Hansard Transcript 1998-Oct-19 vol. A | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mr Speaker, let me tell you and the Minister of Health and everyone here in the House about Evan, a constituent who sustained a serious arm injury at work. The razor cutter Evan was using slipped and cut deeply into his right arm.

Evan was taken to our only emergency department at St Joseph's Health Centre, where he waited over three hours until he finally received the medical attention necessary to close the cut, which required 28 stitches. Evan was placed in an emergency room cubicle which had blood spots and parts of a cast from an earlier patient. It took Evan's mother 40 minutes to find a nurse to help adjust the compress to stop the bleeding from Evan's arm.

I've talked to doctors, I've talked to nurses, I've talked to patients, and they're all saying the same thing: There isn't enough money devoted to emergency care services. It's not the doctors' fault, it's not the nurses' fault, it's not the administrator of the hospital's fault; it's clearly the government's fault.

Mike Harris's policies are causing these disasters. But lo and behold, all of a sudden we hear that the Ministry of Health, the Mike Harris government is going to commit all this money that we've been talking about for months, weeks and days. Is the government telling the people of Ontario the truth? We want that commitment today. We need it and must have it today.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I want to address the issue of the Harris government's policy of handing guns to 12-year-olds. I have tried, on a number of occasions, to get a clear statement of reasons from this government. Please explain to me why it makes sense to give guns to 12-year-olds.

It has been very difficult to get a minister of the crown to stand up and give a straightforward explanation to the members of this House and to the public. I wanted to talk to the Solicitor General, the chief police officer, about Chief Nagle from the North Bay police force and how he said that 12-year-olds were just too young and how he doesn't support this policy and how the chiefs of police don't support this policy. I wanted him to say, as chief police officer, why the government supported it. He wouldn't answer the question. He referred it.

I asked the minister responsible for children's issues. After she gave a very incorrect answer, blaming the federal government - I'm assuming she didn't know the right answer; I'm making that assumption, because any other assumption would be unparliamentary - she referred the question.

The Deputy Premier stood up and hid behind the tragedy of a case, when that wasn't even the central part of the question. The Minister of Natural Resources, who has I guess been left out to hang with this policy, in his arrogant way said I don't understand. I understand, the public understands: 12-year-olds are just too young to have guns. Please change your policy.

DIWALI

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Today Hindu Canadians and Hindus the world over mark the festival of Diwali or Deepawali. This occasion marks the beginning of the Hindu new year. Symbolizing light and the victory of righteousness, Diwali marks the lifting of spiritual darkness in our lives.

Diwali literally means rows of deeyas, or small clay lamps. In Trinidad, these lamps are made on the beach and are then left out in the hot sun to harden. These twinkling oil lamps light up every Hindu home. They are often floated in the sacred Ganges River as a prayer.

Gods which symbolize wealth and prosperity, or lakshmi, and wisdom, or ganesh, are honoured. Diwali also commemorates the return of Lord Rama to his kingdom after a 14-year exile.

In preparation for this holiday, the home is cleaned thoroughly and is often whitewashed. Designs called rangolis are painted on floors and walls. Family members and relatives gather to offer prayer, light up their homes and share quiet festive moments together.

In India, Mother Teresa inaugurated the celebration of Diwali for Indian Christians.

India, Guyana, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Malaysia and now Ontario all celebrate Diwali. I wish all Hindu Ontarians a most happy new year and a warm "Namaste."

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I stand here today on a matter of life and death. My constituent Donald Letourneau is fighting aggressive lung cancer. Last week I hand-delivered a letter to the Minister of Health urging her to intercede in the bureaucratic process required to get the Ontario drug benefit plan to give an exemption for the drug Neupogen. This drug would give Mr Letourneau's frail 98-pound body help to withstand the assault of chemotherapy. A form 8 exemption marked "Urgent" by Mr Letourneau's doctor was faxed to the minister last week. We received a call from the minister's office on Friday to say that further clinical evidence was required before a decision can be made.

Donald Letourneau needs that drug now. He cannot wait for more bureaucratic wrangling. The minister's office promised to respond on Monday morning, but we have heard nothing. If there's no decision in his favour today, I will be turning to the citizens of my community to show compassion to Mr Letourneau. He is not wealthy. He cannot afford to pay for Neupogen as many people can.

I fear that we are already living in a province that has a two-tier health care system: one for the rich and one for the poor. I will be seeking donations from my community today, because this government has an abysmal record in ensuring that health services are available to people who need them, whether that is non-formulary drugs or emergency care. We cannot trust the wheels of the Harris government to turn fast enough for Donald Letourneau.

WINDSOR-ESSEX COUNTY SPORTS HALL OF FAME

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): On Saturday night I attended the annual Windsor-Essex County Sports Hall of Fame induction dinner. It was a special pleasure as I knew four of the six inductees.

Jim Copeland, a constituent, played in the Canadian Football League for nine seasons and shares the record for most punt returns in a game - 14.

Jerry Slavik organized the first running club in Windsor in 1970 and continues to be involved in organizing events with Walkers and Runners Around the County of Essex, a club that I've been an active member in for over 10 years. WRACE has raised tens of thousands of dollars for local charities.

Kelly-Ann Way wore the jersey of the Windsor Bicycle Club during most of her career, a club that I had the pleasure of being the secretary for. But it's the famous yellow jersey in the Tour de France in 1989 for which we remember her most.

Tim Kerr played 11 seasons with the Philadelphia Flyers and had four consecutive 50-goal seasons. He played in two Stanley Cup final games and holds several NHL records. Tim lived down the street from my house in Tecumseh, and I remember that we wouldn't let him play in our road hockey games on St Pierre Street unless we were really desperate. It's obvious that his brother Darryl and I underestimated his abilities.

I'd like to congratulate as well Willie Greenwood and Ray Truant.

You make our community proud and set a good example for good athletes to follow.

AGRICULTURE IN NORFOLK

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Each year about this time we start hearing about Halloween and the old Charlie Brown tale of the Great Pumpkin. I'm proud to report to all MPPs today that the Great Pumpkin is alive and well and was grown in my riding.

Gary Burke, a man from the tiny hamlet of Jericho, has recently grown the heaviest pumpkin in history. I'm sure all members watched the Regis and Kathie Lee show with interest last week, when the Guinness Book of Records presented Mr Burke with official recognition of his accomplishment.

The great Norfolk pumpkin, which weighs in at 1,092 pounds, broke the previous record of 1,062 pounds at the Port Elgin Pumpkinfest earlier this month. The pumpkin was also an attraction for over 130,000 people attending the Norfolk County Fair the week before Thanksgiving.

In Norfolk there are many fruit and vegetable festivals over the course of our area's long growing season, culminating in the Waterford Pumpkinfest just before Halloween. In Norfolk we not only grow great pumpkins, our farmers grow delicious fruit and vegetables of all shapes and sizes. I suppose I'll have to consult with my local women's institute to see how many pies can be baked from a half-ton pumpkin. I congratulate Mr Burke on his world record, another in a long list of impressive accomplishments for area farmers.

1340

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): It's with great interest that we watch the Premier and the Minister of Health battle it out as to who is responsible for emergency care in Ontario and why hospitals in communities like Windsor are continuing to be denied access to appropriate emergency care.

In October 1997, the Ministry of Health document that was created by the Ministry of Health said very specifically that care is fragmented and delayed, said specifically that there is a gridlock there, outlined by the ministry itself. Lead responsibility for this: Ministry of Health. What they said specifically is that there's no reason to delay, that service delivery is hampered, and time will not improve the situation. We have made many requests to fix the situation with health care in Windsor, to no avail.

In the middle of August of this year, we asked the Minister of Long-Term Care specifically to release an internal audit that was done the year before on our home care. Still, to this day, after we have been promised this audit, we have not received it. We want to know why. Is the Minister of Long-Term Care in charge of that ministry? Can he say that in his own ministry he cannot get access to an internal audit that was done the year before? There is no reason for delay unless there is something very fishy going on within that ministry and the Ministry of Health. We deserve an answer to this.

PINOCHET ARREST

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Today I wanted to honour Heike Jende and Mary Fernandez from schools St Peter, St Raymond, St David for wanting to keep their local schools alive.

But I wanted to make an equally important announcement today, and that is to honour the Chilean community for the recent events that have been going on that hopefully will bring Augusto Pinochet to justice.

As you know, he was arrested over the weekend in England, and I have to tell you that I celebrate that moment with a great deal of happiness. He, of course, was the man who in a coup in 1973 brought down the duly elected president, Salvador Allende. During that regime, thousands of people have gone missing, thousands were tortured, thousands were killed by that military dictator. Many have waited for a long, long time to savour this sweet moment of justice.

I congratulate the Chilean expatriates who are here in Toronto and those who are in many other parts of the world for the courage and commitment to bring this military dictator to justice. I tell you, only when justice is done can people be genuinely healed, and only when justice is done can people genuinely move on. I congratulate them for their courage.

SMALL BUSINESS IN WELLINGTON

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Small business people are the province's number one job creators, accounting for 80% of the new jobs in Ontario. Today I want to recognize the contributions of small business entrepreneurs who live in and near the area that I'm privileged to represent, people like Ray and Ruth Grose of Alma and Clare Weber of St Jacobs.

The Groses started Husky Farm Equipment in Alma 40 years ago. From a small family operation, the business has grown and now employs 38 people. Husky produces farm equipment such as barn stalls, bale elevators, silo unloaders and machines that handle liquid manure. A successful export business, Husky has 50% of its market in the United States.

Weber's Fabricating is another small business success story. Operating out of St Jacobs, the company was started in 1974 by Clare Weber, then 29, as a one-man operation. Weber's now has grown and employs close to 40 people. Clare began by producing turkey loaders, but Weber's has since diversified and expanded, producing steel and aluminum dump truck boxes, recycling trucks and some of the best fire trucks built in North America. Weber's also refurbishes existing fire trucks as well as doing custom manufacturing and welding repairs.

These are but two examples of how small business people have led the way in creating over 400,000 new jobs since the government assumed office in 1995. We salute you and your employees who contribute so much to your success, and pledge to continue to improve the climate that helps small businesses generate the new jobs we need.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY 407 ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407

Mr Sampson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 70, An Act to engage the private sector in improving transportation infrastructure, reducing traffic congestion, creating jobs, and stimulating economic activity through the sale of Highway 407 / Projet de loi 70, Loi visant à intéresser le secteur privé à améliorer l'infrastructure des transports, réduire la circulation engorgée, créer des emplois et stimuler l'activité économique par la vente de l'autoroute 407.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Just a few comments, if I may. This bill, if enacted, would allow the province to engage the private sector in building extensions to the highway and in financing and operating the completed highway. Private sector ownership of the highway will free taxpayers from the financing costs associated with the highway while ensuring an early start to the construction. Subject to approval by the Legislature, Ontarians will benefit from improved transportation infrastructure, more jobs and a competitive advantage for our industries here in Ontario.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on October 19, 20, 21 and 22, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SMALL BUSINESS

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): It is with great pleasure that I rise to inform the House that today we are launching a very special salute to the thousands of men and women who operate and work in small businesses - Ontario's number one job creator.

Small businesses are among the unsung heroes of our communities. As a former small business owner myself, I know that not only do they create new products and services, they create jobs - tens of thousands of them. They are the lifeblood of Main Streets across Ontario. Small businesses create more than 80% of all new jobs, more than any other sector. They have led the way in creating the 366,000 new private sector jobs that Ontario's economy has produced since the throne speech in September 1995.

Ontario has 309,000 registered businesses. The vast majority of these firms, close to 300,000 of them, are small businesses employing fewer than 100 people. Almost 223,000 of them, more than two thirds, employ less than five people. A great many of these businesses give Ontario's young people their very first new jobs.

What we have in Ontario is an army of entrepreneurs. Ask them and they will tell you that running a small business can be exciting and rewarding, but it also takes courage and determination to meet the challenges. Running a small business successfully is a tremendous accomplishment.

Our government is pleased to have been able to help small businesses create these jobs by cutting taxes, eliminating red tape and putting the economy back on track. A thriving small business sector means more jobs and stronger communities.

We have cut provincial income tax by 30%, putting more money in people's pockets. We have cut personal and business taxes 66 times in three years. We have established an ongoing Red Tape Commission to remove regulatory barriers. We reformed the Workers' Compensation Act. We eliminated the employer health tax for 80% of all businesses. We eliminated the self-employment health tax. We put a freeze on hydro rates. We will cut the small business corporate tax rate in half over the next eight years.

1350

Businesses can now access government programs such as business registration renewals and updates through the Internet, by telephone, in person or at workstations across Ontario seven days a week, 24 hours a day. No more waiting in lineups.

At the same time, we have increased access to financing for small businesses through programs like community small business investment funds, small business investment tax credits and the Young Entrepreneurs Program, which is a partnership with the Royal Bank.

Our commitment to helping small business grow and create jobs also means recognizing that our entrepreneurs have special needs.

Ontario's network of small business enterprise centres, launched last October, is designed to help entrepreneurs face the unique challenges of rapid growth. Enterprise centres are public and private sector partnerships. We have joined forces with private sector companies, financial institutions, municipalities and others to provide information and advice to small business owners. It's a great partnership and we're pleased that it is so successful.

By working with small business owners, their communities and the private sector, we are planning today for tomorrow's jobs.

On this special occasion, we salute the accomplishments and the contributions of Ontario's small business sector.

On behalf of all Ontarians, keep up the great work.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I listened with interest to the minister's statement, where he saluted small business and commended them for their contribution to the economy. I think we all agree there's no question that the lifeblood and the base for job increasing, for economic development, takes place in the small business sector.

Having said that, I'd like to quote a couple of comments that were sent to your colleague the Minister of Finance by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They say, and this was just sent recently:

"We are hearing about devastating property tax increases from small and medium-size businesses all over the province. First it was London, then Windsor, then Aurora, and more concerns are streaming in daily....

"We can only reiterate that the province should have imposed the use of the tools to protect small business, rather than relying on municipalities to be responsible....

"Large numbers of small businesses are experiencing outrageous increases....

"There has been no progress on narrowing the unfair business-residential gap."

In conclusion, they ask that you implement the promise that you made to them to ensure that the business tax would not impact negatively on small businesses.

Minister, if there is one issue that has gripped the small business sector, it is the devastating increase in taxes that is making their very survival a problem for them and putting them in great jeopardy.

Adding to that, you also go to lengths to talk about the freeze you put on Hydro. Let me tell you that freeze will expire in the year 2000, which isn't very far away, but all you have to do is see what has happened at the hearings that took place on the new Hydro restructuring, see the concerns that are expressed daily in the media on the issues about funding the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, of how we apportion the stranded debt, and you will find that you're going to have to impose a tax on small businesses that will make them even more non-competitive.

This is an issue that will not go away. This is an issue that will come back to haunt all of us. This is an issue that you, as the minister responsible for economic development, should be participating in in coming to a solution that will make sure that this onerous obligation is not transferred to the small business and medium business sector. This is something that is going to create a terrible problem for us. It's going to make us uncompetitive and, more importantly, it's going to put the very people you are trying to salute today in a perilous situation where they will no longer be able to compete.

I say to you, when it comes to the business realty tax, unless a decision is taken, I have to tell you that just the fact that the appeal period has been postponed is not going to solve the problem. We have businesses that are facing crippling tax increases. There are situations that have been brought to my attention where their realty tax is higher than their rent. Imagine a situation where a businessman finds that the rent he is paying is less than the realty tax. That doesn't make any sense and it doesn't make any opportunity for these people to stay in business. I suggest to you that rather than the salute you're giving today, most businesses think they've already got that salute. It's the salute on the finger on one hand and that's what they feel you've done to them.

I suggest to you that this is an issue of paramount importance. It's an issue that has to be resolved, because if it isn't, we are going to have a problem that is going to be totally beyond our control to save these businesses. We're going to have a catastrophic situation where the engine you are so proud of, the engine that is going to provide the kind of jobs you need and we all need - you are going to find that they can't do it for reasons that have nothing to do with their economic needs, but have to do with your poorly conceived tax structure, one that is going to come back to create problems for all of us.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On behalf of the NDP caucus, I want to say at the outset that we agree with the minister in his statement in one way, and that is, in saluting small businesses for the work they do in creating more and more jobs. We acknowledge today that great contribution that they will continue to make. But that quite frankly is where our acknowledgement of this statement ends in terms of what it means.

