertained. We do fully realize that family and friends have played a very important role and will continue to do so. Unfortunately, not all vulnerable adults have those family and friends to assist them, and that is our intention.

Mrs Caplan: I would like to congratulate my colleague the member for Lawrence for what I believe is a very comprehensive response on this important bill of advocacy. The point he makes about this being part of a package which includes guardianship and consent I think is a very important one. Certainly all of the members of our caucus for some time have had concerns about an appropriate response.

The minister is quite correct when she says there have been numerous reports and studies pointing out the difficulty, the alternatives as models ensuring that the people we want to safeguard, those who are vulnerable and frail, have their opportunity through an advocate, as well as ensuring that family members are not cut out of that process and that in fact we are all sensitive to the changes that are occurring within our society. We do not want to just see a large bureaucratic system. We do not want to see this tied up in the courts. The whole purpose of an Advocacy Act is to be able to respond to those vulnerable adults in need of protection and to assist them in as sensitive, caring and expeditious a way as possible.

I think my colleague the member for Lawrence captured many of the concerns we have about ensuring that this legislation achieves those goals and objectives. I notice that the legislation that has been presented is very similar to that which was considered by members of this caucus over a period of time. There are some areas where we believe greater debate is needed, and during the process of the legislative hearings I think there will be an opportunity to ensure that people are protected.

Mr Cordiano: I just want to respond to the minister's remarks in response to my remarks and simply say that, as my colleague the member for Oriole has put it, once again I would reiterate our position in suggesting to the minister that it is not just an oversight with respect to the introduction of the three bills in unison.

However, I think that is water under the bridge. As we do not have the three pieces of legislation before us to deal with in unison, we must deal with the situation as it is. The concern we have is that with the omissions made with respect to the Advocacy Act, it becomes rather difficult to pinpoint just where those omissions might be looked after in the other pieces of legislation which will be forthcoming, which were introduced some time ago by the minister.

I look forward to that and look forward to an opportunity to see where that interrelationship exists and where those omissions are gravest. We will have to deal with those in the best way possible when we have legislative hearings in the standing committee, wherever that may be. At that point we can see if there are some difficulties with respect to the other bills.

Again, families and the importance of families I think should not be overruled. I was suggesting simply that advocates are there for the benefit of vulnerable persons, but there also is a great deal of sensitivity that must be emphasized with respect to the role of advocates not to be paternalistic.

Mr Jackson: I am pleased to be able to respond to Bill 74. I would like also to indicate that I appreciated listening to the comments of the member for Lawrence and can concur with several of the points he raised during this opening debate on second reading.

I would like not to go over some of those but rather to raise a couple of concerns that are quite obvious to some in this province, which a growing chorus of those who currently provide advocacy services and services for vulnerable adults in this province have begun to indicate. I am referring, of course, to the fact that this is not a stand-alone piece of legislation. There are in fact several types of legislation, inquiries, commissions that are occurring concurrently in this province at this time. When we review this list, I think we will realize at the end of it that what is really called for is some sort of policy framework so we can co-ordinate each and every one of these fine, timely and appropriate initiatives for this province.

However, it is fair to say that when we examine this lengthy list of commissions that are off running around the province advocating for various groups, we will realize we cannot do full service to what we may refer to as any vulnerable citizen in this province if we do not do justice to co-ordinating these initiatives.

Let's look at this list very briefly. We have the Substitute Decisions Act, which was tabled the week of 25 May, last week; we have the Consent to Treatment Act, which has also been referred to in this debate; we have this Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services for Vulnerable Persons; we have the living will and another form of decision-making in private member's Bill 7 and Bill 8, now before the standing committee on administration of justice, an initiative by my colleague the member for Carleton.

We have the Lightman commission running around the province doing public hearings with respect to regulating residential care settings. We know how vulnerable some of those people are with respect to the levels of care and certain guarantees of levels of care and certain protections that may be required in those settings.

1620

We know there is a commission investigating the unfortunate deaths at Brantwood, a provincially run institution for members of the handicapped community, those children and young adults from the Ontario Association for Community Living and from the People First organization. We know that commission of inquiry has not even given standing to those members of the handicapped community before the inquiry.

We have a seventh commission, the Weisstub commission, which completed its work in September and has never had any response, formally or informally, to my knowledge, from the new government as to substitute decision-making for people who are declared mentally incompetent. The member for Lawrence made reference to psychiatric cases. The government is silent in this whole area.

If we appreciate who we are trying to serve in Bill 74, we could give a rather long list of vulnerable persons over the age of 16 who are not going to be eligible because they should be covered in some other form of legislation.

I am sure that is not the only list, but my list comes to seven different acts or commissions that are currently being studied, examined or investigated in this province, and this is occurring concurrently.

That leads me to my second concern, which is the cost implications. It would be irresponsible for any member of this House not to have examined this issue without having even some general knowledge of what the approximate costs would be. I note, and I am sure the minister will comment on, the fine work done by Father Sean O'Sullivan in his report, but even he could not see his way clear to providing some cost estimates.

With all the money this government spends in this province, surely there should be some money spent to determine what our costs will be and what costs, if any, could run at large.

I have only put on the record that which is obvious, that we are about to embark upon a bill -- which will go for public hearings, so it will not occur tomorrow -- but nowhere are we seeing any reference to what it will cost. The budget from the Treasurer was silent on this issue. That does not mean the Treasurer does not have the money in there; it just means he did not use the occasion of the budget to tell us.

I would hope the minister could help enlighten us on whether she has had some discussion with the Treasurer, because that would give us an indication of whether we are looking at implementation within this fiscal year or whether we are looking at implementation in fiscal year 1992-93. That would be very helpful to members of the House.

I know the minister personally has a certain anxiety about getting on with this bill, and I understand that. However, the questions of co-ordination and costing I think are very valid ones. Taxpayers are asking questions about the cost, and vulnerable adults, those who are institutionalized, the handicapped community, seniors, frail elderly, these people are all asking, "How are you co-ordinating?"

Three or four years ago the big buzzword in this province was "one-stop access." We embarked on some examinations. As the minister is the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, she will be aware that programs initiated by the Liberal government had to be stopped because of the cost implications. With the pilot projects for seniors and one-stop access, we had the examination but we never got beyond that.

Surely we can take one step back and look at that example and ask ourselves whether we are creating a greater bureaucracy, all in the name of advocacy, whether we are running the risk of potentially offering three, four or five different doors for people to queue up at.

It is why I raise the issue of co-ordination, because if each of these bills and each of these various inquiries comes to the same conclusion, that there should be a separate panel of advocacy, a separate panel for investigations, all of what I have just said, no one has brought up the issue that we have an Ombudsman who is currently running around the province telling us she would like to expand her mandate.

I want to put on the record my greatest concern, that we should be able to discuss within $5 million or $10 million what the cost of this province-wide program is going to be. That should include the training of these individuals to ensure the appropriate selection. I notice the bill speaks at length about the types of person by gender, ethnic background, language, but we are also looking for someone who has the sensitivity and the training and the understanding of what it is like for a vulnerable person if he or she is going to become his advocate.

I want to suggest that there are a couple of concerns being expressed that this bill does not deal with the psychiatric community. The Canadian Mental Health Association continues to express concern that we are not bringing forward legislation which helps with a definition of mental competency: Are they less important in this province, those people with mental illness, that they should not have their own right to parallel protection and advocacy? I certainly feel they should, and that it is timely. I know the former member for Riverdale, who is now a special adviser to the Premier, shares those concerns on behalf of that community.