The minister is standing up today rhyming off a number of things the government has done. We know the Premier is out today visiting in Bloor West Village with a number of small businesses, ironically enough, visiting some of the same businesses that would have had to close their doors had the government not come to some of its senses and reversed its position on the property tax mess they've caused. Many of those businesses the Premier is now visiting, as we stand here today, would have been businesses that would have closed down because they would have had huge increases in property taxes.

That is but one of the examples of what this government is doing to small businesses. Let me go back and touch on a couple of other areas before coming back in greater detail to this property tax mess.

The minister talked, and I appreciated his mentioning his government's support for reducing red tape. I wish he would have mentioned the fact that that's not something the Tory government discovered. In our own government, through initiatives called Clearing the Path, we began that process of making it simpler for small businesses to register. Through sector partnership plans we built up the efforts to work with small businesses, and large businesses for that matter, to ensure there was good co-operation between business and government in helping to create jobs. The minister mentioned their job numbers, which we know at the end of the day will be far, far short of the 725,000 they set for themselves and for the province.

The minister and the government can stand here today and tell us all they want about how supportive they are of small businesses, but the Premier himself acknowledged over the weekend how worried he is about the image that has been building among small businesses vis-à-vis the Tory party. And no wonder. Given the huge increase in property taxes that this government has set about delivering to small businesses, no wonder that many small businesses are worried, and have reason to be worried, about where the Tory government is going.

I remember a time when people thought that the property tax issue was one that only affected Toronto, that it was only a question of resolving, or, from the government's side, having to deal politically with resolving the issue in Toronto. But now you hear that it's a problem all over the province, to the point that such a Common Sense Revolutionary as Mayor Don Cousens of Markham is now going to lead a march to Queen's Park.

1400

If people like Mayor Don Cousens of Markham are realizing what a problem this is, then many other mayors in the GTA and indeed throughout the province are finally realizing that they have had a problem handed to them by the Tory government at Queen's Park, a problem which they cannot resolve municipally because the greatest reason for that increase has to do with the downloading of costs on to the municipal tax base, the property tax base, as well as the centralized control of the education budget that the government has done and which consequently also results in great increases in the property tax system over which municipalities don't have any flexibility.

If the government wants to talk about supporting small business, let them come to grips with that very real problem of what the property tax changes have done and will continue to do for small businesses throughout the area, whether it's here in Toronto, whether it's communities like the minister's own backyard of Kleinburg, whether it's other communities in the GTA or indeed throughout the province. Let them realize that they cannot continue with this property tax system and let them realize once and for all that the only sensible thing is to put a freeze on this year's property taxes at last year's rate until they resolve this problem for the long term, because resolving it for the long term is going to take more than a week or a month and, in the meantime, time is fast running out.

We have a bill that the government is still playing around with and we don't know, between the Tory party and the Liberal Party, when this bill is going to come forward so that we can deal at least with the extension of the deadline for appeals, which affects many small businesses, a deadline which, particularly when it comes to the small business sector, has already bypassed us. In fact, October 16 was that deadline for people to give notice of their intention to seek the occupancy tax from the operators of the business. Again I say to the government, deal with the property tax issue right now.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Speaker: Yesterday was Persons Day and I'm asking for unanimous consent for an all-party statement to celebrate the day that women became persons in this country. Is that agreed?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member is asking for unanimous consent for an all-party statement for Persons Day. Agreed? No.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for St Catharines is absolutely right.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. This is a copy of a press release issued on April 20, 1998. Minister, you issued this press release. I want to send you a copy to make sure that you recognize it. You're quoted in it. "Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer today announced the government will be acting immediately on recommendations put forward in the final report of the emergency services working group" dealing with hospital emergency rooms, overcrowding and cutbacks that your government has enacted. You said you would act immediately. You had two months before that because the government joined the committee the OHA put forward.

Minister, do you agree that this is what you said on April 20? Because I met some people last night, visiting five hospital emergency rooms in Toronto, who know what it means to act immediately. They are ambulance workers, they are nurses and they're doctors, and they want to know what you meant when you said on April 20, 1998, you would act immediately to fix emergency rooms in Ontario.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): In response to the question from the member, the member knows that emergency room pressures are an issue that is not new to this government. They were part of the NDP and part of the Liberal government. I would indicate that we have been working forward according to our plan. We want to make sure that when we provide the funding, we also ensure there is accountability in the system, and we will be doing exactly that.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, today, as you may know, there are quotes from the Premier. The Premier said, "It's just unacceptable that the money we pledged in April" - and he said "we"; he acknowledged that you said "immediately" in April - "is not available and is not being put to use in the emergency room."

Last week, you tried to tell us you were taking action, that everything was OK. The workers I talked to don't think it's OK. It's not OK for a woman to have to vomit for three hours because a doctor isn't available, because the room is so crowded they can't through-put patients adequately, because you haven't put forward the money you promised on April 20. It's not acceptable to have patients transported to two and three hospitals by stressed emergency crews, as they were all through last week, because you wouldn't put the money forward immediately. Minister, do you agree with the Premier? Has it been unacceptable that there has been no money put forward since you promised it in April?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We always indicated that by October we would be in a position where we could address the recommendations of the emergency room. We want to make sure that when this money does flow, we can be assured that all of the money that is being flowed to the hospitals will indeed be used for emergency rooms and will be used to improve the pressures in emergency rooms.

Mr Kennedy: Here you are again, on October 19, trying to blame the hospitals, trying to blame the workers who are stressed out beyond compare. I actually saw ambulance workers and nurses fighting over whether a patient should come into a particular hospital because of the strain they have. Minister, you're misleading the workers if you say it's their fault. St Michael's -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You can't accuse the minister of misleading. You must withdraw.

Mr Kennedy: I withdraw.

St Michael's emergency room is still waiting for the capital to expand it. Humber River hospital was closed to critical care bypass completely, six or seven people in the hallway, and nothing's been done to expand that emergency room. They have no more beds in the hospital.

Minister, you won't stand up and defend the hospitals. You won't defend the bureaucrats. You made the promise. The Premier is not here. He said he would make the money happen. Will you resign because you haven't done this?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I believe it's somewhat unfair for the member opposite to suggest that anyone is blaming anyone in the hospitals. I believe our government has made it abundantly clear since we were elected that it is our desire to work with all the stakeholders. That's why we became involved in an emergency room task force with the Ontario Hospital Association. That's why we were very pleased to see that when the recommendations were issued, there were not only instructions for the Ministry of Health but also instructions to the hospitals. The reality is, if we are going to provide a solution that is going to relieve the pressure in the emergency rooms, it is going to take the co-operation of the hospitals and the government and the public to ensure we can provide the solutions that are needed.

1410

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): To the Minister of Health: The people who are working to try to make your health system and your cuts work for patients understand what is needed for a partnership: They need a health minister who will be the health minister.

Minister, you've cut $800 million from hospitals. You've taken it away. You've cut back the rooms. You took away the nurses who served those rooms. It's affecting real people in the real world. We've been trying to get you and your predecessor and your Premier to pay attention since February 1996, when a gentleman died in the hallway in Peterborough unattended, found there by his daughter in February 1996.

This report talks about two things. It says it's your responsibility. The problem started in October 1996. It says that these are just Band-Aids that you're waiting on. You have to deal with the real problems: the cuts to the hospitals, to the emergency beds, to home care, the fact that you won't expand home care in areas where the hospitals have been cut. Minister, will you at least stand up today and apologize to the families of people whose health has been compromised by the lack of action by you and your government? Will you at least have the grace to do that today?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Our government, since 1995 when it recognized that the health system was in jeopardy, has moved forward to ensure that many positive changes have been made to strengthen the health system in this province. We recognized that the needs of the population were changing, that we had a population that was rapidly aging. We realized it was growing.

We have provided now an additional cardiac centre. We are providing three additional cancer centres. We have more dialysis centres than ever before. We have more long-term beds that are going to be made available. We have invested and we have provided an additional $1.2 billion. We were spending $17.4 billion when we were elected. Now we're spending $18.6 billion.

We are not providing a Band-Aid. We are restructuring. We are making sure that the services the people need are going to be there when the people need them, not only now -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary, member for Fort William.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Minister, on July 25, Barry Dunn, a resident of Thunder Bay, died in a hospital in Duluth, Minnesota, following an emergency nine-and-a-half-hour operation. Mr Dunn had been a cancer patient who was doing well enough after his original surgery to undertake a trip to southern Ontario with his wife and his grandson. He became ill while overnighting in Wawa on the North Shore and he went into hospital there. His situation rapidly became critical and the physician in the Wawa emergency room started to look for a hospital bed where Mr Dunn could be admitted for urgently needed surgery. There was no intensive care bed in Ontario for Barry Dunn. Mr Dunn was sent to Duluth, Minnesota, where the surgery was done.

Mr Dunn's family does not understand why there was no place in an Ontario hospital for this man to get the urgent care he needed. Can you explain to Mrs Dunn why there would be no bed for her husband in this critical situation?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Certainly those situations are always situations that I think do touch us greatly. But let me remind you that under the NDP and Liberal governments we cut 10,000 beds from our health system, but we didn't embark on the restructuring that was so badly needed. We were not providing the additional dialysis services or the additional long-term-care services or the community care services in order that we could ensure that we could start moving people into long-term-care services and that we could free up the emergency room space. We are now undertaking that restructuring that should have happened five and 10 years ago. I'm very pleased to say that we are moving forward to ensure that people have the services they need.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, Barry Dunn's widow and his daughter are in Thunder Bay listening to your responses today. They believe that the Ontario health care system failed to respond at a time when care was urgently needed. The health care system failed to respond in not having a bed for a critically ill patient, but the health care system also failed to respond in the time it took to get Barry Dunn to hospital once a bed was found in Minnesota.

The air ambulance was called at 3:10 pm, immediately after the Wawa physician consulted with the surgeon in Duluth. The air ambulance service indicated that it would be two and a half hours before they could send a plane to Wawa. It was in fact two hours and 45 minutes later that Barry Dunn, who was critically ill, was airborne. That two-and-a-half-hour delay may or may not have affected Barry Dunn's ability to survive his surgery, but without question a two-and-a-half-hour delay can make a difference between life and death in many situations.

Barry Dunn's family wants to make sure that no one else will face this tragedy. Minister, do you agree that two-and-a-half-hour delays in transporting a critically ill patient are unacceptable, and will you take immediate steps to investigate and ensure that this will not happen again?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me assure all members that our government is very concerned about patient services, patient care, reducing the waiting time, providing the appropriate level of service. That's why our government, unlike your government, who said that $17.4 billion was enough, is investing additional dollars. We want to make sure the services can be provided.

We also need to make sure that when money is provided to the stakeholders, there is accountability in the system. We will certainly continue to work with you and we will do everything necessary to ensure that those situations can be eliminated in the future.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. You have been repeatedly asked why the $225 million that you announced last spring to fix the problem that you created in hospital emergency wards hasn't gotten to the hospitals yet. Your answer last week and your answer here today is basically, "We're not done the paperwork yet." So while people suffer, while people can't get the health care they need, the hospital care they need, and while some people are dying, you are doing paperwork.

We need to get to the bottom of this. Minister, can you tell the people of Ontario, has the $225 million that you announced even gone to Management Board yet for approval? Can you tell us that?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I can indicate to you that we will ensure there is a plan in place to flow the money to the hospitals in this province.

Mr Hampton: This illustrates the problem. We all know that government can't flow money until it goes to Management Board for approval. We know this announcement was made six months ago. I asked the minister a pointed question: Has it gone to Management Board for approval? She can't answer it.

Minister, it's your cabinet colleagues who sit on Management Board. It's not bureaucrats; it's not civil servants; it's your cabinet colleagues who haven't approved the $225 million. What are you going to do to get your government, your cabinet colleagues, to put the $225 million in place so people in this province can get the hospital care they need and they deserve?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me again remind you that when we were elected, we indicated that we would fix government; we would ensure that the process would be expedited. Let me tell you that by the end of today, our government will be in a position to provide the hospitals with the funds.

Mr Hampton: I want to take this minister up. You and your Premier have been going across this province making phony, empty announcements about health care. Is that what you call "fixing government"?

You announced $225 million for emergency wards six months ago. No one has seen it, and people are dying and people are suffering. The Premier went into Ear Falls and announced $300,000 for the community clinic. People have seen $5,000 of the $300,000 so far, six months later. You announced $36 million to help communities in rural and northern Ontario recruit and retain physicians. No one has seen the money. You announced $5 million to help recruit nurse practitioners in communities that are underserviced. No one has seen the money.

You've made one phony health care announcement after another. Is that what you and your Premier call "fixing government"?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We are very proud of our record. In fact, as I said before, we have actually increased health care spending by $1.2 billion. We have made additional services available. We are providing more cardiac surgery than ever before, more cancer treatment than ever before, more dialysis services than ever before, more hip-and-knee replacements than ever before. Every baby born in this province is now going to be screened according to our new Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program. We are doubling the number of preschoolers who are receiving assistance with speech and language difficulties. We are going to have an additional cardiac centre and three more cancer centres. I can assure you that we have already spent $1.2 billion more. We have spent more money in restructuring that is on top of the $1.2 billion -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party.

1420

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is to the minister responsible for children and it's about mental health services for children.

I would say to the Minister of Health you have made about $1.2 billion in empty, phony announcements. While you make those empty, phony announcements, people's health care suffers.

I want to ask the minister responsible for children -

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Is that a question, Howie?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Listen, I understand, and you keep bringing this up. I'm not going to tell the members how to ask the questions, and I'm not going to tell you how to answer them. If the leader wants to spend his time talking about that, he is rightfully able to do so. Don't continue to heckle me while he's doing it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, you just heckled me again. I'm asking you not to heckle me. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: To the minister responsible for children, there are a lot of children in this province who need and cannot get mental health services. It's supposed to be your job to mandate mental health services. We know that your colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services wants to collapse mental health services into the rest of her bureaucracy. Can you tell us what you're doing to ensure that children in this province get the mental health services they need and deserve?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I'm going to refer that question to the minister who is responsible for children's mental health services.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Margaret, you're conducting the review of mental health services.

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine, come to order.

Minister, I have no idea who the minister responsible for children's mental health services is. Can you tell me which ministry it is?

Hon Mrs Marland: It is the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I say to the member opposite that I respect that he and his members are very committed to this issue and have a concern about children's mental health issues, but I respectfully request that he get the facts straight. There is no plan to collapse children's mental health services into any other program.

On a community-by-community basis, we have asked the question, "How do we take children's services and provide them in a way that responds better to the needs of families?" We have had some very excellent input from those families. Under our Making Services Work for People, that initiative is actually taking those agencies and programs, and instead of asking families to tie themselves up like a pretzel to meet the rules of agencies, we are taking those programs and adapting them to the needs of families. The honourable member should be aware of that. We've offered briefings to all the MPPs about what's happening in their community. I would respectfully suggest that he take one of those briefings.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Lankin: Your regional office in North Bay is forcing an amalgamation of three children's mental health centres with children's aid and child protection services in the Timmins district. Those three centres are in Timmins, Kapuskasing and Kirkland Lake. Those families say they don't want those services amalgamated. They say there is no evidence that this forced amalgamation is going to either save money or improve service delivery. In fact, they're worried that families won't go to get the mental health services that they need for their kids if it's under the spectre of child protection services. They also say, because children's mental health services are not legislatively mandated and child protection services are, that if you collapse the two together, for sure children's mental health services are going to be the ones that will lose out and will be eroded.

The Premier seemed to agree with me. When I put the question to him in the spring about the need for mandated services, he seemed to agree and he directed the minister responsible for children's issues to conduct a review, the minister who won't answer questions. Given that review isn't finished, why is your ministry area office forcing an amalgamation on these services?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, she is aware that the minister responsible for children's issues has been meeting with families and agencies in the children's mental health area to talk about improvements that we can make in the service delivery of the system. Again, that is responding to the needs that those families have articulated to us. Secondly, we are also reviewing the needs of special-needs children who have multi-needs in many areas that may well include mental health.