I would also like to raise concerns from the Ontario Association for Community Living. On 30 May, last Friday, they issued a press statement that although they are very supportive of the general direction of the minister's legislation and Bill 74, they have expressed grave concerns about the Substitute Decisions Act and the Consent to Treatment Act. In their press release, they make a very clear statement that they feel this legislation will conflict and their members will be caught in between, that somehow they will suffer or be less served on this sensitive issue because these pieces of legislation have within them a tension which pulls them apart and cannot adequately serve their members.

The two pieces of legislation proposed by the Attorney General and the Minister of Health will "'create two classes of people who are vulnerable because of their disabilities,' said Audrey Cole, chair of the Ontario Association for Community Living's task force on advocacy and guardianship, 'those who are supported to retain their full human and legal rights as citizens and those who have those rights formally removed from them because of the severity of their disability.'"

So the community generally is now starting to see that the lack of co-ordination between these various pieces of legislation -- incidentally, for members of the House, many of these bills will go to different committees, so we may not even have the same members of this chamber, represented by our affiliations in this House, sitting in committees consistently so that we can pull these pieces together and identify them. We will not have the same clerks, we will not have the same researchers, we may have the same deputants, but we may not have the same members of the Legislature so that we can pull these pieces of legislation together.

I very much like the member for Lawrence's comment about ADR, alternative dispute resolution. I think it is a most appropriate means of mediation. In the whole policy area of social advancement and advocacy there is some exciting work going on in several jurisdictions in the United States, which the committee of the Legislature two years ago had the privilege of witnessing and experiencing by deputations from active participants in those programs.

I have mentioned as well that the role for the Ombudsman has not been mentioned and how that will adjust itself in the context of these initiatives.

Finally, I want to comment that a couple of years ago the now Minister of Housing and I sat on a committee dealing with amendments to the Nursing Homes Act and we developed --

Mrs Caplan: That was then; this is now.

1630

Mr Jackson: The member for Oriole also participated in those discussions. We had two bills dealing with amendments to the Nursing Homes Act. Within that was a nursing home bill of rights. It was of concern to me at the time that we had one set of rights for nursing home residents, but we did not have the same access to rights and a clear definition of those rights for those who were in provincial institutions, homes for the aged, which is the parallel and similar level of care for seniors in this province.

At that time, both the government of the day and the New Democratic Party -- it was the third party at the time -- refused to support my amendment, to extend a bill of rights to all seniors in this province. I am pleased this bill moves more closely to a definition of "advocacy."

I am concerned that in this context it may remove the participation of family members. That had been referred to earlier. I too would want to ensure that we are very clear on how this aspect of the bill will operate.

When I had occasion to witness the Lightman commission hearings in Hamilton, I was concerned when a member of the commission responded to the question about the need for a bill of rights for nursing home residents and its full implementation, whether it was working and whether there should be a parallel bill of rights. The individual on the Lightman commission felt that a bill of rights would not work because there would be fear of reprisal from staff members to those family members who had raised concerns and were pressing their point about a level of care or, in other words, advocating. I think we should be very careful to realize that, even within the various commissions operating, some concerns are being raised on the whole issue of whether or not the process of advocacy really will work. That is why the most important point I want to stress in this part of the debate is simply that we should further co-ordinate the seven different types of commissions and inquiries that are looking at the very broad and general issue of advocacy and protection of vulnerable citizens in our community.

I have made reference to the Ontario Association for Community Living. I want to put on the record their very strong concerns. I respect that the minister is a junior minister in a hurry to get on with this bill and I support her in that regard. However, there are to be public hearings on this bill. In a conversation we had, she indicated that she also might like to have hearings. Perhaps she might clarify that point, because it fell upon me as rather strange that a minister would have a legislative committee operating and then have her own hearings. It confused me at the time we discussed it. I respect her right to do it, but I think that with the seven different commissions and committees of the Legislature and various acts under review, I do not know how having two with respect to Bill 74 would best serve a speedy conclusion to an amended act that could then return to this House for all members' final amendment and support.

I thank the members of the House for listening to the concerns I wished to put on the record and look forward to participating in the public hearings on this sensitive, timely and appropriate piece of legislation.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I appreciate the comments made by the member of the third party and appreciate the fact that he recognizes that this is a very important bill. I want to make reference to a couple of comments he made and say very clearly that if he looks in the act, the act does give "mental disability" as a definition. It is in section 2.

Also, subsection 15(1) refers to organizations that represent persons with psychiatric disabilities, so they will certainly be included and well looked after. In clause 36(d) regulations can be developed to provide advocates for the mentally incompetent. There is certainly room to help those people he had concern with, and I share his concerns.

Certainly we have to look at the fact of empowerment for vulnerable adults, in that they will be represented on the commission and on the advisory committee, again a first. Rather than people making decisions, these will be decisions made by vulnerable adults, which is again a very important fact.

It was very clear in my 20 December statement that in this particular year, 1991-92, there would be a $1-million cost. When we move the commission into full speed, in 1992-93 we are looking at a cost of approximately $23 million. We do not feel that is an overspending. We feel it is extremely important money spent on people who need to be well served and should have their rights respected.

Very clearly we feel that this is a centrepiece for all the other commissions working, that advocates will be speaking on behalf of the vulnerable adults. When it comes to guardianship, as mentioned in my colleague's remarks, advocates certainly will be there to help them in that decision of guardianship rather than being left out in the cold, as has been happening in the past.

Mrs Caplan: When we are discussing this very important concept of advocacy, I believe the government's presentation of this bill, separate from the other pieces which include guardianship and consent, makes it extremely important that we look at the definition in the bill.

One of the concerns I would point out to the minister is that the vagueness of the definition of "vulnerable person" in this piece of legislation makes it very difficult to assess precisely what range of advocacy needs will have to be fulfilled by the framework and the system the minister is putting in place.

I believe there are common advocacy needs which will be shared by all, but some groups will have certain specialized needs. Under the definition in this act it is going to be very difficult to understand that precisely, because of the vagueness that this particular definition brings forth.

I also point out that the scope is quite broad. I believe it is fair to say that the $1 million for year one will just begin to put things in place. In year two, I believe the estimate of $23 million could well be an understatement. When this program is fully mature in a few years, I believe the cost will be much more significant and that we will see quite a large bureaucracy in place.

If that achieves the goals of responding in a caring way to those in need of advocacy services, then I believe we will all applaud this legislation. If we find instead that we have just created a very large bureaucracy which is not responding to the real needs, then I think we will all have real concern.

Mr Cousens: I would like to acknowledge with great appreciation the remarks by my colleague the member for Burlington South. As one who is critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services and senior citizens' affairs in our party, he has to bring a special focus that understands their needs. I know that my friend the member for Mississauga South will be doing the same, as her portfolios overlap.

I appreciate in particular a couple of things the member for Burlington South raised. One has to do with the co-ordination of all these services and how it is going to be brought about. I think that had to be said, and he said it well.

The second aspect -- I really think it takes a certain amount of courage to say it -- is when we start talking about the costing of these things. One of the components of the equation certainly is just how much it will cost. The fact that the member for Burlington South has the sense of urgency to say, "Look, anything you're going to do has to somehow net out as to what it's going to cost to do it," is an important thing.

It is important legislation. We all know it is going to be a while before we work out the kinks and have something that is going to meet the needs of everybody, but I just wanted to make no criticisms today of the member for Burlington South. I thought he had the right thing to say.