In terms of the member's specific question on the North Bay area office, as she again should be aware, what we have done is gone to the community and said, "Here are the important principles that you as families have said we need to meet in children's services." Those recommendations have come forward from the community. We are in the process of looking at them. There have been many suggestions that have come forward from children's aid and children's mental health. We don't believe we should be arbitrarily setting up different agencies if there are ways to take services and provide them in a better fashion.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We don't believe in arbitrarily putting out a structure if it's not meeting the needs of those families. There has been no attempt to somehow put agencies in the position where they're making -

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: The point is this: The communities do not want this forced amalgamation. They do not want mental health services to be collapsed under your ministry, because they know it will mean the loss of mental health services for those children who badly need them.

The example I want to give you is one from my own part of the province, in the northwest. Kenora-Patricia Child and Family Services, the child protection agency in the northwest, wrote to you about children in the Dryden area who are at risk because they can't get the mental health services they need. One is a nine-year-old boy from Dryden who has had to be sent to Winnipeg to get those mental health services because they are not available west of Thunder Bay. People's fear is that when you collapse mental health services which are not mandated, which are not required by law or legislation, under children's aid, a whole lot of children are going to lose mental health services.

Minister, the question comes back to you. What are you and your colleague the minister for children, who never answers a question, going to do to ensure children get the mental health services they need?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again I would say to the honourable member that if he had taken the briefing that was offered to members, he would know that we are not collapsing children's mental health services. What we are doing is responding to what families said they -

Ms Lankin: That's what's happening in the North Bay regional office.

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine, come to order.

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the things families said they did not like was that when they had a child who had many needs, they had to knock on a whole bunch of agencies' doors and everyone wanted to assess them and everyone had different needs and everyone had different funding processes. They said loudly and clearly that it wasn't working. We went to the community. We said, "How do we take these services and provide them in a better way that meets those families' needs?"

We are not slashing funding. As a matter of fact, we have been finding areas where we can save on admin costs and we've been reinvesting and increasing money in other areas, responding to the needs of those families. There is no policy decision that has been made or will be made to somehow collapse funding. The funding is there. The question is, instead, as parents have kept saying, "Please give it to us in a way that has those agencies meet our needs."

1430

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): We'll once again attempt to get an answer from the Minister of Health. Minister, in the hallways of Toronto hospitals there are patients who are being cared for inadequately. There is an incredible amount of effort being made by the nurses, but they can't give the same care when people lie on cots in the hallway. Those are Mike Harris cots; many of them weren't there before.

For people who are wondering what they'll be facing when the emergency happens, a key indicator is the statistics kept on redirects, when ambulances can't go, and critical care bypasses, when they can't go even if there's a crisis, an emergency, a heart attack on the doorstep of the hospital.

Minister, six months ago we asked you for those statistics. Again in July we met with your officials. They said they would provide them. What are you trying to cover up from the people of Ontario? They need to know what the status has been. You have waited, delayed, six months to do anything. Why are you also covering up the situation in the emergency rooms? Will you release the critical care bypass and redirect statistics today?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): What we are endeavouring to do is make sure this problem is handled in a way that we fix it, we fix the problem in government that we've had, and we fix the problem in a way that we can ensure that the emergency room pressures do not continue to occur time and time and time again. That's why we embarked on health services restructuring. We wanted to ensure that we found solutions to these long-standing problems, problems that were there under your government.

Even your federal transport minister, David Collenette, when he was pressed on whether the recent backups in emergency rooms were due to the $6 billion in cuts the federal government has made to health and social programs over the last five years or whether they are due to Harris -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - and the provincial government's restructuring, said, "It really isn't anyone's fault." It isn't. But together we need to work and we need to make sure -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: Let's just quickly review what you've done to fix the problem. In February you said it was the flu. You were forced to join a task force when the Premier had to go to the emergency room. That task force said it's your responsibility, that problems of this nature started in October 1996. They said it wasn't the flu. They said it's hospital beds; it's the cutbacks.

Minister, you had that report on April 20 and you did nothing. In Hamilton the situation was just as bad in June as it was in January, just as bad in July as it was in August. The redirect statistics show that. Why are you ignoring the situation? You won't fix it and you won't even show us, the people who need the service in Ontario, how bad it is. Will you stop the cover-up? Will you release the statistics on what's happening in Ontario communities today as you're blocking the beds for the patients in those ambulances?

Hon Mrs Witmer: What we are not doing is attempting to fearmonger and cause panic in the community, as has been suggested at several points in time. We are trying to find constructive solutions to what we believe are real issues and real problems facing people in this province. We have never heard any plan from you or your colleagues. We have a plan. We did work with the Ontario hospitals to establish the emergency services working group. We are acting now on their recommendations, recommendations that also take into consideration the fact that it's up to the hospitals to make sure they can improve the traffic flow through the emergency rooms.

We, with our partners -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - are endeavouring to ensure that we can improve the accessibility and reduce the waiting times in those emergency rooms. We have a plan -

The Speaker: New question, third party.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Two weeks ago I read a letter that was addressed to the member for Simcoe West from one of his constituents, a parent at Duntroon Central School, thanking him for his commitment to save their school. That parent, Jackie Knisley, thanked the minister because he had said, "Oh, I won't let them close your school." Then, a few days later, we read in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record two more of the minister's colleagues from the backbench making similar promises. The members for Grey-Owen Sound and Wellington told the Record there is reason to believe that you may be backing off your funding formula in order to prevent the closure of rural schools.

Do these three members of the government caucus have some insider information about school closing, or is this just wishful thinking on their part?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm glad to see that the members of the government are getting involved with the schools in their communities and I would encourage all members to get involved with their schools. Indeed, it's my view and it's the government's view that these community schools are very important. They involve many walks of life, recreation activities, social activities and that sort of thing. I encourage, and hope that each and every member will get involved and see how schools are going to work.

For my part, through the Ministry of Education, we've laid out a fair funding formula, fair for all the 72 boards across Ontario, a funding formula that respects the enrolment at each and every school, a funding formula that provides additional monies for remote and rural schools on a fair and equitable basis, a funding formula that provides money to each board for the small schools they have on a fair and equitable basis, and then it's up to the school boards to take that money and determine what's best for their students.

Mr Wildman: In the October 8 edition of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, these two members are quoted as saying that there's a rural-urban split in your caucus around these school closures and the funding formula. They also indicate that the minister may be getting ready to change the funding formula. Will the minister guarantee that any change he makes in the education funding formula that will allow more schools to remain open will apply equally to schools right across the province, both urban and rural?

Hon David Johnson: As our funding formula has been constructed, I will guarantee that it will be fair and equitable to all of the students, to all of the school boards across Ontario. That is the basis for the funding formula. It doesn't pick and choose favourites or winners or losers; it establishes funding on the basis of need, and it does so fairly and equitably. That's the way the funding formula is set up and that's what I would insist on. Having done that, then it is the job of the school boards, as it has been during an NDP government, as it was during a Liberal government, to determine what is the best possible accommodation for their particular students, in conjunction, I might say, with speaking with their parents and their community, on which we insist.

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): My question today is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Recently a very successful event was held in my riding where a number of distinguished women from Guelph, Wellington county and beyond had an opportunity to present themselves as role models to young women in Guelph. I understand this came about as part of the Partners for Change program. I know you've spoken to the House before about Partners for Change, an initiative to bring forward the issues of women's economic dependence and prevention of violence against women projects. Minister, I wish today that you would share with the House information about various activities that Partners for Change has been undertaking across the province.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): The Partners for Change Network began at the Ontario Women's Directorate about three years ago and it has become quite a successful informal and formal network of women who come together, first of all, to provide each other with information and raise their concerns about influencing young women about the choices they can make for life with regard to their education courses or preparing them for the world of work and their careers. We are expanding - I've raised this point in the House before - and if any of you have members of your community who are interested in becoming active in networking, please let me know directly or send letters and information to the Ontario Women's Directorate.

Mrs Elliott: We're busy celebrating Small Business Week, starting today. I know that more small businesses are being established by women in Ontario and across Canada than by men. I'm curious, as we're thinking about this topic, if Partners for Change has new initiatives being developed that would further address the issue of economic independence for women, particularly in small business.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Actually a couple of weeks ago we launched a program called Fast Forward. This is a resource about women entrepreneurs in Canada. The president, of course, is Andrina Lever.

For many of you who have worked with us in this House and across Canada - Mr Speaker, you might be interested to know - more than 700,000 businesses led by women provide 1.7 million jobs. It's even more impressive when you think that Canadian businesses' top 100 companies would provide about 1.5 million jobs. So women in their businesses are the producers of the fastest-growing and the most jobs in Canada today.

This Fast Forward resource certainly is made available from the women entrepreneurs of Canada and we would be proud to pass this resource on to those of you who would like to share it with many of the young women in your communities.

1440

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Health. She'll be familiar with this case because I wrote a letter to her a year ago on it. There was a woman in the area I represent who was eight months pregnant, went to our fine local hospital and developed a brain hemorrhage. The hospital desperately tried to get her brain surgery here in Toronto and made 21 phone calls to four different hospitals over a two-hour period begging them to take her in for brain surgery. None of them would accommodate her or could accommodate her. Finally, Hamilton General agreed to deal with her problem. Air ambulance was phoned and was unavailable. She was transported by land and, as you know, tragically she passed away, although fortunately the baby was saved.

I sent you a letter on this over a year ago. You said that I must wait for a coroner's report before you would tell what was going to be done to make certain this never happened again. I've now been told by the coroner's office that they won't even begin this inquiry until next year. That will be over 18 months. My question is this: Is it satisfactory to you that 18 months will go by before we find out what happened, and what can be done to prevent it happening in the future?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I would be pleased to follow up on this situation.

Mr Phillips: This is the problem. I twice have sent you letters, Minister. I did not raise this publicly, as you know, for many months, hoping that you would deal with it sensitively and confidentially. The family has gone through unbearable pain. I have now sent you two letters on this. I have begged you to give us an answer on what you are going to do about it, and today you tell me, "Well, you'll have to wait," before I'll hear an answer back from you. It is, dare I say, not unlike the emergency ward situation where you promised action. Frankly, any minister on a daily basis would have said about the emergency: "Where does that stand now? Is it fixed? Tell me that we're fixing it." Similarly on this.

Two letters on one of the most tragic cases ever seen. It is unbelievable; 21 desperate calls from my local hospital, the Scarborough Grace Hospital - by the way, a terrific hospital - and they couldn't get her accommodated here in Toronto; forced to send her by land. I might also add that when she arrived there they had to get a doctor from another hospital to perform the surgery to save the baby.

It is unsatisfactory, Minister, that you will look into this. Tell us today, is it acceptable that we will have to wait 18 months before we find out what happened and what will be done to fix it and make sure it never happens again?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member opposite is well aware of the fact that in this province it is the coroner who looks into these situations. He is also very aware that, depending on what the recommendations are, it is then up to the Ministry of Health to follow the coroner's recommendation. I can assure you that as soon as the coroner has completed the review, our ministry is prepared to follow up on those recommendations, and we are anxious to see those.

ABORTION

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Earlier this year St Michael's Hospital took over Wellesley Hospital as a result of your government's hospital restructuring, and promptly announced it was discontinuing Wellesley's abortion services. St Mike's announced that it would require women to go through a committee process already deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, which has ruled that abortion is a medical service chosen by a woman on the advice of her physician. Minister, as a result, women in this community continue to lack access to the 1,000 to 1,500 abortion procedures which used to be performed at Wellesley every year. At the time, the Minister of Health assured this Legislature that those services would be not be lost, but to date there has been absolutely no sign that her promise has been kept.

Minister, you are responsible for women's issues. What are you doing to ensure the right of women to have access to safe, legal abortion services in Ontario?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I think that would be more appropriately addressed by the Minister of Health.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): The member knows that when the transfer was made - St Michael's Hospital, like any other hospital, doesn't interfere in the confidential provider-patient relationship. Also, the transfer was planned by the head of obstetrics and gynecology at St Michael's and Wellesley Central Hospital as part of an overall process, and certainly there is an opportunity for the services to be provided in the other hospitals within this city. We all know that within the city of Toronto, not all hospitals provide every type of service. This service is available to women throughout the entire city of Toronto.

Mrs Boyd: I'm sorry that the minister responsible for women's issues didn't answer, since clearly the Premier has decided that women are an important target for the Tories in the next election.

But in response to the Minister of Health, this isn't the only problem that women have in getting abortion services in this province. Fewer than 40% of Ontario's hospitals are providing abortion services, physicians are intimidated and threatened when they perform these services, and now you, your government, have agreed with the OMA to limit the billing of physicians who perform abortions, thus creating a huge disincentive for physicians to perform these services.

Minister, if you really think it's important for your party to appeal to the women of this province, it's pretty important for you to stand up today and commit to supporting women's legally entrenched right to choose. Will you remove abortion procedures from the cap on doctors' billings, or will you remain captive to the anti-woman sentiment often advanced by your colleagues in the backbench?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We will continue to ensure that patient access to needed services is provided, certainly not compromised. In fact, when you refer to the fact that there were some changes made to the threshold, I would just like to indicate to you that the specialist retention initiative allows specialists to apply for exemption from the threshold. This initiative allows us to address any possible access issues, and specialists' services will certainly continue to be provided.

I think it is important to know that the specialist threshold is $380,000. Billings in excess of the threshold then will be reduced. But it's our understanding that most physicians had not reached their threshold when the exemptions took effect -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - and I can assure you that access to services is not in any way going to be compromised. There will be an opportunity -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): My question today is for the Minister of Labour. The minister recently came to my riding and spoke to some people there. One of the things he discussed of interest to the people of my riding and across the province was the question of workplace health and safety. I wonder if the minister could inform us of what things the ministry has done to ensure that there is workplace safety.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): My number one priority as Minister of Labour is the health and safety of our workplaces in Ontario. I'm proud of the ministry's accomplishments -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I'm proud of the efforts of our inspectors and our workers in the Ministry of Labour in occupational health and safety. The facts speak for themselves when I compare the record of the former government and the former ministry and the record today. The number of safety inspections was just over 28,000 in 1995, and this year, over 47,000 safety inspections. That's a 58% increase from 1995 to the present. The number of field visits as well - as I say, the facts speak for themselves here - over 44,000 in 1995 and over 63,000 in 1998, which is a 41% increase.

We are committed to safe workplaces in Ontario and this is a government that keeps its commitments.

1450

Mr Doyle: I'd like to ask the minister, what effect have these increased inspections had on occurrences of workplace accidents in the province?

Hon Mr Flaherty: When we first took office in 1995 we made a commitment, and that was to reduce the lost-time injury rate resulting from workplace accidents in Ontario by 30% by the year 2000. We are measuring our compliance with that commitment. There has been a 17% reduction in the rate of lost-time injuries since 1995. That puts us on target to reach our overall goal of a 30% reduction by the year 2000. So we're on track on that commitment and we're measuring our performance on that commitment.

This government is ensuring that Ontario workplaces are among the safest in the world. We're working with municipalities and we're working with the private sector and the Safe Communities Foundation, a concept initiated by Paul Kells after he lost his 19-year-old son in an industrial accident. Over 12 communities in Ontario are now participating in the Safe Communities Foundation, most recently in Owen Sound and district. I was pleased to be there for the opening of that initiative. The Safe Communities Foundation is an outstanding, successful initiative, just one part of our efforts to make sure our workplaces are the safest in the world.

DEFIBRILLATION EQUIPMENT

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. I'm going to ask you about another area where your lack of action has caused a serious concern and crisis in health care in Ontario, and that is the issue of implantable cardiac defibrillators. These life-saving devices were rationed to hospitals across Ontario. You chose to give the Hamilton General funding for 50 of these defibrillators. These are life-saving machines which detect and treat life-threatening irregular heartbeats. These are essential, they work and they're very effective.

Minister, as of Thursday, Hamilton General Hospital ran out of these machines. They no longer have within the budget you allotted them these machines which save people's lives. You were notified in May that this crisis was coming and you were notified again in July. You have let it get to the stage where once again hospitals now have to choose between stopping this life-saving procedure for people or adding to their $38-million debt. Can you tell us today why, since you've know since May that this was going to be a problem, you have failed to act with the proper money and funding to carry out the surgery?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I've had an opportunity to meet with the hospital and they have certainly recognized, as have the other providers of cardiac care in the province, that this government has reinvested an additional $65 million into cardiac care since 1995. This has enabled us to significantly reduce the waiting lists.