1640

Mr Bisson: I would just like to add a couple of points to what the member has said. I applaud, first of all, the effort of the House in coming together and discussing this and bringing good points forward on this very important bill. It is one that I think is probably very long overdue in this province and in the country, because it is my understanding that it is basically the only one of its kind in Canada.

The point I would like to make is that I agree you have to have some concern in regard to how much the act will cost and how much it will cost to administer. I think, as with any responsible government, it is something that the government will want to look at. But I would just like to make the point that when we are talking basically about access to democracy, access to services that we as a society provide to our citizens, I think we have to be very careful when we talk about cost.

What a free, democratic society is all about is making sure that all individuals within it, no matter what their situation might be -- white, black, the disabled or a person who needs services under such an act -- get the services. If we start talking solely about costs, I think it is a disservice to our society and sometimes a disservice to the people within it in regard to accessing those services that we are able to access, as mainstream society, without any difficulty.

I understand what the member is saying. I know he says it out of conviction and I know he says it not maliciously. I would just like to bring the point that yes, we need to be concerned about costs; we need to be concerned how much something like this costs in the end. But I think we also need to look at the human element.

I remember a gentleman who appeared before our select committee on Ontario in Confederation in North Bay. He came and talked as first hand about what had happened to him as an individual, not being able to be understood in regard to what his frustrations were and not being able to access particular services because he was under the trusteeship of his guardian. He talked about just what that meant to him. I think this act speaks to the human element in this whole situation, recognizing that we as human beings in society have access, and this is what the act is all about.

Mr Cordiano: Very quickly, I would just like to say that cost is a consideration, whether or not you are getting value for money, and I think value for money is the ultimate goal that has to be put forward here. That is one thing. The other thing is that I failed to ask the minister, in my remarks with respect to conflict of interest, about the role of the advocate vis-a-vis the role of the commission and whether in fact the commission will act as a kind of watchdog with respect to the advocates who are out there who may or may not find themselves in a difficult situation with the family of the vulnerable persons, etc.

Mr Malkowski: I feel especially privileged and honoured today to be able to participate in support of Bill 74, which is An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons. For many years, vulnerable adults as a group traditionally have been represented by their families or service providers or professionals, and society tends to look at these people as not being part of society. They have been marginalized. What do we do with these people? Traditionally, we have stuck them in institutions.

I think what is missing for vulnerable persons is the opportunity to share their perspective or their viewpoint in the decision-making process. Often, they are not informed. It is important that family members, who also often have never received the appropriate information in terms of the medical rights and choices and what these mean to that person's life -- in society as a resource, I think, things are limited in terms of information for family members. Often there has been a lot of oppression. People feel under the gun to make decisions and do not make fully informed decisions, and this is certainly sometimes at the expense of the vulnerable person. People, especially within the family, often may think, "The advice we've received is to put this person in an institution," and that tends to be what happens.

What gets neglected is that the vulnerable person has his own mind, his own talents, his own competence and abilities. I think it has been very frustrating for people, especially if they have been in this sort of Berlin Wall situation where they are hemmed in and cannot speak for themselves and cannot get out to exercise their democratic rights.

I think for a very long time, until the Liberal government -- and I really wish to applaud the previous Liberal administration for its very brave beginnings in selecting Father Sean O'Sullivan. That was in the 1980s. In 1987 his report talked about the importance of the recognition that vulnerable people have the right to participate in the decision-making process for things that affect their lives. That was, I think, one of the first times in this society we had ever seen something proactive like that. So that was a first step.

I think it is important that disabled people, senior citizens and vulnerable adults get together to be able to express their own opinions and to make some decisions. I think one thing vulnerable people really value, and their identity, is the right to be free, autonomous people, to have the qualifications to decide to be independent or where to live, as well as self-esteem.

It is important for all of us as a society to take a look at that and say, "What are the needs of these people?" It is time that we empower these individuals, empower this group of people who have yet to share with us their perspective of their rights and where their lives are going, empower them so that they can feel worth while in society. This advocacy legislation, goes a long way in empowering those individuals. It guarantees that they get full information to become autonomous individuals, to make the choices that they want with the help of their families, with the help of medical professionals and service providers. It guarantees that all these people can then become better informed. I think this is very important.

The four principles that can make empowerment happen are respect, certainly respecting the rights of disabled people; the autonomy of an individual; self-esteem, and the dignity of a person. I think this is important and it goes a long way in helping a person in terms of respecting and protecting that person's place in society.

This kind of legislation, which is one of the first of its kind and a model across Canada, is long overdue. It is important that we be proud of this legislation. I would also like to remind all members of the House today that it is time now to pay attention to vulnerable adults, to what they have to say in their respect. It is important not to take away their rights or take away control of the decision-making, but to empower these people so that they have the right to make fully informed decisions, and then to follow their instructions. I think we should be very proud of this.

I would also like to respond to some of the members, such as the member for Lawrence, who said that it was important to emphasize attention on the family members. Of course I agree with the member when he says that families have an important role to play. However, part of the problem has been that the wishes of the vulnerable person and the wishes of the family sometimes conflict. I think we have a duty as a society to make sure that the vulnerable person's wishes are heard and spoken to and addressed by the family so that vulnerable people are no longer taken advantage of or ignored.

The member for Burlington South talked a little bit about the cost. My concern would be that if you look at the needs of vulnerable persons, you cannot put a cost on that. It is very, very important to identify the needs and supports that these people are going to require to be full participants in society. So I strongly support Bill 74 that would give the rights of an advocate to empower vulnerable persons, where they can learn more about the things that are going to affect their lives. I think this is one way to break down the walls and the barriers that have so long stood in the way of their being responsible, equal participants in society.

I think our goal here is autonomy. The medical professions and service providers will work very closely with us in the best interests of vulnerable persons, especially with this advocacy legislation. We can finally give to vulnerable people justice and equality and the recognition of their self-esteem, their dignity and their freedom of choice. It is time to make that change, time to let people participate fully.

Mrs Caplan: The member has made, I think, a very important point around the concept within the legislation of empowerment of vulnerable persons. The concern I have is that, as I said previously, this part of the act is extremely vague, rhetorical in nature and in the preamble of the legislation does not add to the substance within the legislation to ensure that is what will be the effect of this legislation.

1650

It is going to be very important, as this legislation moves forward, that it does what it is purporting to do, that is does not just establish a large bureaucracy but has in place a framework for advocacy which will empower individuals who are able to make known their wishes; that what we end up with is a piece of legislation which will protect persons against neglect or abuse and will also prevent undue interference with their personal freedoms.

In the preamble for this legislation, all I see is some very vague rhetoric that espouses this goal. The bill does not contain any concept of self-advocacy, which would assist individuals to learn how to solve their own problems, which is really part of empowering individuals with knowledge. I would state again that one of the concerns I have with the approach taken by the socialist philosophies of the NDP is that we would see quite a paternalistic scheme through this form of advocacy.

Again, we have to express these concerns through the legislative process. In general I think the ideas are good. We just want to make sure the legislation will work.

Mr Malkowski: I wish to respond to the comment from the member for Oriole. First of all, I tend to disagree. This is not a paternalistic plan at all; I strongly disagree with her comment that it is paternalistic. The point is that we are a model, and from my own personal experience I can talk about being in institutions and seeing people who have been labelled mentally retarded and who are stuck in these institutions.