Also, if we talk particularly about the issue of the cardiac defibrillators, I can show you here that Hamilton received 29 in 1993-94, 32 the next year, 33 the next year, 35 in 1996-97. But let me say that in 1997-98 we provided 50 and we have indicated that we will continue to make those available.

Mr Agostino: You know this is fairly new technology, you know it's effective and that clearly the need is there. Fifty simply weren't enough; they need 100 to 110. You were told that in May. You were told that again in July. It's not limited to Hamilton. As of now, St Michael's Hospital in Toronto has run out of disks, and Toronto Hospital and the London Health Sciences Centre have run out as well. So you can't send patients to other hospitals, because they don't have the equipment either.

Minister, it sounds wonderful to talk about how much you've reinvested and how much you've put back into health care, but the reality is that as of today, you have basically denied patients in Ontario this life-saving device as a result of your lack of action. You can talk about the $65 million or the $100 million, but it doesn't help the person who walks into or is brought by ambulance to St Michael's or to the Hamilton General and needs this life-saving procedure today.

Again I ask you, will you stand up today and guarantee that you will immediately free up all the necessary funds to ensure that anybody who needs one of these heart-saving and life-saving devices in Ontario will get one? Will you make that commitment today and send the money out today so hospitals can get on with the job?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I don't think the member heard my response. I indicated that we had provided 50 already this year to Hamilton; that was up from 35 last year. In the province in 1996-97 there were 183 provided; this year 273. I also indicated to you that we will be providing the additional.

Let me just remind you that our $65 million has enabled us to provide 16,000 life-saving procedures this year, for a total of 60,000. That's what our $65 million is doing for us in this province. If you people had been in office, you weren't prepared to reinvest, and we wouldn't have seen those additional 16,000 life-saving procedures.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): My question is for the Minister of Health as well. On June 15, you were in Windsor making an announcement about capital funding for the hospitals in our area. We've been waiting ever since for an announcement with respect to operating funds and we're still waiting - no announcement.

This past summer, 230 times ambulances couldn't discharge patients into emergency rooms because of gridlock. Hospitals are operating at a deficit. When can we expect an announcement about operating funds for Windsor hospitals?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): The member knows full well that we did provide additional money to the Windsor hospitals to help them with the emergency room situation. We continue to meet with the hospitals, and I can certainly give you my assurance that we will continue to work co-operatively with the hospitals. We need to continue to ensure that if money is provided to the hospitals, provided to support the emergency room services, indeed the money is being used effectively. So we will continue, as we have in the past, to provide the money to Windsor and elsewhere. As I say, we already provided you with additional money ahead of time, because we recognized the urgency of the situation.

Mr Lessard: Minister, meetings are not good enough. Funding for emergency rooms and for bricks and mortar is not going to improve health care in Windsor without funds for operating, without funds for nurses in our hospitals, without funds to operate the equipment in our hospitals. Once again, when are you going to announce operating funding for Windsor hospitals?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have invested a considerable amount of money already in the Windsor-Essex community. In fact, spending has increased by $131.9 million. We are restructuring the system to ensure that your constituents in the Windsor-Essex community receive the money that is needed.

Let me just tell you about the investments we've made: to priority programs - cardiac, trauma - over $6 million; in eating disorders programs, $281,000; in hospital transitional funding, $4.5 million -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - in Healthy Babies, almost $600,000; diabetes complications prevention strategy, $170,000; in additional Ontario drug benefit spending, $3,620 million; in additional OHIP payments to physicians in your community -

The Speaker: Thank you.

1500

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is to the minister responsible for children's issues. I know you're a parent and a grandparent and I know just how important children are in your life. You also know that I'm the parent of five children. We know the options for caring for young children today.

In my riding of Durham, some young families are choosing to send their children to junior kindergarten and others are choosing community-based programs such as local nursery schools. I know that junior kindergarten is not offered by all boards across the province. Are there other government-funded programs available to replace these programs?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I'm very happy to answer the question from the member for Durham East. All children need an opportunity to learn and grow, and parents like to encourage this desire to learn.

This government will guarantee funding for early learning programs, including junior kindergarten, to make sure that all children can have a successful start in their schools.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I asked you last week and you refused to answer.

Hon Mrs Marland: All boards have the opportunity to offer junior kindergarten to their families, which is what I told the member for Algoma last week, and the majority of boards have chosen to make this program available. While some boards have opted not to offer junior kindergarten, they are receiving an equivalent amount of funding in an early learning grant. This will enable them to offer other early learning programs for students in senior kindergarten through grade 3.

Mr O'Toole: I'm pleased to hear that you are very supportive of a variety of government-funded programs to promote early learning. That's very reassuring from you, as the minister for children.

All parents want to ensure that they're making the best possible choices for their children and their children's future. Clearly your answer reassures me that there is information out there that parents need to know. How do today's parents know that their children are learning in kindergarten, and what is their government doing to provide them with all the information they need to know about kindergarten programs?

Hon Mrs Marland: You're right; parents want ample information before they decide on the best course for their children. I'm happy to say that this government has made some important enhancements to kindergarten that will provide parents with the information they need to make smart choices for their families.

For the first time in over 50 years, the Ministry of Education has introduced a program specifically designed for kindergarten students. This program sets out clear and specific learning expectations so that parents know what their child should be learning and can keep track of their progress. While it sets out guidelines in language, mathematics, art, personal and social development and science and technology, teachers will still have the flexibility to cater the program to the individual needs of their young students.

We want to ensure that all children have access to a program that stimulates their mind and enhances their enthusiasm, and our new kindergarten program helps get children off to a great lifetime of learning.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'd like to express my dissatisfaction with the answers given today by the Minister of Health concerning the unconscionable delays in funding emergencies and to deal with the government cutbacks, and I'd like to request a late show.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): File the appropriate papers.

PETITIONS

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario;

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males;

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, which is prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Minister of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 50 people.

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.

"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the hospital restructuring commission established by the Mike Harris government is deliberating in secret about the future of hospitals in the Niagara region and is expected to report in the autumn of this year;

"Whereas the St Catharines General Hospital, the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Shaver Hospital, along with the Niagara rehabilitation centre, have in the past provided excellent medical care for the people of St Catharines;

"Whereas the Niagara-on-the-Lake hospital, the Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie, the Port Colborne hospital and the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby have been key centres of health care in the Niagara Peninsula;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to maintain existing medical services provided at these hospitals, restore the proposed $43-million cut from operating funds for the Niagara hospitals; and

"That the Ontario Ministry of Health provide additional funding to expand health care services available in the Niagara region for residents in the Niagara Peninsula."

I affix my signature, as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of the Honourable Janet Ecker, as she is unable to present a petition. The petition is from the Knights of Columbus, council 6161, in Pickering, Ontario. It's signed by Barry Macmillan. I will read it for the record. It's very short.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

I'm going to sign my name to this.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition here that reads:

"The Health Services Restructuring Commission, HSRC, has given notice that it intends to direct the Hotel Dieu Hospital to close and to require that the Sisters of St Joseph cease to govern. If the proposed direction is made and implemented, then access to high-quality health care will be seriously undermined in Kingston and region.

"The sisters are recognized for their leadership in the health care community. They have developed the plan for and operated an efficient outpatient teaching hospital and have provided a high quality of patient care for 123 years from the same location. Their distinct values and philosophy, coupled with the sisters' tradition of compassionate care, must not disappear.

1510

"The HSRC's proposed direction calls for the dismissal of the sisters from their role in the governance in outpatient health care at the Hotel Dieu Hospital. This is not in the best interests of the patients and families in this city and region. The people of Kingston deserve to have access to the kind of quality health care for which the sisters are well recognized.

"Those who must use public transportation to get to outpatient clinics will be seriously affected. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder any extra burden in paying for a new outpatient facility, when the Hotel Dieu site can accommodate the needs of the people of Kingston. Many downtown businesses will suffer greatly should the site be closed.

"The sisters of Hotel Dieu Hospital are asking you to help them in their response to the commission," by signing this petition.

I affix my signature to this petition.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): These are petitions gathered at the Norfolk County Fair asking for legislation to freeze taxes and eliminate regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk. The signatures are from Simcoe, Port Dover, Turkey Point, Port Ryerse, Waterford and elsewhere.

"Whereas the Haldimand-Norfolk region has downloaded a 17% tax hike on residents, without attempting to cut its own costs; and

"Whereas for the past 25 years, there have been meetings, petitions, referenda, and studies calling for a restructuring of regional government; and

"Whereas 80% of the residents did not want regional government in the first place, and in recent referenda, 75% of the residents of the city of Nanticoke and 60% of the residents of the town of Simcoe voted against retaining regional government; and

"Whereas residents in the region do not want and clearly cannot afford two levels of municipal government;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that provincial legislation be passed to freeze taxes and eliminate regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk, and institute a form of restructured local government in keeping with the wishes and the financial means of the local residents."

I sign this petition.

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora is a necessary program; and

"Whereas the Harris government has refused to provide long-term funding for the program in Kenora; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has acknowledged that the program is cost-effective given the volume of clients seen and the degree of specialization required;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, join our MPP, Frank Miclash, in calling upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand that the Harris government provide long-term, stable funding to the Diabetes Education Service in Kenora."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

GERMAN HERITAGE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the people of German descent have been a part of Ontario's history since the days of pre-Confederation; and

"Whereas the German culture has always been an integral component of the cultural mosaic of Ontario; and

"Whereas we wish to demonstrate official recognition of the positive contribution of German heritage in the province of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass the bill entitled the German Pioneers Day Act and we respectfully petition the government of Ontario to designate the day following Thanksgiving Day as the date of the annual German Pioneers Day."

This is a petition that has been signed by citizens from all around Ontario as well as a visitor from Germany, and I am pleased to add my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The member for St Catharines-Brock and I support this petition, I believe. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has announced its intention of dumping the financing for ambulances, social housing and public health care services on to the backs of municipalities; and

"Whereas this irresponsible action will create a shortfall of more than $18 million for local governments in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Whereas local representatives in St Catharines and the Niagara region will be forced to either raise property taxes by as much as $200 per household or cut services; and

"Whereas Mike Harris called municipal representatives `whiners' when they tried to explain to him that his proposal was unfair and would create gaps in important services such as the delivery of public health care; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing accused local representatives of being opportunistic simply because they attempted to point out that the Mike Harris proposal was unfair and primarily designed to fund his ill-advised tax scheme; and

"Whereas the Harris government refuses to listen to the representatives who work most closely with their constituents"; that is, the municipal representatives;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to scrap its downloading plan, which will cause either an increase in property taxes or an unacceptable cut to important local services."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement with this petition.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): "Whereas the Mike Harris government is placing a greater emphasis on community-based health services in order to better care for an aging population; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is eliminating waste and duplication in the health care sector and reinvesting every penny" we find "into quality services; and

"Whereas this has resulted in reinvestments of over $3 billion; and

"Whereas seniors will benefit from the government's $1.2-billion investment to increase seniors' beds by 35%, including 2,200 new beds in Toronto alone; and

"Whereas $75 million is being invested over the next two years to open hospital beds during peak demand periods in order to handle emergency patients; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government created Cancer Care Ontario to coordinate and integrate cancer treatment services province-wide; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has pledged $24.3 million to dramatically expand breast cancer screening; and

"Whereas 140,000 additional low-income earners are eligible to receive help with their drug costs through the expansion of the Trillium drug plan; and

"Whereas over 520 prescription drugs have been added to the Ontario drug plan formulary, giving seniors and others who rely on the ODB program a wider range of products to serve their health care needs; and

"Whereas the increase in senior care beds is expected to create 27,500 new jobs in the health care industry; and

"Whereas residents of over 20 Ontario communities have received new or expanded life-saving kidney dialysis service through investments by the Mike Harris government; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has provided a $12-million increase in funding so that people being treated in the United States for Ontario-based acquired brain injury treatment can be brought home; and

"Whereas patients in 23 communities have received funding for magnetic resonance imaging units from the Mike Harris government; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has established one-window community care access centres so that one phone call will get clients and their families the information, referral and personal service they need for Ontario's long-term-care system; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has committed $7.3 million over five years for a nurse practitioner university program that will bring about more jobs for nurses and improve access to primary care services; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government established the women's health council to advise the government on how to improve health care services and standards for women; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has become the first in Canada to implement a province-wide measles vaccination program for school-aged kids; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has restored the $400-per-day OHIP rate for out-of-country emergency in-patient hospital services, which had been reduced by the NDP government; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is cutting waste and duplication in the education system and refocusing education resources back into the classroom where they belong; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has set up a new student-focused funding formula which defines and protects classroom spending; and

"Whereas the new formula will result in a $583-million increase in spending in classrooms by the year 2000; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has committed to maintaining spending for the next three years on supply teachers, classroom supplies, computers, professionals, paraprofessionals and staff development for the Toronto District School Board. There will be no cuts in the classroom except for those made by the board's trustees themselves; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is increasing spending on classroom teachers and library and guidance services to the Toronto District School Board in each of the next three years, by $45 million this year, a further $20 million next year and a further $17 million the year after that; and" -

Interjection.

Mr Gilchrist: It's a petition. I must introduce it.

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has brought equity in education funding so that all students, no matter whether they attend a public or separate school, will be treated equally; and

"Whereas the Toronto Catholic District School Board will have $33 million more to spend this year in the classroom, thanks to the Mike Harris government's new education funding formula; and

"Whereas the Toronto District School Board has already announced it will be hiring 400 new teachers this year; and

"Whereas the Toronto Catholic District School Board has announced it will be hiring 340 new teachers this year; and

"Whereas the other school boards, such as Waterloo Catholic District School Board, have announced they will be hiring new teachers this year; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government's early retirement incentive program for teachers has resulted in the rejuvenation of teaching rosters across the province and created thousands of jobs for new, young teachers in Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed with fulfilling the commitments made in the Common Sense Revolution and continuing to pursue policies which will make Ontario the best place to live, work, invest and raise a family."

I'm pleased to affix my signature.

1520

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER AND LOBBYISTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 CONCERNANT LE COMMISSAIRE À L'INTÉGRITÉ ET LES LOBBYISTES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur l'intégrité des députés et édictant la Loi de 1998 sur l'enregistrement des lobbyistes.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to participate in the debate on Bill 69, which represents, on the part of this government, a very modest attempt to regulate lobbyists here in the province of Ontario. It is a bill which frankly should have been introduced as one of the very first acts of Parliament of this government, especially given what has gone on over the last three years. But here we are, even though it's late in the day, dealing with a bill that attempts in a small way to assure the public that there will be in place measures to protect the public interest and that the public will have access to information about who is lobbying the government of the day, who they are being paid by and what kind of relationship they are involved in with the government of the day, so the public can have some idea, when deals are made and policies are changed, about just who has been there at the door of the government trying to get those things done and, if someone has benefited, how and by how much and why.

It's really important that we're dealing with this legislation, because as I look at what is happening across the border and the enormous power and influence of lobbyists in the American system, I am extremely concerned about just how well the public interest is being protected. It is certainly a road down which I hope we do not go. I hope this is a first step to guaranteeing that the enormous power, enormous influence and frankly the enormous wealth that is attached to lobbyists in the US doesn't become part and parcel of the democratic process here in this country or this province.

I look, for example, at the tremendous lobby effort by the tobacco industry in the United States, how powerful that has been, how much money has gone into individual campaigns and what American public policy is like around this important issue, and I have to shake my head wondering how the American system could have got into such a state to allow that kind of power and influence.

You look also at the power of the insurance companies, particularly those dealing with health care in the United States, a country where by far, in large measure, most people don't have access to adequate health care or where the access they have is inadequate and the coverage is not adequate to meet their needs, where individuals spend thousands and thousands of dollars when a family member gets hurt or gets sick to pay for coverage which in this country and this province we take for granted. Again, if you look at who is lobbying, at how much money is going into campaigns and at how much money is going to those people who represent people in the US, you have to wonder if that's a road we really want to go down, to have those kinds of policies in place which do nothing to protect the public interest but do everything to protect corporate interests.

This is an important first step, but there are a number of shortcomings in the legislation which I hope to address. I want to say that I think more and more the public, not only in this province and in this country, do worry about who is influencing their government; are concerned about the link between money going into campaign coffers and government policies as a result; are very worried about how much money lobbyists are being paid to lobby government officials and to influence decision-making; and are very concerned that they, as the public, have some kind of access to that information so they can see what is happening and they can make decisions about the relationship and the link between lobbyists and changes in government policy or awarding of government contracts.

Therefore, it's incumbent upon this Legislature to make sure that the legislation put into place does protect the public interest and does provide the public with some guarantee that all the concerns they have around lobbyists and money and influence and decision-making are concerns that are going to be met. The public needs to be assured that the process we put in place to register lobbyists will be a transparent one, that everyone who should be covered will be covered, that the rules will not be different for different categories of lobbyists, that people who lobby by written communication should still be registered and that what they're lobbying about should be a matter for the public record. It's really important that if we're going to put legislation in place in this province, we use this opportunity in a way in which the public will feel confident that the legislation is transparent, that the legislation is in place to protect the greater public interest, not a corporate interest, and that the public will be able to have access to all the information about who is making deals, what kind of deals are being made, how much people are being paid to make those deals and who benefits.

One would hope that the legislation then, if it would do all those things, would in fact temper the relationship between corporate lobbyists and other lobbyists in government; would ensure, because the system is transparent or the process is transparent, that those attempts at impropriety are going to be curbed; will make sure there will be much and greater accountability between government decision-making and the awarding of government contracts or changes in government policy which influence certain groups.

We need to be sure that not only do we put in place a process that is very public and very transparent, but that all the concerns the public has around what is happening, who is being lobbied for what, and why, and for how much money, are clearly made available to the public. That's why I have a couple of concerns about what the bill doesn't do.

If you look in clause 3(2)(c), it says very clearly that written and oral submissions that are requested by the government will not be covered. Specifically, it says that this doesn't apply with respect to "any oral or written submission made to a public office holder by an individual on behalf of a person, partnership or organization, in direct response to a written request from a public office holder...."

The question I have is, why not? Why would we treat information that comes in, even in oral or written form, at the request of a public office holder as information that's not worthy of being registered? That information would be very important to determine what kind of requests are being made of government office holders, and why. Who would benefit? How would they benefit? That kind of information, regardless of the fact that it is being requested orally or in written form, should not be information that is not available to the public, that is not registered. We cannot have different categories of information that will be registered or different forms of registration for lobbyists. If we're going to guarantee that this is a process that is disclosed, that can undergo public scrutiny, that kind of information has to be registered too.

1530

Second, in subsection 4(1) the government allows a lobbyist some 10 days to file as a lobbyist after he or she begins to lobby. I don't think that makes any sense at all. If we have someone who comes to this place who is paid to lobby, whose business it is to influence government and government decision-making, then from the very first day that individual starts as a lobbyist, that should be filed, the public should know. There is no reason that we would allow a waiting period or a cooling-off period or any kind of period at all before that person has to be registered and before we know what their relationship, what their link to the government is and what kinds of activities they're involved in.

Frankly, depending on what that lobbyist is about and depending on the legislation in hand or the contract in hand, someone's business could be done 10 days before they would actually have to file. I think there should be no waiting period whatsoever. If you are coming here with a specific intent to be a lobbyist, if you are paid to do that, then from day one, the moment you take on that position, the moment you start to be paid to do that, you should have to be registered and everyone should know that is in place.

Third, subsection 18(a) exempts any persons who have been appointed from the definition of "public office holder." This is in the regulation section and it allows the Lieutenant Governor to, after the legislation is put in place, exempt any person who has been appointed from that particular definition of public office holder. I don't know why we want to get ourselves into a position of allowing that kind of discretion to be held in the hands of, obviously, cabinet. It seems to me that we want to have in place the broadest, widest possible definition of public office holder and we should not be allowing exemptions from same.

For example, there are any number of government agencies, boards and commissions that either deal with dealing out quite large sums of public money or deal with information or policy or make rules or make changes that are very important to the public. If you look at the Ontario Energy Board, for example, they will have a major role to play with the deregulation of Ontario Hydro in terms of their role involved in the setting of fees, setting of licences etc. Surely we don't want to find ourselves in a position of exempting an agency of the government that will have this kind of power, under a change being made by this government, from this legislation.

Surely we want to be clear. We want to be very clear that not only cabinet ministers, public office holders and bureaucrats but those who are attached to the agencies, boards and commissions of this government have the same rule apply to them. They cannot at any point be exempt, because in doing that we could allow for any number of people who could benefit from any great amount of money that some of these agencies, boards and commissions deal with or from the power to set rules and regulations they have. People could benefit by that and the public wouldn't know. I don't think we want to be in a position where we allow that loophole to remain unchanged or unclosed.

In broader terms, the government has already said that the legislation is patterned on the federal legislation that was passed by Brian Mulroney. In that regard, it's interesting to note that in the 10 years that the legislation has been in place, there has never been a violation. You can take two things from that: One, that the legislation itself is so effective that it has curbed any attempt at impropriety - one would hope that would be the case; or on the other hand, you could worry that this proves that the legislation has not been tough enough and that there are loopholes that continue to exist which allow for the kind of benefit to be granted to lobbyists that we are trying to work against.

In that regard, I note that an Ottawa-based group called Democracy Watch in June 1996 made a number of recommendations regarding the federal legislation. In fact, they did a report card on the federal government with respect to their lobbyist legislation and a number of other pieces of legislation that deal with ethics and integrity. Specifically, though, with respect to the federal government legislation on lobbying reform, the feds were given a grade of F. Democracy Watch said the following: "After one and a half years, the government passed legislation requiring lobbyists to disclose more detailed information about their activities, but failed to require key information to be disclosed and created a huge loophole for lobbyists to escape registration. One year later, the ethics councillor has yet to release his draft lobbyist code of ethics."

The group Democracy Watch made a number of recommendations, which the federal government has yet to put in place, to try and restore some integrity in the system and to be clear that those loopholes that are in place could be closed. I worry that if this government is patterning its legislation after flawed federal legislation, you should use the opportunity now, as we develop this bill, to make sure that we put in place those items around disclosure which will truly capture those people who have to be captured and defined as lobbyists, and will capture elements around disclosure and public access to information that obviously are not in place at the federal level.

Specifically, Democracy Watch has urged the following:

First, that the government repeal the sections of Bill C-43 that treat lobbyists differently in terms of disclosure requirements and replace them with requirements applicable equally to all lobbyists, as in all lobby disclosure laws in the US.

Second, that we repeal the provision that does not require registration if a lobbyist receives a written invitation from a public official to attend a meeting or make a submission.

I referred earlier in my remarks to that very clause in this legislation that allows a similar problem in the Ontario legislation. This is exactly what this group has urged the federal government to close. It is the same loophole that now appears in this legislation. It makes no sense to not cover written or oral submissions under the registration for lobbyists.

Third, under the lobbyist's code of conduct, require lobbyists to disclose how much they spend on lobbying campaigns and require lobbyists to disclose past, paid and volunteer work with any government or political party and put all of this information in the registry of lobbyists.

That makes good sense. It's important for the public to understand how much money some people might be paid to do the job of lobbying government, influencing government's decisions or trying to get government awards. I think it's a critical part of this legislation. I suspect there's very big money involved in some of what goes on and the public should have every opportunity to know that kind of information, particularly how much someone is being paid so they can make judgments about how open the process is and whether the decision-making and the awarding of contracts are above-board or whether someone is influencing and benefiting enormously from that influence.

Fourth, require ministers and senior public officials to disclose their contacts with lobbyists and put this information in the registry of lobbyists.

Again that would work to give the public some comfort that the people whom they elect to make decisions on their behalf in fact are being open, up front, above-board about who they are meeting with, what they are meeting about and what the consequences are of those meetings, particularly with respect to changes in government policy, particularly with respect to the awarding of contracts. Those are some of the changes this government should make with this legislation if you're going to put in place any kind of bill that actually deals with people's concerns about who is lobbying, what for, how much they're being paid and what benefit they're getting back.

It's interesting that the timing of this legislation comes now, three years after this government has been in this place. It seems to me it has given this government the opportunity over the last three years, because no legislation has been in place, to ensure that any number of friends of this government have benefited in a way that the public might not be aware of and that the public is probably terribly concerned about.

It's interesting to note that the government has gone and allowed any number of its friends to do quite well with respect to government contracts, and yet there has been no legislation in place to have that registered, to have that put in the public domain. People should ask, should we have had this in place before someone like Tom Long, for example, received a contract for US$250,000 to find a new CEO for Ontario Hydro? Should it have been in place before Leslie Noble, Conservative insider, sold some of her lobbying services to Ontario Hydro for $84,000? Should it have been in place before a number of consultants who were involved in this government then were involved with some of those bidders who were bidding on the Niagara casino and actually got it?

Should these rules have been in place before those kinds of things happened? I suggest to you that they should have, because any bill that's going to work has to be a bill that has as its uppermost concern to protect the public interest, to make sure that what people are most concerned about, services and their money, is being protected.

1540

I think it's regrettable that we seem to be putting in place a bill that's a little late, given what's gone on in the last three years with this government as it has moved to privatize services, whether they be highway transport services, privatized jails, develop new casinos etc. We should have had something like this in place long ago so that the public could have seen very clearly what was happening as this government moved to privatize services and who was benefiting by those very moves of this very government.

It's high time that the bill has been put in place now. It requires many changes so that the public can be sure they will know who is lobbying, it will be clear how much they're being paid and it will be clear how much they're benefiting.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to provide some comments on the speech just given by the member for Sudbury East. I certainly thought she was very thoughtful in her comments and clearly has an interest in the subject and has read the legislation very carefully. I found her remarks quite helpful.

I also noticed quite a distinct flavour in her comments which was different from the earlier comments in this second reading debate given by her colleagues in the New Democratic Party, particularly the member for Cochrane South and the member for Windsor-Riverside, both of whom seemed to indicate a lack of enthusiasm for including in the registry some of the categories that are in the bill.

I want to point out to the member for Sudbury East that in fact the federal legislation is not entirely as was first drafted by the Mulroney government in 1988. There have been some significant changes to the federal legislation. In 1996 it was amended and tightened up. The number of categories of lobbyists was changed from two to three and our legislation is a reflection of the tougher, more comprehensive federal legislation.

I thought I would make a comment on one of the concerns the member raised, the issue of the 10-day period to comply. The member has been a minister and no doubt is probably more familiar with lobbying at that level than I am, but my understanding is that the federal legislation and our legislation have the 10-day period to reflect the possibility that there could be some spontaneous lobbying take place, and we should be giving those people the opportunity to register after it occurs because in some cases they don't know when they're going to come in contact with a public official.

Interjection.

Mr Grimmett: The member for Fort York can laugh, but that is a distinct possibility and it's in the federal legislation.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): That's one of the biggest loopholes that exists in this legislation, a loophole you could drive a bus or a truck through. I would say to the government party that they should look more closely at the federal legislation, where there are standards that I think should be adhered to when it comes to legislation such as this.

One of the other big loopholes that appears in the provincial legislation is that there can be exemptions granted by order in council. By a simple cabinet decision, the entire Premier's office, ministers' offices and other sensitive departments can be exempt from the terms and conditions of this legislation, creating another big loophole.

One of the big problems we've seen with this government is assistants to ministers and assistants to the Premier who have worked on a first-hand basis on different briefs, different cases, different issues with the private sector. All of a sudden, you find an announcement and they're gone to the very company they were advising from the government standpoint, and now they're working for that company. I think that should be absolutely outlawed.

We should be making sure the public is safeguarded so that people in government service, whether on the political end or the bureaucratic end, have a long breathing space before they can jump ship, if you will, and go right into the very companies that were dealing with the government, because they bring with them very sensitive and secretive information in some cases that could be a tremendous benefit for those companies. I think you'd have to question the motivation of those companies in hiring those officials. It's because of that very sensitive knowledge they have of what's going on in government that they have become so valuable. I think that's an advantage they have over others, and that practice should be stopped.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I just wanted to compliment my colleague the member for Sudbury East for the fairly detailed analysis that she provided of this piece of legislation. In a short 20 minutes, she was able to go through the salient points, with example after example, that while certainly she sees and we see some merit in this legislation, it is a case of too little, too late.

What we've got here is a piece of legislation that tries to give the impression that we're toughening up the provisions around lobbyists, that there's going to be a provision now for lobbyists to register and for everybody to know who is influencing the government behind closed doors in terms of decisions they are making. We know, as the member for Sudbury East has pointed out, that if this legislation had been in place earlier, perhaps that might have been of some help in terms of giving the public a better insight as to the kind of people who have been influencing decisions of this government.

She went on to point out, and I would want to concur with her, that while again this is better than not having any legislation, it's interesting that when you look at the parallel legislation, which is the federal legislation, in the 10 years that has been in place, there has not been anyone found to have been in violation of that legislation. That speaks some volume towards the fact that that legislation, on which this is modelled, does not have the kind of teeth that it should have and that, as my colleague pointed out, groups like Democracy Watch have pointed out should exist, things like requiring lobbyists to disclose how much money they spend, requiring ministers and senior public servants to disclose when they meet with lobbyists and things of that nature, which would make this really good, tough legislation.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I listened very intently to the member for Sudbury East and I noticed that she said the legislation was a little late and she questioned the motive. She said that it should have been a long time ago. I agree with her; it should have been a long time ago. Their party was in government for five years, and the party before that was in power for five years -

Interjections.

Mr Wettlaufer: Listen to the hullabaloo here, Mr Speaker. Just listen. Tell them a few facts and they get a little carried away, right? Ten years these two parties were in power and nothing happened. We've been in power for three years. I think the people of Ontario much preferred to see the budget balanced. They preferred to see tax cuts. They preferred to see education reforms. They preferred to see the reduction in size of government. I'd say this legislation is better late than never.

How successful is the strategy that we have been carrying out so far, the priorities that our government had to have? The Liberals in Quebec have announced what they are going to campaign on. Listen to this. This is in the Toronto Star today:

"There's another side to that coin," says Charest. "Harris is $1.3 billion more for health care. Harris is 48% of all the jobs created in Canada since the government of Mr Bouchard is in place. Harris is economic growth that far surpasses anything that's going on in Quebec." I would add that that surpasses anything else that's been going on in Canada.

"Charest's economic plan also includes cutting back government regulation of the economy, making labour laws more `flexible' so that employers can reorganize their workplaces, selling government shares in private corporations to reduce the debt and creating `partnerships' with the private sector in a government infrastructure program."

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Sudbury East has two minutes to respond.

Ms Martel: Let me thank those who participated for their comments and let me say a couple of things.

With respect to the member for Kitchener and the timing of this, it probably should have been done in the 43 years of Conservative government that we had in this province before either the Liberals or the New Democrats had power in this province. There's no doubt this is long overdue. Certainly during that very long, long, long period of Conservative government and Conservative legislation, one would have hoped we would see something along this nature at that time.

1550

With respect to the comments from the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay about the fact that the reason we have a 10-day waiting period or cooling-off period, however you want to call it, is that it allows for spontaneous lobbying, I say to the member that there is nothing spontaneous about lobbying. Lobbying is very intentional, very deliberate. When people come to this place and want to talk to cabinet ministers or government bureaucrats, they know exactly what they want to talk about. They know what kind of legislation they want changed. They know what kind of government contract they want awarded. They know what public service they want privatized so they can get their hands on it.

I say to you, long before they get here or long before they finally get a meeting with a cabinet minister, they know exactly what they're about, what they want done, what they want changed, who is paying them to be here to try and get that changed, and probably some clear idea of how they're going to benefit. It makes no sense whatsoever to not have folks register immediately. If they want to come to Queen's Park and they want to influence decision-making, on day one that they arrive and start to do that they should be registered, because there is nothing spontaneous about what they're doing and who they're doing it for.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Wentworth -

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I may have white hair like Mr Leach, but I'm not Mr Leach - far from it.

I am indeed happy today to be speaking on this bill, Bill 69, which is called the Lobbyists Registration Act. By introducing this legislation, the government is following through on a commitment to establish procedures to register all persons and firms who lobby with the government or government members.

This legislation is going to be enshrining four basic principles, and they're important to the province and to the people of the province. The importance of open access to government is one of them; the legitimacy of lobbying is another; the third is the need for public awareness of influences on government; and fourth, the registration procedures should not impede access to public office holders.

Mandatory registration of lobbyists supports our commitment to ensure that government activities are conducted openly, that they're conducted fairly and that they are clear and transparent.