One way the authorities talk about preserving this paternalism is to say, "Well, it has been signed by the family members." I think it is important that these persons have the ability to function and to be autonomous if they wish to live in the community in a group home. Family members often say, "No way, we won't have it," and that person is then left and stuck in that institution.

Where is the paternalism by empowering this person? This person has a right to make the decision to be independent if he or she wishes to move out into the community. I think this legislation will help people get out of institutions, and I think it is in the best interests and the rights of these individuals that this legislation is passed.

This is not a paternalistic plan; this is not paternalistic legislation. Our policy and our model says empower individuals, yes, with instructions from professionals who are there to advise, but so that they can make fully informed decisions that are going to affect their lives. That is part of empowerment, not paternalism, for someone to become independent, to be an autonomous individual.

Mr Mahoney: It is my pleasure to join the debate in the House today to express my general support of the legislation. But that should not come as a surprise to members opposite since the philosophy was first drafted by the former Liberal government, which has been admitted in this House. So we would have some difficulty in not supporting the general thrust and philosophy that the minister is following.

In fact, the minister will know that this first appeared as a cabinet submission in May 1990 to the former government, and the submission recommended a number of very important initiatives. It recommended repealing the Mental Incompetency Act, and the enactment in its place of a Substitute Decisions Act. That act is not on the floor today; it is not being debated today. Among other initiatives, it recommended a streamlined guardianship process, the expansion of the public trustee to the office of the public guardian and trustee, powers of attorney for personal care and partial guardianship as well as full guardianship.

Three basic acts were brought forward in the submission to cabinet in May 1990. There was this act, the Advocacy Act which we are discussing today, the Substitute Decisions Act and the Consent to Treatment Act. Just by their titles, the very nature of those pieces of legislation would seem to indicate that they are indeed married to one another and at least are related in a very direct sense.

We hoped there would have been an opportunity to debate these three pieces of legislation in unison, recognizing the significant outfall of one from the other and how they are tied together. If you consider the Consent to Treatment Act; if you take the issue that the former speaker was raising about paternalism, while the requirement to establish some form of advocate or agency to protect people who have no other alternative available to them, where their voices cannot be heard, their viewpoints will not be listened to, very clearly that is a position I support. The concern I have, however, is that the government can use the term "paternalistic" or it can use the term "bureaucratic" if it prefers, but the reality is that the position of the family has the potential to be undermined by some superadvocate who is going to come along as a Father Knows Best image and simply announce that this decision will be taken out of the hands of the family.

I found it interesting that one of the government speakers said -- and this is almost a quote, as close as I can recall -- that traditionally, people in this category have been represented by family or by professionals in that field who may not have the best interests of that individual, that disabled adult, at heart or in mind. We are being led to believe that Big Brother government is going to take over that role and Big Brother government, with the socialist bent, knows best what is best for these people. The family could be very easily relegated to a minor position.

I think that is of extreme concern to anyone who has had to experience, as I have and many of us have, the difficulties of caring for a loved one who has perhaps suffered a stroke or some other debilitating illness and is unable to tell us, clearly at least, what it is he or she wants. It is a very difficult thing. If you get into a large family where there perhaps may be disputes, I can certainly see the need to have some form of dispute-settlement mechanism in place. It frightens me somewhat, though, that the role of the advocate under this act could in some way come down with a hammer and displace the family from what clearly is its rightful, although difficult, position that it must be responsible.

On the issue of cost, I talk to a lot of seniors' groups and I get a clear message from seniors that says they really do not want just to have money thrown at them. They have worked hard to help build this country, this province and the particular community to the point where there is a certain fiscal responsibility. What they want to see is the government, any government, implement programs where seniors can help themselves, where families can help the seniors and perhaps get a hand up by the government instead of a handout. That is the philosophy, and the seniors say it more than anybody, because they understand what it is like to struggle for a dollar, to raise a family, and

the difficulties involved there. They do not want to see just frivolous spending.

I am a little concerned because this government has already clearly shown it has a propensity to totally disregard the value of a dollar, to totally disregard the --

Interjection.

1700

Mr Mahoney: Well, I think it is true that a $9.7-billion deficit would show just a total lack of respect or concern for any kind of fiscal responsibility. Seniors are very concerned about that. While they are very concerned about taking care of their loved ones who may be incapacitated in one way or another, I think they also want this government to be responsible.

We have been waiting and waiting patiently. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has stood up on numerous occasions in his role as health critic, and he has asked where the long-term-care policy is. I think that ties in, in many ways, because if we can take care of our people properly, if we can take care of them with a long-range plan from the days --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: What is the problem? Members over there do not think it is necessary to have long-term care? That is the whole attitude of this government. Do not talk to me about five years. This is our legislation that this government brought in, and it is monkeying around with the terms and the definitions, and it is changing things and making it vague instead of coming in with some really hard-hitting legislation that is truly going to protect the people who need protecting. This was a submission that came as a result of the efforts of the former government, and the members know it.

I have gone through this budget, and it is very disconcerting. I have gone through this budget, and I have looked just in the "Highlights" section. I did not go through looking for the words "senior citizens" or "disabled folks" in the overall budget. I said: "I will be fair. Let me just take the 'Highlights' and see if I can find anything in here that refers to those individuals."

I think the Treasurer has ignored this particular sector. This government has given the responsibility to a minister who, as I have said many times, is laden with responsibilities, who is overworked, who has tremendous difficulties in paying proper attention to the areas that need attention.

As I said before, the concept of a legislative package --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: There is some chirping going on over there. I take it my remarks must be hitting home, as they are creating some unrest from the far reaches of the back bench.

We were hopeful that there would have been an attempt to bring in a comprehensive package, and I still do not understand why that could not take place. As I said before, as to the Advocacy Act, the Substitute Decisions Act and the Consent to Treatment bill, no one in this legislature would say that we do not need to address this problem. No one in this House, in my view, would say that he was not in support of the general thrust of the concept that this minister, with all her other responsibilities, is attempting to wrestle with. We support that. Our concern is that the minister is not going far enough in addressing it as a comprehensive package with these other items being in place.

We are extremely concerned about the philosophical bent of the NDP socialist government to be less than concerned about interference with individual civil liberties. We are extremely concerned that this government has at least four more years in which to implement this legislation, at which time it could do serious damage to the civil liberties not only of the people who require the care they are attempting to put forward under this legislation, but also the civil liberties of their families.

Imagine being the son or daughter of an elderly, frail, incapacitated individual. You have made certain decisions with regard to his or her care, and you have agonized over this. You have gone through your own personal hell, and so have they in attempting to communicate what they need. You have met with the professionals that the member for York East referred to, who perhaps in his opinion are inappropriately involved in this, I do not know if that is what he meant by that. But you have met with all the health professionals and the care givers and the people and the counselling agencies and whatever is involved in your particular community, and you have come to a decision that a certain level of care for mom or dad or aunt or uncle is appropriate, and you are going to help provide it.

I would hope that this government does not have some intent to come along and tell you, as the son or daughter, that it is going to change that. I would hope that is not the case. I frankly do not trust this government; I do not trust it in the slightest. I am very concerned that its holier than thou, tight halo attitude is going to rub off into an area where it, or some bureaucrat called an "advocate," is going to make a decision that the government knows better than all of the professionals who have been involved, or that it knows better than the family members who have had to suffer and agonize, and it is simply going to come through and whitewash it and tell them what is best for their loved ones.

I would hope that the minister would ensure that would not take place. I would hope she would clarify the vagueness in some of her definitions particularly, to ensure that that does not take place. I would hope she would show the people of this province that they can indeed trust their government, regardless of its philosophical bent towards knowing what is best for everyone in society.