This legislation would require lobbyists to register their identity and the names of their clients, and to declare their lobbying activities on a government registry. The lobbyist registry would be accessible to the public on a government Web site as well to ensure that it's very accessible.

Not only are we the first Ontario government to take action to ensure that taxpayers' interests are protected, we're also the first provincial government across Canada to take this step, other than of course the federal government.

A mandatory registration process for lobbyists will allow the public to know who is being paid, and by whom, to influence government decision-making. Lobbyists would disclose information such as lobbyists' names and addresses, as I mentioned; clients' or employers' names and addresses; description of the specific legislative proposals, bills, regulations, policies, programs, grants, contributions or contracts sought; the names of the provincial ministries, agencies, boards and commissions that are being lobbied; the source and amount of government funding received by the lobbyists' client or employer; communication techniques that are being used, including grassroots techniques and grassroots communications. Corporations and organizations must also file information describing their business activities.

To ensure greater transparency, consultant lobbyists will also be required to report a number of things, including when they are communicating with public office holders in an attempt to influence the awarding of a contract on behalf of the crown and when they are arranging a meeting between public office holders and any other person.

There are some stiff fines here as well. We should point out the fines. Fines of $25,000 would be allowed for violations, which would include, for example, failing to register. So if there is a 10-day waiting period, you would still have to register or face a fine of up to $25,000. Making false or misleading statements would also make you subject to a very stiff fine. Knowingly placing a public office holder in a position of real or potential conflict of interest - don't do it; you could be fined. These fines are consistent with those imposed for similar violations in other Ontario statutes.

The bill will also provide a lobbyist registrar with authority for a number of things: administering the lobbyist registration process; requesting clarifications of information on a registration form or other document submitted; identifying omissions and inconsistencies and communicating with the lobbyist to ensure correction or to request supplementary information; providing advice and information about the proposed registration system to lobbyists, public office-holders, the general public and other groups; submitting annual reports to the minister for tabling in the Legislative Assembly; ensuring public accessibility to the information contained in that lobbyist registry.

The concept of openness underlies this legislation. All information that is registered with the government will become a part of the public record. This information will be posted on a lobbyist registry Web site. This Web site will enable lobbyists to file, to renew or to terminate their registrations electronically. It will provide the public with on-line access to a database of approved registrations to search and to view. It will include reference sources for the Lobbyists Registration Act, regulations, interpretations, bulletins and other communications. Lobbyists who do not have access to the Internet will still be able to file paper forms with the government.

This proposed legislation will complement Ontario's conflict-of-interest standards, which were approved in December 1997. The government has fulfilled its promise and it has taken action to protect the public interest.

The introduction of this legislation is our commitment to conducting government business in a manner that ensures accountability to the taxpayer and to the province.

Some of the things I said may not have been expressed very clearly, but I would like to take a third source to point out the importance of this legislation. This is an editorial that appeared just recently in the London Free Press, and I would like to read the content of the editorial to show the need for such legislation. It reads:

"We do not know how many lobbyists are trying to influence government decision-making in the province of Ontario.

"We do not know who they are, and, most importantly, to whom they are speaking.

"We should know these things, as well as other details of the way they do business in the political backrooms and corridors of power in this province."

The London Free Press editorial goes on to say:

"If you ask those same questions of our federal government, the answers are readily available.

"In fact, 584 consultants and 367 company employees, representing 192 companies and 327 organizations, were registered as lobbying the federal government as of the end of March.

"The difference between the federal and provincial governments is the Lobbyists Registration Act, passed federally in 1989 and beefed up with greater power in 1996."

So it has been beefed up, and our bill is patterned on that.

The editorial goes on to say, "It is time that same kind of accountability and scrutiny be applied to provincial lobbyists." This is what we're doing.

It says, "The provincial government is trying to do just that in introducing a bill last week that would create a new lobbyists' registration office at Queen's Park."

The editorial goes on to say, "The registry would see individuals, businesses and agencies that lobby government required to register their names, those of their clients, the government offices they contact and describe their activities.

"They would even have to outline how they communicate with the government and make that information available on the Internet. Any firms that fail to register, register false information or knowingly put a government employee or politician in a political conflict of interest would face fines of up to $25,000. Such a registration office is needed and is timely."

It goes on to say: "It is not an issue that grabs headlines or seizes the imagination of voters, but it can be integral to ensuring integrity in government.

"It makes government business more transparent and more accountable and that is necessary to help build trust.

"This idea has been discussed provincially for about 20 years" - so it is indeed overdue.

"Such a worthwhile investment in government accountability is long overdue."

This is a good bill. I'm pleased today that I was able to get up and speak to the House about this particular bill and I request some comments and suggestions from the other side.

1600

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): The member from the government side would like to make us believe that the legislation does mirror the federal standards, but as we've pointed out on a number of occasions, we have suggested that there's no code of conduct in this legislation to cover lobbyists' activities, a code of conduct which we think is very important. If this legislation were to mirror that of the federal government, it would certainly include that code of conduct.

As well, we know there are exemptions that can be granted by order in council in this legislation, again an area in which it does not parallel the federal legislation. We know that by a cabinet decision, the entire Premier's office, the minister's office or other departments can be exempt from the terms and conditions of the legislation. As was pointed out earlier, this certainly creates a large loophole in terms of this legislation.

As well, we know that the federal legislation has specific duties for the Integrity Commissioner, and the role of the Integrity Commissioner to investigate and review complaints under this legislation is totally subject to the direction of the cabinet.

As I indicated, this is by no means a close parallel to what we've seen operating in Ottawa for the past 10 years. It is these areas that we'd certainly like the present government to take a look at and maybe recognize how the federal legislation has been successful, but as well to include the three areas and the three discrepancies that I've just indicated.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I listened carefully to the comments of my friend from Wentworth East, and I mean that seriously, and I just have a couple of questions for him. Perhaps he could enlighten the House whether the government is going to allow this bill to go to committee and to have amendments, since he asked for suggestions from the opposition and was looking forward to hearing what they might be.

This legislation, he says, is patterned after the federal act which was passed 10 years ago. There never has been a single violation of that act. Not once has a lobbyist in Ottawa been found in violation of that act. That means that either the Mulroney government was squeaky clean or the legislation there has a lot of loopholes in it.

I would also like to point out that Democracy Watch, an Ottawa-based organization, has asked for changes to that legislation that include disclosing lobbyists' expenditures, including their fees and their costs of advertising. They suggest eliminating tax deductions for lobbying expenses. They would require ministers and senior staff to disclose who they meet with and eliminate the loophole that if an individual is invited to a meeting, then it's not considered lobbying.

That last one really blows my mind. It's not lobbying under that federal act as long as you are invited to the meeting. I suppose if you crash the meeting and they talk to you, then they're lobbying, but if you go as an invitee, then it's not considered lobbying. That seems like an awfully big loophole to me. Usually I don't meet with a lobbyist unless I've been invited to. It would seem to me that just about every time a lobbyist meets with me, under this act it wouldn't be considered lobbying.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I am very pleased to recognize the valuable contribution of statements made today by the member for Wentworth East. Bill 69 is very important to the integrity of every member in this House, and I think we do want to get it right. I would encourage the member for Algoma and all parties to bring forward ways that we can ensure that this device, this legislation, ensures the incorruptible business climate of this government. That's really, clearly why we've brought this bill in. We want to make improvements to the current federal Lobbyists Registration Act.

There are primarily three things that intrigued me when I took a very cursory look at it to see what were the obligations of the various participants: me as a member or, for instance, in the case of a minister, and the obligations on those people, whether it's the OMA or whatever organization that is trying to influence or at least get to members on all sides of the House. Just to clarify, I think it's very interesting: It requires the lobbyist to disclose the identity of the clients in the public registry. It's my understanding that it's going to be on-line. You'll be able to sign right on the computer and see what Lobby Company ABC is doing and who their contact people are. It will prohibit the public lobbyist from placing inaccurate or misleading information in the registry. There are obviously prohibitive signs. There are clearly repercussions. There are fines. It's my understanding that we will make it not only an offence, but there will be a punishment. It prohibits lobbyists from placing public office holders in a conflict-of-interest position.

Just these few points that I've articulated here have convinced me that this is the right thing to do, and if all members work together, we will have a better bill.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I'm pleased to hear the comments of the member for Wentworth East. He was making comparisons to the federal legislation and saying how it's an attempt to mirror that. Bill 69 doesn't even meet that test. It is not even as strong as the federal legislation; in fact, weaker. Most independent commentators would say that the federal lobbyist legislation is woefully inadequate, as proven by the point that nobody has ever been prosecuted or even found in violation of the federal act.

Bill 69 is too little, too late, because most of the chief advisers who worked in the inner circle of the Premier have already left, and they've been working as full-time, highly paid lobbyists for some of the major consortiums that have done business with this government. It's ironic that now the government is bringing forth this legislation, two and a half years after it promised it, when in essence the chickens have all fled the coop.

It would have been a bit more meaningful, as weak as it is, if this had been introduced two and a half years ago when it was needed. Now, when most of the privatization has taken place - or a lot of it has, with our jails, our road maintenance contracts - they've all been left. Those big contracts I'm sure were heavily lobbied. It would interesting if the member for Wentworth East would agree with me that maybe this bill should be retroactive to reveal all the lobbying and the millions of dollars that were probably spent by lobbyists on courting this government, and not the backbenchers so much. They go to the top. They to the Premier's inner circle. They're the ones who get lobbied because they are the ones who make the decisions on the contracts.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Wentworth East has two minutes to respond.

Mr Doyle: I would like to thank the member for Kenora, who commented today, the members for Algoma, for Durham East and for Oakwood. I would like to pass on a personal message to the member for Kenora that I did try to find an airplane engine for him but I didn't have any luck, so I give him my apologies for that, but I did put the word out.

I want to point out that we've been criticized a little bit for waiting too long to introduce this particular bill, and it was mentioned, "Better late than never." However, we've also been accused of moving too quickly on other bills. I don't think it's a situation where you can have it both ways. We truly can do only one bill at a time, and we are enacting this legislation.

1610

Bill 69, I might point out, does have some rather stiff fines for people who contravene the terms of the legislation. It certainly defines who a lobbyist is and whom he can lobby and so on and so forth. I think the legislation is good and it will be well received by the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Oakwood.

Mr Colle: It's my pleasure to rise and join the debate on Bill 69 as it relates to the registration of lobbyists. Members of the general public who perhaps feel this is a bill that doesn't affect them may not be that interested at this point in time in the impacts of Bill 69, but it is important for the public to be aware of the implications of this bill and the need to know about lobbyists.

In essence, when you have big government and highly centralized government - and this government has been one of the most highly centralized governments in North America - it is important for the public to be aware of the fact that the more centralized power is in the hands of a few, like in this government, which is fairly totally centralized in the hands of the Premier's office, that the public knows this means less accountability, less access to the decision-makers by the ordinary taxpayer, the ordinary citizen who's affected by the laws this government makes.

The pattern of this government over the last three and a half years has been to continue to centralize power in the hands of the ministry, the Premier's advisers and the Premier's office. Therefore, if there is a bill coming up dealing with property taxation, for instance - it was ironic that when the first of six property tax bills was brought up by this government, it so happened that the big banks were given a $300-million tax cut on their property taxes by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. You ask yourself, "How did the big banks, despite all their profits, end up needing a $300-million property tax cut?"

No doubt the ordinary person who has a shoe store or a grocery store or a flower shop on Main Street in Stratford or Kenora didn't get a chance to have lunch or play golf or go fishing with one of the ministers or one of the top bureaucrats who decided that the big banks were going to get a $300-million tax cut. That's how decisions are made in this government: The big and powerful have full-time lobbyists. They could be lawyers, they could be accountants, they could be whatever. They dine at the Albany Club; they socialize at the fundraisers; they are in daily contact with members of the higher echelon of this government. It's probably not even, as I said, the backbenchers; it's the cabinet ministers, the deputy ministers and their faceless, unelected minions who essentially run this government.

That's what lobbying is all about. It's not about an organization or a citizen going to see their MPP; it's about a highly paid lawyer or a highly paid professional who has as his or her resources literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to wine and dine and influence the decision-makers of government. As we speak right now, I wonder where the Premier is, whom he's dining or wining and meeting with. Is there a lobbyist now sitting with the Premier's advisers? The chances are there is a highly paid, highly sophisticated lobbyist now talking to one of the Premier's advisers about some piece of legislation. Those advisers to the Premier are not sitting down, as I said, with the ordinary taxpayer; they're sitting down at a table deciding the future of this province behind closed doors or in some fancy restaurant or at the Albany Club. That's how this government has shaped itself.

Now this government comes along and says, "We are going to bring in a bill to register lobbyists." As you know, this is a very weak bill. It's not even as strong as the weak bill in Ottawa where they've never caught anybody doing anything that they supposedly weren't supposed to do as a lobbyist. The government says, "We are going to pass similar type registration." There's not even an independent commission that's going to be viewing this. It's going to be part of the workload of the Integrity Commissioner, if I'm not mistaken.

There are going to be very few watchdogs, ensuring that these very slick and sophisticated lobbyists can continue to make all kinds of money at the expense of the public decision-making process. These lobbyists, as you know, Mr Speaker, when they go to fancy dining rooms and go on trips and everything to pay for lobbying undertakings, they can deduct those from their taxes when they do their business expenses. That's the ironic thing. When Joe Citizen comes to Queen's Park, he or she has to pay for that trip, for that car ride or that streetcar ticket to get here, and take time off work.

The high-priced lobbyists, and they are high-priced, can make anywhere up to $1 million, $2 million, $3 million a year as lobbyists. We know the likes of Frank Moores who hung around Ottawa and the money he made. They can make millions. They can deduct the price of a flight to Toronto, the wining and dining, the golfing. All that is deductible, so the taxpayer gets stiffed twice. The taxpayer has to pay for the lobbyist who may influence the government in making a wrong decision, one that's harmful to the ordinary taxpayer, as I gave a case in point, to the mom-and-pop grocery store that got hammered with a property tax increase at the expense of the bank.

Not only do they get hit by losing those tax dollars because of the tax deductibility of the lobbyist's activity, but then there's a bad decision that could be made because Joe Jones or Jane Smith never got a chance to talk to the Guy Giornos of this world, the backroom decision-makers. They never get to see these people. They're invisible to the ordinary citizens, but the high-powered lobbyists are well-connected. We know they have boxes at the Blue Jays games. We know they have boxes at the Leafs games. We know that half of the tickets at Maple Leaf Gardens are probably owned by lobbyists. That's how they work.

This bill will do nothing to control what the lobbyists do. There's not one lobbyist in this province who's shaking in their boots, I'll tell you. They've probably got a big smile on their face as they smoke their big, fat cigar and eat their blue steak in the bottom of some fancy restaurant down here in Toronto. They're smiling at this. You haven't heard one complaint from a lobbyist about Bill 69, because Bill 69 is essentially a piece of cake for the lobbyists. It should be called the Lobbyists Protection Act. It is meek. It is meaningless. It does nothing. It's not only too late; it's much too little.

Look at some of the things the government has already done. The privatization and giving out of road maintenance contracts: Most of the highways in Ontario were maintained by MTO officials, people who were public servants. They worked for the government and they took care of our roads. Good, bad or whatever, they did take care of our roads. Now a great number of those road contracts are in the hands of private companies, huge multinational private companies that are making millions of dollars with the maintenance of our roads. How did they get those contracts? Who lobbied the ministers? Who lobbied the backroom boys in the Premier's office to ensure those contracts were received by A, B, C or D company?

I'm not saying there was impropriety, but I would like to ask, why aren't all those contacts with the lobbyists of these companies, the lawyers and the high-priced talent, why would the government not retroactively release those names of the people who had those fancy dinners, who had those contacts with the deputy ministers and the ministers who made those decisions? You come along now and say, "We're now going to register those people," but they've already given out these contracts, huge chunks of highway all over southwestern Ontario. Those contracts worth millions of dollars have already been signed. Someone already did the lobbying. It's too late to do anything about that. Those deals were done.

1620

A lot of companies didn't get a fair shake because they didn't have the right lobbyists. You've got to get the best, the highest-paid lobbyists to get those contracts. They don't just come to you because your bid was the ideal bid. There's a lot of lobbying that takes place.