Believe me, the rest of us do not buy what this government feels -- not only on this side of the House, but it sees what is happening out there. It knows that its position in government is an aberration, that it is simply an accident. This government understands that. It understands that in four years' time, when the Premier goes back to the polls, that the majority of the members are not going to be back here. Do not be foisting --

The Deputy Speaker: Please address your remarks to the Chair. I would suggest also that the member do not taunt the opposition. Stick to the subject.

Mr Mahoney: I will take your admonition. We returned as the opposition.

Mr Bisson: We are the government the last time I checked.

The Deputy Speaker: My mistake.

Mr Mahoney: I thought it was an excellent statement and observation, but it is not correct.

Mr Speaker, I will accept your admonition not to get into taunting and repartee back and forth between the somewhat excitable and excited members opposite. I will attempt to ignore them. You can appreciate that it is difficult because they have shown, whether it is in regard to this bill or any other bill, that a differing or dissenting opinion is one that is simply to be held in disgust by this government. Rather than recognizing and appreciating the role of the opposition, they tend to get a little excited.

The traditions in this province of recognizing the significance of family -- I recognize in fairness to the members opposite, and I would not go so far as to say that the majority of them do not care about family; I think they do.

I think that one of the problems we have in our role, whether it be in opposition or in supporting the government on the back bench, is we tend to call each other down perhaps a little too much. I would respect the fact that the members opposite, some of whom have begun to have families and some of whom are still looking forward to that. Whenever the age of puberty passes they will be considering starting a family, and they will understand. One day they will understand the thing that many of us have come to understand, and that is the difficulty of dealing with a loved member of your family who has been incapacitated.

I am going to say, I sure do not want the government interfering in my rights as an individual, and I do not want the government interfering in the rights of my mother, who is doing fine at the moment but could at some point in the next 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years -- Mom, I know you are feeling great -- become incapacitated. I know she wants me, along with many of the other people in this society, to stand up for their rights and ensure that this government does not do what it has done in other areas, like eliminating allegiance to the Queen. Do not kid me that did not upset a lot of the same people we are talking about in this actual legislation.

This government does something to upset them and then brings along some advocacy bill and says this is going to take care of them; it is okay. And the member for York East does not think that is paternalistic. I beg to differ. It is not only paternalistic; it is potentially dangerous. That member knows it and so do the other members.

This government can solve that problem. It can solve that problem if it recognizes and puts a statement in the legislation, perhaps even in the preamble, that the role of the family shall be paramount, that the concerns of the family of these people who have suffered a debilitating problem shall be paramount, that the family will be consulted extremely carefully, that there will not be just off-the-wall decisions made as if the government knows best.

The government can do that. It can tighten up this legislation. One of the things it can do when it comes to vulnerable people is bring in, as we have asked, the three acts together. Let's debate them. What is the problem? They can put them all on the floor. Let's discuss them. Maybe we should even set aside a full session, a couple of days. Perhaps on Thursday at the House leaders' meeting I can talk to the government House leader about why this government is not taking the issue more seriously and bringing in all of the pieces of legislation that are needed to deal with these particular problems.

1710

We would ask that the definition of a vulnerable person under section 2 of the bill be revisited, that the vagueness of this definition be looked at and that perhaps -- this is for the government House leader -- we want to have more time on these very important bills and would ask her to bring the other two companion bills into the House so we could deal with them at the same time, to work on the vagueness of the definition, to assess precisely what range of advocacy must be filled in this.

As I said, a real recognition of the need to balance the desire to protect persons against neglect or abuse with the need -- very critical, very important when you are dealing with an extremely left-wing, socialist government that thinks it has all the answers -- to prevent undue interference with personal freedoms. The government members may know best when it comes to their trade unions, but when it comes to this, as I said before, I do not trust them. The public does not trust them, the sons and daughters and families of people who are in need of this kind of service do not trust them. We are not going to stand here and just give them carte blanche to do whatever they want and bring in perhaps the NDP advocacy instead of proper health care advocacy that is needed. It is interference versus assistance. That is what we are asking for; we want to see true assistance, but not rampant interference.

I touched on the financial implications. One of the frustrations I expressed earlier when the minister stood up to make her announcement about this being Senior Citizens' Month -- and of course this ties in very clearly, because while it is not particularly said, all disabled adults are clearly not senior citizens, but I would have to take an educated guess and suggest that a very large percentage of them are. This is at least an attempt to address some of the issues under the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs.

The issue of mandatory retirement has been totally ignored by the minister, even though she answered me in committee when we were dealing with the estimates that she believed amendments should be brought forward to end that discriminatory practice, that we should be doing so. I have seen nothing come forward in even the form of a discussion paper. Would it not be nice to find out how the senior citizens feel about that, other than perhaps talking to a handful? Would it not be nice to put out a green paper or something? This government is the government of green papers, for goodness' sake. Every time you turn around they are coming up with some other form of consultation that they want to undertake, and yet they are ignoring things like that in senior citizens' affairs.

At least we have Bill 74, which is addressing some of the issues that seniors and their families would have, but that has been ignored. The issue of the problems of the cutbacks in Transhelp has been ignored. What do we get? We get, in the Mississauga News -- and this affects people who are covered under this legislation -- "Ambulance Cutbacks Put Lives in Jeopardy." Last Friday's Mississauga News: "Cutbacks in Peel-Halton Ambulance Service." We are not looking at it. We are too busy trying to figure out who wrote letters to judges and who has conflicts and who should do what. How do we cover ourselves, how do we teach our backbenchers to act as seals and applaud instead of dealing with issues that are of real concern?

This is on topic. I see you, Mr Speaker, shaking your head. The reason it is on topic is that we are talking about a bill that has the potential to do some good, but it needs some adjustments. It needs some adjustments and I do not see this government prepared to make those adjustments. We are going to fight to make them. We are going to make those adjustments in our committee. The minister can look at me smugly if she likes, but that is our job, that is our role, and she can rest assured we will be doing it as aggressively as we can.

Having been somewhat critical, I would say, however, that the minister is at least to be congratulated for recognizing that good Liberal social policy should not be thrown out just because of the freak that happened on 6 September and the accident of these people being elected to government. They are at least recognizing that there is a basis of foundation from the Fram report, there is a basis of foundation from the submission to cabinet. They are just not going far enough. I would encourage them to bring the other two bills into the Legislature as quickly as possible, to listen to the opposition amendments at committee, which I feel this minister will do, and to consider putting them in so that we can deliver something to the people of this province that is not partisan, that is good public policy.

Mr Daigeler: Just a few brief points. As my colleague just said, there are some very important issues being raised by this bill, and we are certainly supportive of the work that has gone on before. I remember in particular Father O'Sullivan, who was a tremendously valued member of the federal House and who unfortunately has passed away now due to a very severe illness. I think, though, as the previous speaker has just said, there are some very glaring omissions in this particular bill and I am concerned that there is very little in the bill, at least as yet, on what that advocacy function is in fact supposed to be.

Nor is there very much in the bill at the present time on the procedures to be followed by the advocates. In fact, I read the bill over the weekend. A lot of it is spent on how the advocacy commission is going to be established, setting up an advisory committee for the appointments to the commission and how these people are all going to fit into the system, but very little of it is spent on the nature of the advocacy itself, how it is to be done, what it is precisely to accomplish and how the rights of the family, as was mentioned by the member for Mississauga West, are going to be protected.

I certainly look forward in committee to hearing answers to all of these concerns. I am sure the minister will come in with further details, because we know that she is serious about this matter, and so are we, so I look forward to further details on some of these very important questions.

The Deputy Speaker: Okay. Order, please. Section 22(b) of the standing orders says that the Speaker must recognize the first person who stood up. I notice there were five, et je reconnais le depute de Cochrane-Sud. Vous avez ete le premier.

Mr Bisson: I think it is interesting to note that we got into this debate, and I think it is a good debate that all parties have been trying to contribute to, but I think something very fundamental and interesting happened in this part of the debate. The member opposite who got into the debate on this showed a lot, I think, when he was showing his cards and what he had in his hand in regard to the cards he had shown. He has a total bias, basically, to what is happening in this House.

For one time since 6 September we have been debating a bill based on the facts and not getting into party politics. The one thing we hear back there is that the citizens of Ontario understand that at times we need to get into party politics, and we need to get into that kind of argument, but when bills are presented and make commonly good sense, it would be a good idea that the member opposite would remember not to do that. He used very strong terms. He used the question of us as aberrations, a freak on 6 September. He said a lot of things in regard to some fairly strong language. I understand that at times we have to get into that, but it is not respected by the people of this province and certainly not respected by the majority of the people inside this House.

He also talked about this as being a bill that was introduced by the former Liberal government or as being Liberal legislation. I only wish it was, but we know for a fact that this is not the case. This bill was put in place by the NDP government because the NDP government recognized it as something that was long overdue and had never been done anywhere in this province, or in the country for that matter.

I would beg that the member respect the wishes of the people of Ontario when entering into debate, understanding that at times we are going to get partisan. But to use whatever forum possible in order to advance one's partisan politics does not sit well with the people of this province. The people of this province elected us, as most members in the House recognize, to be able to debate bills and to be able to put together legislation for the common good of this province, and not to advance our political aspirations as leaders of a certain party when we are running for them.

1720

Mrs Marland: Is it not exciting to listen to the member for Cochrane South talk about what the people of this province expect? The people of this province expect a government that is elected based on promises to keep them. Quite frankly, that little lecture that we just received about what is in the partisan arena and what is not is quite unnecessary. In listening to the comments of that member in response to the comments of the member for Mississauga West, I find it very interesting for him to stand in this House and talk about partisan comments and what the public expect.

He is saying that his government is doing something that has never been done before in the history of this province and indeed this country. On that score I will agree, but it is not this bill that they are doing to this province and to this country that has never been done before; it is their other policies that are going to be driving this province down and down and down and costing the public of this province the kinds of dollars that they never, ever anticipated because of the fact that they are fiscally irresponsible. The kinds of things that we would like to be able to achieve for vulnerable adults through an advocacy commission cannot be achieved because there will not be the money needed to make those changes because of the deficit planning that this government has proposed for this province at this time in our history.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I want to address some of the concerns that were raised. I guess the member for Mississauga West's holiday was not quite as well done, as he missed a few things while he was away. If he had been in the House last week he would have noticed that the two items that he wanted to bring forward have been addressed in first reading. We have already been discussing with the opposition and with the third party and with the member for Lawrence if we could bring together all three pieces, if we could have a debate in the standing committee on administration of justice. If we can get on with it, the three pieces will be brought to that standing committee in tandem, together, and we will be debating those issues.

I also have to talk on a personal note. My mother passed away 8 February of this year, a victim of Alzheimer's. I well understand the role that families have with advocacy. I also understand how difficult it is for families to be able to sometimes cope, and their need to have the assistance of an advocate to do that. When I was attending and looking after my mother, there were people in her room who did not have family and friends who could address their issues and who could speak on their behalf. If a family member is doing a good job there is no fear of an advocacy commission, because we want to advocate and make sure that this commission is set up on behalf of vulnerable adults for people who do not have family or friends, very clearly stated.

I also want to mention very clearly that this commission is not going to be appointed by political hacks of any political party whenever they are in power. It is going to be appointed by the vulnerable adults and their organizations themselves by having duly elected elections and making sure that those people are represented on the commission. This is a first, and this is to make sure that they are empowered, not taking away their rights, not giving, as the member had said, this attitude that we are better and we know more than the other people. We are making sure that they sit on the commission, that they are empowered, and that they can have their rights addressed.

Mr Mahoney: I appreciate that response from the minister. I ask that the legislation, the three pieces, be brought here in the Legislature, not in a committee room. The minister has said that that is not going to take place.

I will tell the minister where I was. It was not a holiday. I was out travelling around this province on a budget task force trying to explain to people how those guys are destroying this entire economy. That is where I was: listening to the problems of the people.

Let me just address for a moment the issue raised, although I should ignore it, about partisanship. What the honourable member for Cochrane South does not understand is that what I do not like -- and, in my opinion, the majority of the people in this province do not like -- is socialism. We are not at a time in the history of this province when we can stand back and tolerate a socialistic viewpoint in this province. This government is destroying the province. We have businesses that are leaving --

Mr Drainville: Nonsense.

Mr Mahoney: It is not. That is the problem. They do not actually believe it. They do not understand what they are doing.

On the bill, I say to the minister that I appreciate the fact -- and my sympathies on her loss -- and I know that she understands how important it is. What scares me, as I said before -- this is not a personal statement -- is that I do not trust her government. It is not that I do not trust her personally; I do not trust her government. I do not trust her party's philosophy. I do not trust where those people come from, and when they say to me that if a family member is doing a good job there will be no need for interference by an advocate, that is exactly my point. They are going to arbitrarily decide whether or not that family member is doing a good job -- they, the great judge of whether or not that family member is satisfying the needs of the loved one who is in this difficulty. They have no right to make that judgement as a government and they should not set themselves up as God.

Mr Bisson: Just a very quick point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is misleading what this legislation is all about, and it is not the government that is going to rule; it is people.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I do not accept that word and I would ask you to retract it.

Mr Bisson: I will.

Mrs Marland: In speaking today to the second reading of Bill 74, I would like to say at the outset that we have waited a long time for this advocacy legislation. It was, in fact, December 1986 when the Attorney General of the day, the member for St George-St David, appointed the late Father Sean O'Sullivan to head a review of advocacy in Ontario. It was September 1987 when we received the outstanding review entitled You've Got a Friend, prepared by Father O'Sullivan, civil servants from several ministries and many dedicated volunteers representing the providers and consumers of advocacy services. It was 1988 when we also received the Fram report on substitute decision-making for mentally incapable persons, and the Manson report on Advocacy in Psychiatric Hospitals. Finally, in 1991, we are debating the legislation. Some time in 1992 we will have an independent Advocacy Commission in place.

It is not the purpose of this debate to lay blame for the delays, but we cannot help but wonder if some of the tragic cases of abuse of persons who attend or reside in institutions could have been avoided if we had moved sooner to establish a system of advocacy.

As I mentioned in my response to the introduction of this legislation by the minister responsible for disability issues, we must take steps to ensure that adequate advocacy for vulnerable persons is provided between now and the time when the new Advocacy Commission is up and running. Today's debate is one of principle. Again, as I said in my response to the minister on 18 April, and I quote, "Certainly our party has long supported an independent advocacy system."

Father O'Sullivan painted a frightening picture of more than one million adults in Ontario who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Physically disabled persons, frail elderly persons, persons with psychiatric disabilities and persons with developmental handicaps -- all of these adults are vulnerable. Persons in institutions are always vulnerable because an institutional setting deprives people of a substantial degree of control over their lives and many of their rights.