Things for casinos: I remember that at one point - it's hard to remember which casino deal - there was a casino deal a week announced here about six months ago. This government has awarded six consortiums the right to operate casinos in this province. I know that in my office we tried to get the names of the people in the consortiums who got the casino deals. You couldn't get that; no luck from any ministry. We searched every ministry, we looked through newspaper files, and nobody would even tell us who were the members of the consortium. Can you imagine trying to get the name of the lobbyist who helped get those contracts for those consortiums? I challenge the government to make those public: how those casino contracts were given to A, B, C or D Co, who made the interventions, how much they were paid to make the interventions. Who were these individuals who did the lobbying for the casino contracts in this province?

Who are the lobbyists who are doing the lobbying for the slot machines now? The government, as you know, is going to buy thousands of slot machines, putting them all over this province. Who is now talking to the government about which slot machine company will get the slot machine deal? We don't know. There is no way of knowing who these people are, what they've done, who they have lobbied, because the horse is out of the barn. They've already done that. Now the government says, "We're going to come along and they're going to have to register."

How about the hospital closings? There were all kinds of decisions made by this government to close hospitals. The question in a lot of people's minds still is, why were some hospitals closed and not others? I've got a hospital in my constituency, Northwestern hospital. It's a new hospital, about 25 years old, and it's sitting there empty except for one floor. Meanwhile, as you know, in Toronto people are being redirected from hospitals continually. I think for 17 of 19 hospitals over the last couple of days you couldn't get into emergency. They're on redirect. Yet Northwestern hospital and Doctors Hospital are sitting there basically empty. The emergency at Doctors and at Northwestern have closed down. They say, "We wonder why we have a problem with emergency." Well, you've closed emergencies down. You've closed hospitals down. There's no home care. No wonder you've got people backed up in emergencies, in corridors and on stretchers, anywhere you go, and this government says, "Well, we had to close those hospitals."

Northwestern hospital, which they closed in my riding, is a new hospital. They decided to extend or expand another hospital up the street. People keep telling me: "The hospital they're going to expand or keep open" - I think it was called Humber Memorial and it's now called Humber River - "is in an impossible part of the city. You can't get to it. It's not on a major artery. There's no room to park." People can't even find the hospital, yet it got designated to stay open.

They're going to spend $20 million expanding that hospital when they're closing the new one down the street. In fact, they're going to expropriate and bulldoze 10 homes next door to the hospital because they don't have enough room for parking. The old Northwestern site on Keele Street had 35 acres sitting there. So which hospital do they close? Do they close the small one or the one that had all the space and was modern? They decided they were going to close the new one and expand the one you can't get at, and they have to bulldoze homes to build a parking lot. And you can't get into the emergency now because it's overcrowded.

It would be interesting for the public if they were to know who lobbied on behalf of the hospital. I know as citizens we asked the guru of hospital closings, Mr Mark Rochon, or Mr Sinclair, the person in charge of closing hospitals: "Can we come and meet with you face to face? You're going to close our hospitals. We'd like to meet with you for a half-hour to ask you how you came to the decision on closing one hospital, our hospital."

They said, "We don't have time to meet with you." We asked for a half-hour to meet about the closing of the hospital that was built and paid for by ordinary citizens, who went door to door in the 1950s and 1960s collecting $5, $2 to build the hospital. Now this government comes along with its hit man, Mr Sinclair, and he says, "Your hospital is closed." He won't even meet with the MPP, the city councillors, never mind the citizens who are now lined up in the hospital corridors and can't get emergency. He wouldn't meet with them for a half-hour.

But rest assured that there were all kinds of lobbyists around this province being paid for lobbying to open or close different hospitals. I'd like to know who those people were and who they worked for. If they lobbied the Minister of Health, if they lobbied the backroom boys in the Premier's office, I'd like to know who those people were to make decisions that to the general public don't make sense economically or in a health or social capacity. They don't make sense, yet we, the public and MPPs, couldn't even get a half-hour with this guy Sinclair, who was appointed and paid for by this government to close 30-odd hospitals in this province and 10 in Toronto.

You can't get access to the decision-makers in this government. The ordinary citizen-taxpayer cannot get access. You try to make an appointment with a minister. Try to get an appointment with a minister. Try to get a letter back from a minister. Try to get some way in a decision-making situation. You can't get there. But you know who gets there: The lobbyists are there. They're not necessarily in this building. But as I said, the lobbyists have big bankrolls. They are well paid. Many of them I'm sure are very intelligent, capable people.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you check for a quorum, please.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you check for a quorum.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Oakwood.

Mr Colle: Many of the decisions that affect ordinary Ontarians, some which will affect them for generations to come, have already been made, and the sad part is, many of them were made without the input of ordinary citizens. As you know, this government has rammed bill after bill through this Legislature with hardly any input, without any proper public hearings. They just have railroaded so many bills through.

The whole thing about hospital closures, there was never even any debate or public hearings. There should have been public hearings across this province before they closed hospitals. They didn't have one public hearing before they decided to close 32 hospitals in this province. Before they decided to close the 10 hospitals in Toronto, they didn't have one public hearing. The government said: "We don't have to debate this in the Legislature. We don't have to have public hearings." You've got some far-off commission that nobody can get to who will make those decisions for you.

1630

That's what the government has done here. It has set up a government that's basically immune from public input. You can't get at them. In education, they're going to close up to 500 or 600 schools. How are we ever going to find out how these decisions are going to be made by this government? Are there going to be any public hearings before they close our local schools? Will this government have the guts to say, "We will listen to the public and not just to the lobbyists"? That would be an interesting challenge.

Before a public school is closed in this province, there should be a public hearing under the auspices of the Legislature. It would be very interesting to see what the government members would say when you would have to have a public process before you closed a school, because that's what this government is embarking on doing right now. It's embarking on closing schools that have been paid for by the taxpayers in all the municipalities across this province. They pay for the schools. They help maintain them with their taxes. Now the government says: "We have this new, funny funding formula. We're going to close 500, 600 schools without any public hearings."

But I'll tell you who this government has listened to. It has listened to the high-priced lobbyists. Those people are the ones who have had the greatest influence on this government. We in the opposition know they don't listen to us in opposition. They don't listen to the public. They listen to the lobbyists.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): The member's time has expired. Questions and comments?

Mr Silipo: I want to commend the member for Oakwood for his comments on this bill and for outlining once again the need for this legislation - not so much this particular bill because, as he has said, and many of us are making the point, this legislation is quite frankly not tough enough. It doesn't go as far as it should in terms of establishing a real process for keeping tabs on who is lobbying on behalf of whom and for what favours or for what objectives.

We would want to see in place, as I'm sure he would, legislation that would actually keep the government of the day accountable, because this particular government, the Harris government, has made many decisions in the three and a half years that they've been in office where it would have been useful to have this type of legislation toughened up so that, as a group like Democracy Watch says, we would have known who was spending money to lobby on behalf of particular groups or individuals, who cabinet ministers were putting their heads together with to dream up various schemes.

Those are the kinds of things that I think the public would want to know in terms of being assured that decisions are being made by their government in an above-reproach way and that there is a process not just for registering, but also for knowing the extent to which certain groups or individuals would go to try to curry favour with the government of the day.

If we're serious at all about putting in place a lobbyist registration system and a real, effective enforcement system, that's the kind of approach we should be taking, not just something the Tories now want to bring in towards the end of the mandate so they can say they have done something about a problem that we all know has been around for a long time, but which quite frankly they have chosen for their own political agenda to not deal with until the very end of the mandate.

Mr Grimmett: I'm pleased to make some comments on the recent speech by the member for Oakwood. I listened intently as the member was making his remarks, a lot of remarks about powerful lobbyists and a lot of remarks about highways and roads.

I'll be charitable and say that the member has probably read the legislation. I think I'm being quite charitable in saying that, but I note from his comments that he's calling it the Lobbyists Protection Act, so I assume he's not going to support the legislation, which makes an interesting contrast with many of the speakers from the Liberal Party who have indicated that they will be supporting the legislation.

His comments are that it's too little, too late. There was lots of time for the Peterson Liberals to pass such legislation. The federal Conservative government brought in lobbyist registration legislation in 1988. It has since been amended by your Liberal cousins in 1996. It has been toughened up considerably. We have adopted virtually identical legislation to what is in place federally. Bill 69 reflects the federal legislation. It has the same categories for lobbyists; it has the same provisions as far as the time in which they register.

I understand why the member for Oakwood seems to have a particular interest in lobbyists and powerful lobbying organizations. I notice that just this week or just recently a major lobbying firm, Hill and Knowlton, hired another person who worked in government. The person's name is Silvia Presenza. I'm interested in who Silvia used to work for, so I went to inquire. She used to work for the member for Oakwood. So the member does understand why it is necessary to register the names of such people. I certainly hope the member will indicate that he's supporting the legislation.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to commend the member for Oakwood for his excellent presentation. In his presentation I could identify the frustration he has about this legislation. As he indicated to the government side, this is too little, too late. As a matter of fact, it doesn't do anything for the real people who are lobbying this government and getting all the great benefits from the government. I want to commend him.

What he's saying too, which the members on the opposite side don't seem to get, is that if they really want serious legislation, they should take a very serious look at putting in something that is much tighter and better and focused on those who are lobbying the government and getting the greatest benefits. But this doesn't do a thing, nothing, for those who continue to have this great access to government. So I want to commend him on that.

I want to commend him also for pointing out the inadequacy of the entire legislation. People who really need access are denied access. People who have real concerns don't get a chance to see the government. I'm talking about issues and concerns that affect people's livelihood in the sense of how they live and issues they have to deal with each day. Those who are lobbying the government, who have the big pockets and large funds and lots of money, continue to have that great access. They pick the phone up and phone their little colleagues the ministers, and that's it. As the member pointed out, for the individual outside who would like to speak to their member of Parliament who is a minister, there is no way, or those who have projects and would like to get through, because of the inadequacy of how the process works, don't get through.

I want to commend the member for pointing these things out to the House.

Mr Wildman: I want to congratulate the member for Oakwood on his remarks. I hope he would give us some clarity as to whether, in his view or the view of his party, there should be committee on this bill and what amendments might be put forward in committee. I think it's really apropos that we are dealing with this legislation today, on the same day the minister for privatization introduced a bill that would privatize Highway 407.

Mr Colle: It's already private.

Mr Wildman: Yes, it's already private. I wonder what this means in terms of the role of the former member of the Premier's staff who is working for the corporation that is operating Highway 407. I just wonder if that has anything to do with the new legislation and I wonder what this bill would do about those kinds of relationships. I don't think it would do anything.

I'm in favour of this kind of legislation, but I hope we have hearings, because I believe there need to be some amendments. We need to know not just who the lobbyists are, but how much they're being paid, by whom, and what kind of expenses they are filing for. We need to know also how we can determine what the definition of lobbying is, because under the federal legislation, as I understand it, if an individual is invited to a meeting, it isn't considered lobbying. As I've said before, usually when a lobbyist wants to meet with me, he or she invites me to the meeting, but under this legislation it appears that would not be counted as lobbying.

1640

Mr Colle: I'd like to thank my colleagues for their comments: the members for Dovercourt, Muskoka-Georgian Bay, Scarborough North and Algoma. I do personally think there should be hearings on this and I think there should be amendments, because I agree that this bill is basically a Lobbyists Protection Act, so I hope there are. I will urge my party to do so.

I just want to say that this bill is about this government and its style. This government, as I said, was unprecedented in its initiation with Bill 26, when it totally took power out of the hands of the Legislature. With the rule changes, it has done that. When it takes power out of the hands of the Legislature, it takes power away from the people. That's what this government has done, unlike any other government in the history of Canada, provincial or federal.

It is even more important for the public to know the role of lobbyists in how decisions are made with their lives. It's even more important than it has ever been in the history of Ontario that there be accountability and knowledge on how these lobbyists work, because never in the history of this province have so few people made so many decisions. That's what the Harris government is about: so few people making so many important decisions. That's why we have to know who the lobbyists are, how much they get paid, who they've met with and what influence they had on major government decisions. Up until this moment, we do not know. As you know, this government has made massive changes in the lives of the people of Ontario without any understanding of the role of lobbyists. This pale attempt, Bill 69, as I said, puts a smile on the face of lobbyists. There's not one lobbyist who is concerned about it, because they know it's a whitewash.

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: On this very important legislation I do not believe we have a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, will you check for a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: You can see why it's a problem. All I have left is 10 minutes. It gets worse every time we stand up to debate a particular bill, because as we do the time is reduced, and there is so much to be said in this place. In 10 minutes you can barely say enough to say hello to the audience that's watching this program.

We're talking about Bill 69. I'm happy to have this opportunity, because there is so much to say. I want to say that I support this bill, because if you don't say that you support it, they'll say, "They are so negative and they have so much to attack that they probably don't support this bill." So lest we are considered to be opposing this bill, I want to say I support this bill, as weak as it is.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Marchese: The member for Nepean, my good buddy - I welcome him in this place. You've got to calm them down; I only have eight minutes, Speaker.

This is a weak bill, and I support it, as weak as it is, lest we be accused of not supporting the bill at all.

Moving on, this is a pro-business kind of government. What could this government ever do that might debilitate, weaken their business friends in some way or take money away from those friends of theirs? Can you conceive of a Tory government which is in the - dare I say? - pockets of big business introducing a bill that would somehow limit their friends' ability to influence these guys? That's why I say to you that this is a weak bill.

The intent of the bill is to make it appear as if they're doing something lest they be accused of not doing anything at all. This is the type of bill that is perfect for the Tories because, among so many other things, it creates a false sense of security, creates a feeling that now that we have introduced this particular bill on the matter of forcing people to register their names as lobbyists, it gives everyone the appearance that the thing is done, that there's a bill and people can go home and relax, that we've got nothing to worry about any longer.

That is the false sense of security connected to the bill, and there's a good point here: It isn't this bill that's going to hold these Tories accountable; it's public involvement, it's public awareness, it's civic movement. It is a movement we need in order to keep these Tories in check and accountable. But dare I say that what I think we need is a civic movement that will keep any government accountable, and that's what we're lacking these days. We are lacking the kind of awareness that is desperately needed to hold politicians accountable. We don't have it. I tell the people watching not to be lulled into the false security that somehow this legislation is going to take care of their worries. There's a lot of money out there chasing these Tories, big bucks. I don't have it, most human beings I know don't have it, but there are a lot of Tories out there who have a lot of bucks.

Mr Wettlaufer: The unions are giving more money to you and the Liberals than ever before.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, member for Kitchener.

Mr Marchese: Listen to this guy from Kitchener. How many times do I have to tell him? The contributions from unions to the New Democratic Party total 15%. The rest of the money comes from individuals, ordinary guys. Where do you think these Tories get their money from? It's the ones who have the big cheques, the big pockets, the ones who grease the wheels.

The pro-business party: That's where the money is coming from. Do you think they would introduce a bill that would somehow limit those dollars to flow in to these guys? Of course not. It would contradict the essence of who these people are. I say to you, the only way that we politicians can be held accountable is through a civic movement which, in so doing, will make sure the governments will listen.

Now you have had the experience to know that these guys don't listen to anybody. You know that, member for Nepean, through the Citizens for Local Democracy organization, which attempted to dissuade you from the course you were in, attempted to tell you: "Listen to what we're saying. We don't want the amalgamation with the city of Toronto with the other cities." It was a wonderful civic movement, I've got to tell you. A lot of them say, "We failed to convince this government," but they didn't fail in their overall efforts to mobilize the general public, which they have succeeded in doing in the city of Toronto and beyond those borders. That movement did not fail. It failed to move the immovables, the impervious members of the House, that is, the Tories.

1650

But it isn't a movement that has to happen in one city. It has to be a movement that is pervasive and that transcends little borders in a general way to be able to influence parties such as these. For me that's important. Being held accountable is important. Being held accountable by the riding association in my riding and the constituents is important. But to witness these Tories, you wouldn't know who the hell they're concerned about. But I know, and I say in relation to this Bill 69 that the septic tank is full and all they're doing with Bill 69 is identifying the ingredients in that septic tank. That's all it does.

If you look over the last three and a half years of their reign, many of their friends have profited very, very well. M^me Leslie Noble has profited very well through the friends she has here, as have a lot of other friends they've got: M. Tom Long, another good buddy of theirs. Imagine, God, a contract for US$250,000 to find a new CEO for Ontario Hydro - those are good bucks. We're talking US$250,000 just to find a CEO for Ontario Hydro. How do ordinary people make that kind of money? That's what I'd like to do. I'd even offer my services for a couple of hundred bucks to make a living. But for M. Tom Long, $250,000, pretty good bucks. He's doing all right.