1730

Father O'Sullivan pointed out that by the year 2030, when the last of the baby boom reaches age 65, seniors will then represent 23% of our population compared with 11% in 1986. That means the number of frail seniors requiring advocacy services is going to increase dramatically. As well, more than 20% of Ontario's population over the age of 65 is unable to converse in either English or French. That means one out of every five seniors may require an advocate to communicate his or her needs and wishes. This incidence will increase if, as predicted, higher levels of immigration are required simply to maintain our population, let alone increase it.

Consider, too, that at present disabilities exist in about 14% of Ontario's adult population. Four out of 10 disabled persons are over 65 years of age and more than half of the disabled persons who require assistance with the activities of everyday living are senior citizens. Thus, the incidence of vulnerable disabled persons will also increase as our population ages.

The arguments for an advocacy system are therefore compelling. As I have said, this legislation is urgently needed and it is long overdue. Although our party is still conducting a detailed analysis of the bill, we do support it in principle.

The minister responsible for disability issues has expressed her hope that the bill will be sent to committee for further comment from the public. Our party agrees the bill will require close analysis in committee to ensure that the advocacy system established in the bill is the best system possible. From the analysis that we have of this bill so far, we do have, however, one major concern. That is the bill's divergence from the recommendations of the O'Sullivan report, You've Got a Friend, concerning the need to have volunteer as well as paid advocates.

I would like to quote from the introduction and background to the O'Sullivan report:

"Ontario needs advocacy. More particularly, we as Ontarians need to be advocates. Most of us already are. We can do more. If we are to improve our society, we must. Primary responsibility for advocacy must remain with us as individual citizens, as families, as friends and as neighbours of Ontario's vulnerable population.

"Primary responsibility for advocacy education and the development and support of advocacy services is the proper role of government. Therefore, this review of advocacy, having considered Ontario's needs and options, recommends a shared advocacy model for this province. While recognizing the need for equally dedicated, professionally trained and suitably paid advocates, this review has concluded that the heart and soul of advocacy services will depend upon caring volunteers."

That is the end of the quote from the O'Sullivan report. The emphasis on the volunteer aspect of advocacy is very clear.

The minister responsible for disability issues has been quoted in the Toronto Star as saying she does not think the volunteer system envisioned by Father Sean O'Sullivan and the participants in his review is practical. She has also announced that there will be at least 150 paid advocates. A senior policy analyst in the Office for Disability Issues says that is twice the number of advocates suggested under a plan that was submitted to the Liberal cabinet two years ago.

There is nothing wrong with having as many professional, paid advocates as possible. However, public funds are not infinite and, as I pointed out earlier, the number of adults requiring advocacy services will increase dramatically as our population ages. Therefore, properly trained volunteers are crucial if we are to be able to afford our advocacy system in the longer term.

More volunteers with no connections to government or institutions speak only for the people whom they have been appointed to help. They ensure the independence of the advocacy system. They also ensure that the advocacy system empowers vulnerable persons to make decisions and exercise their right of choice, not only in personal matters but also in the shape and future of our advocacy services. Finally, anyone who has been involved as a volunteer in an organization or who has been the beneficiary of assistance from a volunteer knows that nothing can match the dedication a volunteer brings to his or her volunteer work. The members of this House should be especially familiar with the value of volunteers since virtually all of us have made volunteer service to our community a priority in our lives.

Again, to quote Father Sean O'Sullivan, this time in the closing remarks of his review:

"We wish to endorse the insights offered us by an individual whose remarkable life journey includes long-term institutionalization, labelling as mentally retarded, a decision to strike out on his own and who today offers advocacy and hope to many others. This man spoke compellingly of a basic difference from the partners' point of view between a paid advocate and a volunteer advocate. As he put it, 'The paid advocate would be regarded as a professional who has a job to do but the volunteer advocate, exactly because he or she is there voluntarily, is also my friend.' We have found no better description of the advocate par excellence."

It was out of this insight of this particular individual that Father Sean O'Sullivan derived the title of his report, You've Got A Friend.

Our party urges the minister to rethink her remarks on volunteer advocacy. I hope the member who is talking to the minister at this point during the debate will allow her to hear the comments. Our party urges her consideration; I will say again that our party urges the minister to rethink her remarks on volunteer advocacy.

That concern aside, our party welcomes Bill 74 and offers its support, in principle, for the legislation. To the official opposition, which, when it was the governing party, had the O'Sullivan review of advocacy services for three years and did not act on it, I simply say: If only this bill could have been introduced sooner.

All of us who were privileged to know Father Sean O'Sullivan personally know the kind of dedication and commitment he gave to that review of services for vulnerable adults in our province. For those of us who knew him personally and for those who had the privilege only of reading his extensive work, I think perhaps there has been a very regrettable lapse in the fact that that report was written and presented over three years ago. We can only hope that from this point forward the current government will move so that the risk and indeed the vulnerability of those adults in the province today who need advocacy will not go on any longer.

I say in closing that in the interim period between now and when the Advocacy Commission is established and has developed its policies and its directions, I hope and I trust that I can depend on the minister to do all she can to ensure that those people who are vulnerable adults today in Ontario will not be at unnecessary risk.

1740

Hon Ms Ziemba: I thank my colleague in the third party. I think she has expressed it very well. Yes, we do appreciate the work that was done by Father O'Sullivan. Certainly when I was working in the community, that was one of our concerns in our lobbying that we did to the previous government, that we certainly wanted an advocacy act to be addressed and vulnerable adults to be protected.

I too am concerned, as she said, that vulnerable adults are out there right now unprotected. This is the reason we have to get on with the job and make sure that we take this act to committee and make sure we get the commission set up very quickly.

I want to just make a point on volunteer advocates. I think it is very important for the member to take a look at subsection 3(2) where we very clearly talk about volunteer advocates and that they will continue to play a very important role in our new commission and certainly play a very important role with the vulnerable adults they are already overseeing, and perhaps in the future as well with new vulnerable adults. We do as a government take great consideration not only of volunteers but also of family members. I appreciate the member's comments, but the volunteer advocates are certainly part of what we want to do and certainly a part of our overall plan.

I also want to bring out the fact that under the Ministry of Citizenship we understand very clearly the fact that there is a new face to Ontario and that there is a need to look at cultural interpretation. There is a need to look at religions and traditions of new vulnerable adults in this province. Because of that, we do have in place a very good cultural interpreter program that certainly will assist and help. We certainly are looking to our commission to address the needs of people who come from other cultures and other various places, and also the aboriginal people. I have stated very clearly in my statements that our first nations must have the right to decide how advocates will work within their community, and we hope and want our first nations to be able to use the Advocacy Act as well.

Mrs Caplan: As I rise in the two minutes allotted to me, I would like to reiterate again the support for the principles and the intent of this legislation. I was pleased to hear the commitment from the minister that all three pieces of legislation will be together at committee. I think it would have been a better idea if we had been able to debate all of those pieces of legislation as a package here in the Legislature at the same time, but at least they will be together in committee, and that is very good.

One of the concerns we have, and I would state it again, is that the bill sets out no specific mechanisms for the implementation of the goals and it leaves so much to regulation that I believe there is a legitimate concern of members on this side of the House, and a legitimate concern of providers, a legitimate concern of families, a legitimate concern of consumers and advocates who are presently in the system, that in fact the intent of this government, this NDP socialist government, will be to implement this legislation by regulation. That is of great concern to all of those who look at this legislation, which is eminently supportable in principle and eminently supportable in its intent. The concern is, how will this legislation be implemented? How will it be given effect?

Every indication is that in fact this will require a large bureaucracy; we will see it bureaucratized. The concern which has been expressed by many of my colleagues on this side of the House is that because of the paternalistic nature of this bill, what we will see when it is implemented will not achieve the goals and the objectives that everyone in this House is so supportive of. Much work has been done over the years and many reports have been received. This legislation I hope will achieve those goals, but it is doubtful because of the nature of the legislation.

Mr Cousens: I would like to just comment briefly, if I may, on the excellent presentation by the member for Mississauga South. I think one of the things she has done again is to go back a couple of steps and let us understand the role and importance of advocacy, something that did not exist many years ago. Now, as we face the needs of a diverse society and understand something of the vulnerable people who are within it, we appreciate the need to provide certain services and to make sure that they are protected. I guess to me that is a very important way of prefacing the whole debate to Bill 74, because once we understand that there is a common need across our society for each one of us to appreciate that there are people out there who are hurting or need help, we must then set up the mechanisms and the ways in which we can do that. I think that is a good beginning point.

I am worried that if this bill were to go through as it is, it is going to cause problems of other natures. That is why it is going to be so important to begin with the philosophical base of agreement that I believe the member for Mississauga South has enunciated. Then we are going to be able to look at and help define who is a vulnerable person. To what degree can we go and help them without going beyond the limits and start intruding into a person's private life? Are we in a position as a Legislature to have a kind of open discussion on this through the public hearing process so that we can then deal very carefully and delicately and honestly and openly with all the groups that will have something to say on these matters so that we can then refine this legislation? It is not complete now, but it is a beginning point.

Mr Sutherland: I just wanted to make a few comments on what the member for Mississauga South said, not to take away from the intent of the debate on this specific legislation, which is very important, but her comments about Father Sean O'Sullivan. I do not know how many members here in the Legislature had an opportunity to read the biography, or autobiography, that was written, called Both My Houses, but as a young person who was thinking about getting into politics, I found it a very inspirational book to read. Also, it talked about the issue of partisanship and how someone who originally when he got into politics was very partisan learned throughout his short but very significant life, in terms of his contribution to society in Canada and Ontario, how there are things more important in life in terms of serving the people, as he indicated, in both his houses, in terms of getting a true understanding of what is important in life.

I think it is important to make note of that comment right now, given the nature of some of the comments earlier from the member for Mississauga West, and given the comments of how many other members have focused specifically on the legislation and have pointed out what they feel are valid criticisms, all with the intent and the goal of trying to improve the legislation so that those people who really need help and need advocates will be protected in the long run.

1750

Mrs Marland: I would like to thank the member for Oxford for his comments. It is true that the kind of leadership Father Sean O'Sullivan gave to the people in this country and this province is a model to which all members in this House can aspire. We can take from his example a direction to set our own sails in everything we do.

How wonderful that an individual like Father O'Sullivan served in the federal House, as the member for Oxford has identified, as a representative in a political party, and then changed his life's dedication from that role in federal politics to a role of continuing caring, an advocacy for all human beings. It was a demonstration to all of us, I think, that no matter what our life experiences are and whether we are serving the public in elected office or in other vocations or indeed in volunteer roles, there is never enough we can accomplish on behalf of people who need our help. Some of us perform that service, I hope, through our elected offices, and when we change that office or that venue, I certainly hope we will all continue with his kind of example of commitment and caring.

Mr Johnson: It is indeed an honour and a pleasure to be able to rise today and speak in the House about Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons.

It is a comprehensive, all-inclusive act. I had the opportunity to scrutinize it very closely, and I must say I was impressed. The very first part of the bill, and this is most important, says: "The purposes of this act are to contribute to the empowerment of vulnerable persons and to promote respect for their rights, freedoms, autonomy and dignity."

I speak today with a certain amount of experience. I was a professional advocate for 18 years and a voluntary advocate at the same time. I dedicated a large part of my life, although some of it for remuneration, nevertheless to advocacy of vulnerable people.

I find it most interesting, as I listen to the members speak today, some for the third party and some for the official opposition, that they are espousing things that, in my opinion, are contrary to what happened while their governments were in power. This really confuses me.

Years ago when the third party was in power and was looking to consult on advocacy and consult in order to help vulnerable people, it went out and hunted for people in the community who were on its side. They did not look for people who were from all spectrums of society. They went out and asked for people who were interested in their policies.

As for the second party, I wrote to the then Minister of Community and Social Services asking if he would not consider some of my concerns, in a very carefully drafted letter, and the deputy minister replied. The minister did not see the letter, he did not sign the letter, he did not have anything to do with the letter. It was really unfortunate. That was the second party.

But what is most important is not what has happened in the past but the fact that we are here today to deal with Bill 74, the Advocacy Act, 1991. What is really important to understand and know is that we are going to deal with the concerns of vulnerable persons.

When our society changed and our society obviously cared and decided it was going to do something about the people who had handicaps, that we were going to change the infrastructures within the province and ensure they had accessibility to all the institutions, we did not ask the people who were handicapped. The problem was that we, who were not the experts, went forward and developed ideas and implemented them and made them practical, what we thought to be practical, but because we had not consulted the very people who were handicapped, there were lots of flaws in what we did. That was really most unfortunate.

We had washrooms with doors big enough to get wheelchairs in, but the stalls were not big enough to turn the wheelchair around inside.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This member is demeaning himself in the tenor of his debate. I am amazed that in the procedures of this House this member would do this.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Let me read what a point of order is:

"Questions of order relate to the interpretation of the rules of procedure and may be raised for the purpose of calling attention to departures from the standing orders or from customary ways that the House has conducted its business. They should be raised promptly before the question has passed to a stage where the objection would be out of place."

Mr Johnson: The point I want to make is simply this, that the majority of the members of the commission are going to be vulnerable people, and that says a lot. It is not going to be a group of people who do not have any vulnerabilities, it is not going to be a group of people who have been assigned by the Legislature or assigned by the government. In fact, what we are going to have is a commission of truly vulnerable people, and they will speak in the best interest of all vulnerable people. Surely as a result of that, we will get the best results from this commission we could possibly imagine.

We have to understand too that there are changes in our society. There are new diseases. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS, is making it necessary to have advocates in ways we never thought of before. This is really important. Having been an advocate for many years, I too have been aware of the involvement of families and their concern for their loved ones. What I found was that families did not think they were getting a fair shake from existing legislation and certainly were not getting a fair shake from past governments. Had there been advocates and representatives of vulnerable people in place, we would not have had people falling through the cracks as a result of our Mental Health Act, and we would not have had people falling through the cracks who were unnecessarily put into the communities --

An hon member: Shame on you.

Mr Johnson: When people are put into the communities in the interest of integrating them into those communities it is very good, but unfortunately, often all that happens to people who are integrated into communities is that they end up living there; they do not have the necessary support services. Had there been advocates speaking on their behalf at the time they were forced into living situations they did not want to be in, maybe they would not have fallen through the cracks. That is something we have to take into consideration.

So whether we want to condemn some parts of Bill 74 or whether we want to promote it, the fact that we have a bill today that definitely represents the needs of vulnerable persons is very important. With this bill, we are going to eliminate the abuse and the neglect and the exploitation we have seen. There has been a lot of misunderstanding, but even some of the best --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1800.