This legislation is all right. It's a modest attempt to deal with the problems a lot of people have; no question about that, no quarrel with that. The point is that it is weak legislation, and that's what this government wants: weak legislation. They can pretend, through the lawyers who will speak to this, and non-lawyers, that this is great, that it mirrors the federal legislation. Recall now: The federal legislation, as has been pointed out by the member for Algoma, has not convicted one single person. That should alert the public watching and the rest of the members who might pretend to be concerned about this that the legislation in Ottawa and the one we're about to support here in this place will amount to nothing. There will be no convictions.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): If you had a member from Ottawa, you'd know that -

The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Marchese: No, I like that kind of debate. Let him speak. It's good for this place.

We need some time in committee to deal with some of the problems that have been talked about. Do you know how many millions of dollars are being spent by their crony friends to convince them, and the public, about what it is they need or what they want the public to believe in and what they want the public to understand? They spend millions of dollars to manufacture consent. They hardly need to be on a list. These people are spending millions out there and the whole public knows what they're doing.

If we're going to make this legislation effective, we've got to make sure there is disclosing of lobbying expenditures, including fees and advertising; eliminating tax deductions for lobbying expenses; requiring ministers and senior staff to disclose whom they meet with and eliminating the loophole that if you're invited to a meeting, it's not lobbying. Some of these things have got to be improved. That's the kind of Tory government we've got: If you meet with somebody and I invite you, it's not lobbying. Do you see the kind of problem we're dealing with with this government? This bill is weak and it doesn't do the job it should be doing. We need hearings to improve it.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I listened with great interest to the member for Fort York. He talks about what's going on in Ottawa, the situation in Ottawa. His caucus may have more insights on what's going on in Ottawa come tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. Their caucus may grow; you never know.

The member says this is a weak bill that would create a false sense of security, but then he gets up and says he's going to support it. He's got to make up his mind. He can't have it both ways. It's weak, he says, creates a false sense of security, but he's on board. Shame to the honourable member for Fort York. How could he support a bill which he decries so much?

Then, in this place, we see a member attack his own constituents. This member represents Bay Street, literally. He represents Bay Street. M. Barrett works in his riding, and for a member to come to this place and decry a major employer, the financial services sector, which employs tens of thousands of people in the member for Fort York's riding - I don't understand. That's the first time we've ever heard about that.

Then he decries the fact that these big businesses, these big banks, are sending money not to him but to other political parties, all of this money going from his riding to other ridings. I don't understand. Why wouldn't they want to send it to their own member?

Then he talks about the influences of this government and accountability. He's selling himself short. He's holding this government accountable; it's not just people outside of this place. Our friends the Liberals don't. He's selling himself short.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): He is selling himself.

Mr Baird: He is selling himself, the member for High Park-Swansea says.

Mr Colle: I appreciated the comments of the member for Fort York. I think the critical thing he said is that this is about accountability and it's a very weak attempt by this government to pretend they're going to make lobbyists accountable. I know the member for Fort York realizes that this is very limited in its scope and that there isn't one lobbyist in the country that's afraid of this bill. I'm sure the government backroom boys discussed this bill with their lobbyist friends and it got the rubber stamp there, and that's why we have such a weak bill.

This government has always been very tough and likes to beat up on nurses, social workers, teachers, small business people, public employees. It's always very tough when it comes to legislation on those groups of Ontario citizens. But when it comes to groups this government favours, like the lobbyists, you can see it treats them with white kid gloves. This is not even a slap on the wrist to their lobbyist friends. But if these were teachers or nurses or small business people, you could imagine the kind of draconian legislation they would be pushing and speaking about.

This, to this government, is a big joke and a big laugh. They're all laughing about it. They think it's essentially another night out on the lobbyists. They love this bill because, in essence, it rewards their friends. It tells their friends who persuade them in decision-making: "We are going to leave you alone. You can carry on as you did before. We're just going to do a little bit of window dressing with Bill 69." I think the member for Fort York understands that. That's why he's willing to at least try to hold big business accountable and ask questions, which is his role.

Mr Wildman: I listened carefully to my friend the member for Fort York. While he indicated that the bill is weak, he did say it was a step in the right direction. It just doesn't go far enough.

He indicated that there will be registration of lobbyists under this legislation, so we'll know who they are, but it won't basically change what they do. It's what they do that is the concern. We'll know who they are now, but we won't know how much they're paid, we won't know how much they spend in expenses.

What we're really concerned about is not the kind of lobbying that we've seen in this place, which is already quite visible. The co-ops, for instance, last week had sort of a wine and cheese for members. Members went down and talked to various representatives of various co-ops. We've had the Niagara wine producers come; they have wine tasting, and members go and talk to the representatives of the industry. The chiropractors sometimes put on a dinner for MPPs, and you go and you talk to the local chiropractor representative from your riding and so on.

It's not that so much that we're concerned about, but rather the moneyed interests who have full-time people or firms hired, consultants, to ensure that they get contracts. It's with this government's decision to privatize so much of what government does that this has become a multi-million dollar boondoggle. These people are ensuring that they get part of the action. That's what we want controlled under this legislation.

1700

The Acting Speaker: To sum up, the member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I thank my friends and foes for their remarks. I would say to the member for Nepean that he knows how to hurt me. He says I am here representing Bay Street and the banks and all that. I've got to tell you, you're right, and it's unfair that I represent them and they send all their money to you. As a matter of justice, I think something is fundamentally wrong with that. Something is wrong when bankers and other Bay Street types help these guys and not me. What gives? I know what gives: Their pockets are deep. They work hand in hand and we don't. We want greater accountability for what they do and they don't.

Speaker, do you recall the intervenor funding act? Yes, you do. As a critic for the environment, you know that we had intervenor funding that would permit individuals, funded by government, to defend the public interest. And what did these Tories do? They repealed the intervenor funding act. Why? Because they don't want citizens to know and they don't want citizens to defend themselves and they don't want citizens to defend the public interest. Why is it that they would do that if not to give free rein to the corporations?

There's a lot of money to be made in deregulating Ontario Hydro - big, big bucks. Why do you think they're doing it? Because these people are well connected. The grease flows freely between them and the money flows freely between them. If we're going to make this bill a bill we can support in its modest efforts to create some measure of accountability, some measure of at least knowing who is doing this business, if we're going to make it effective, we've got to make the changes we talked about.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my privilege to rise and participate in the second reading of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998.

I'd like to begin my remarks by saying that our mandatory registration of lobbyists supports our government's commitment to ensure that the government's activities are conducted openly, fairly and transparently. Not only are we the first government of Ontario to undertake this action to ensure that taxpayers' interests are indeed protected, but we are also the first provincial government in all of Canada to bring forward legislation of this type.

This legislation would require lobbyists to register their identity, the names of their clients, and to declare their lobbying activities on a government registry.

The new act defines three categories of lobbyists: consultant lobbyists; in-house lobbyists for persons, including corporations and partnerships; and in-house lobbyists for organizations. An officer who is compensated for the performance of his or her duties, or an employee, will be considered to be an in-house lobbyist if a significant part of their duties is to lobby public office holders. That's what the bill deals with.

This new act sets out the activities that are considered to be lobbying and who is considered to be a public office holder. When you read the bill, as members on this side of the House have, it says:

"`Public office holder' means,

"(a) any officer or employee of the crown not otherwise referred to in clauses (c) to (e),

"(b) a member of the Legislative Assembly and any person on his or her staff."

That means members on both sides of the House, not just members of the government side, and the debate today seemed to focus around that. That also includes members of the opposition. So if, for example, the Citizens for Local Democracy and John Sewell were lobbying members of the opposition, we would know that. We would know that they were out there lobbying to stop the amalgamation of the city of Toronto, which amalgamation seems to be working quite well. We would know that on both sides of the House.

The new act also sets out what the term "organization" refers to. The debate today seemed to revolve around corporations, but let's look at what the bill says about organizations:

"`Organization' means,

"(a) a business, trade, industry, professional or voluntary organization," but it also includes,

"(b) a trade union or labour organization." So if Sid Ryan is lobbying members of the opposition, we would know that, and this is good.

"(c) A chamber of commerce or board of trade." That's also included under the term "organization."

"(d) An association, a charitable organization, a coalition or an interest group,

"(e) a government, other than the government of Ontario." So if other governments, municipal governments, are lobbying members of the opposition against the government, we would know that. It also goes on to talk about,

"(f) a corporation without share capital incorporated to pursue, without financial gain to its members." That's included in this bill.

But, like the lobbyist registration in Ottawa, which has been around for over 10 years in order to assist the public in obtaining information about registered lobbyists, the Ontario registry would be accessible on a government Web site.

Ian Urquhart wrote in the Toronto Star on October 6 of this year: "The government is to be applauded for making the move. Ontario may be a decade after Ottawa, but it will be well ahead of every other province." We're the first province in all of Canada to bring this legislation forward.

The lobbyist would also disclose information such as the lobbyist's name and address; the client or employer's name and address; a description of the specific legislative proposals, bill regulations, policies, programs, grants, contributions or contracts sought; the names of the provincial ministries, agencies, boards and commissions being lobbied; the source and amount of government funding received by the lobbyist's client or employer. The lobbyist would also have to disclose the communication techniques used. As well, corporations and organizations must file information describing their business and activities.

Yet this is not enough. To ensure greater transparency, consultant lobbyists will also be required to report on the following: when they are communicating with a public office holder in an attempt to influence the awarding of a contract by or on behalf of the crown and when they are arranging a meeting between a public office holder or any other person.

We all know that rules wouldn't be effective without appropriate penalties. For that reason, there are provisions in the bill for fines of up to $25,000 for violations; $25,000 for failing to register, making false or misleading statements - maybe that's a rule we ought to have around here some days, but that's a debate for another day - and knowingly placing a public office holder in a position of real or potential conflict of interest. These fines are consistent with those imposed for similar violations under other Ontario statutes.

This bill will also create a lobbyist registrar, with the authority to administer the lobbyist registration and request clarification of information on a registration form or other document submitted. The lobbyist registrar will also be charged with identifying omissions and inconsistencies and communicating with the lobbyist to ensure correction or request supplementary information. He or she will also ensure public accessibility to the information contained in the registry, while at the same time ensuring that an annual report is presented to the minister for tabling in the Legislative Assembly.

Let us remember that all the information registered with the government will be part of the public record. It will be easily accessible and readily available to the public. As I mentioned previously, the information will be posted on a lobbyist Web site. I happen to know a thing or two about Web sites, and I know how effective they can be. I just want to mention that in the past year my Web site alone has had over 13,400 visits.

Mr Baird: What's the address?

Mr Newman: The address for the Web site is www.hellonewman.com. When this lobbyist Web site is put in place, my Web site, www.hellonewman.com, will be linked to that Web site, because I think it's going to be a very effective Web site.

The lobbyist registry Web site will enable lobbyists to file, renew or terminate their registrations electronically. That's moving into the 21st century. The public will be able to have on-line access to a database of approved registrations. The public will know which lobbyist is working with which ministry or which member of the opposition, or any member of the opposition. The perceived shroud of secrecy will be forever removed.

Those people who don't have access to the Internet will still be able to do it the old-fashioned way, on a form, and file those reports in that manner. At the same time, those members of the public who do not have access to the Internet and who are not able to access the Internet through their MPPs' offices will still be able to view the yearly annual report tabled in this House.

The government is following through on its commitment to establish procedures to register all persons and firms who lobby the government. We are not only the first government to take action to ensure that taxpayers' interests are protected, but we're also, as I mentioned, the first provincial government across Canada to take this step.

1710

This legislation enshrines four basic principles: (1) the importance of open access to government; (2) the legitimacy of lobbying; (3) the need for public awareness of influences on government; and (4) that registration procedures should not impede access to public office holders.

Our government has fulfilled yet another one of its promises and has taken action once again to protect the public's interest. The introduction of this legislation is our commitment to conducting government business in a manner that continues to ensure accountability to the taxpayers of this province.

Herbert Agar once wrote, "Politics is the pursuit of the possible, not of the ideal." In an ideal world, we would not need a Lobbyists Registration Act, but we will be better served in having one. Government must be open and honest and government must be seen to be open and honest. This bill ensures that all dealings with the government remain open and honest.

Once again a commitment was made, and once again a commitment was kept. A promise made, a promise kept.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Miclash: I would like to make a number of comments in terms of some of the drawbacks we see in this legislation, Bill 69, and bring these forth to the member. He may want to consider them when we take a closer look at the legislation.

As he will know, under the federal legislation there's a code of conduct to cover the lobbyist, and we find that there is no code of conduct in Bill 69 in terms of this legislation - an amendment that should be closely looked at.

As well, we know that with Bill 69 there can be exemptions granted by an order in council. We're left with possibly a simple cabinet decision where the entire Premier's office, a minister's office or other departments can be exempted from the terms and conditions of this legislation - again a large loophole in this legislation, Bill 69, that the member will want to consider in his remarks.

There are no specific duties included in this legislation for the Integrity Commissioner, duties that he would be responsible for. The role of the Integrity Commissioner to investigate and review the complaints under this legislation is totally subject to the direction of the cabinet. We go back to a total direction of cabinet in terms of the lobbyists legislation, Bill 69.

Mr Silipo: I want to say first of all that I'm glad the member for Scarborough Centre had an opportunity to announce and re-announce his Web site. I didn't catch it, so I can't do it, but he may want to do it again in the reply.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What's on the Web site?

Mr Silipo: I just want to say in response -

Mr Bradley: What is a Web site?

Mr Silipo: The member for St Catharines wants to know what a Web site is. There are some days I feel exactly the same way.

I just want to say to the member for Scarborough Centre that we've indicated on this side, certainly within the NDP caucus, that we see that this is bill is at least a step in the right direction. It's something we wish had been tabled by the government about three years ago because it might have been of some little help in addressing some of the issues that we dealt with, such as people like Tom Long. We wouldn't have had to use other routes to go and figure out his link around Ontario Hydro, and Leslie Noble in terms of her lobbying services for Ontario Hydro.

When you look at that, unless the government is prepared to make changes to this legislation, this pale version of a Lobbyists Registration Act will not address some of these issues in terms of doing as a group like Democracy Watch has suggested. They say that if we're serious about legislation that truly holds government accountable in this area of lobbyists, it has to have teeth, it has to have provisions, for example, that include not only expenditures that lobbyists make, the kind of monies they're spending, but the kind of meetings that take place between ministers and senior civil servants also being disclosed. You have to have those kinds of provisions in there as well, and those are the things that we hope will get added to this bill if indeed this bill goes out to committee, as we hope it does.

Mr Grimmett: It was interesting to hear the remarks of the member for Scarborough Centre and I'm pleased to have an opportunity to comment on them. He demonstrated that not only does he have a Web site - and I believe it's www.newman.com; my kids look it up all the time and ask me why I don't have one - but a thorough understanding of the legislation, something that we've heard from some of the members and that we haven't heard from others. I thought it was quite interesting to hear in his remarks his understanding not only of the legislation but also of the importance of having some legislation rather than having no legislation at all.

As I listened to the opposition's remarks on the legislation, I can't help but wonder why, if they're so concerned about lobbying, they didn't bring in some legislation, either in the five years that the NDP were in power or the five years that the Liberals and their other friends were in power in the mid- to late 1980s.

The legislation was introduced federally in 1988, and I think we all recognize that there's a need for registration of the lobbyists. We can all name off our favourite lobbyists from each group. We all have them. Many lobbyists are quite effective at lobbying a government of any stripe.

As the member for Scarborough Centre indicated, this is legislation that would lead to Ontario being the first province in Canada to have lobbyist registration legislation. We can continue to debate it. Your suggestions are certainly useful and helpful, and I look forward to further discussion. I want to congratulate my colleague on his remarks on the bill.

Mr Bradley: The member points out that there are some positive parts to this legislation and very few what you'd call offensive parts to the legislation, which means, I think, that we have a consensus that at least this minor step forward should be taken. I like to put it this way: It's better than a kick in the shins, I guess. But it could be substantially better, and I know the member will support amendments in committee which will strengthen this legislation.

I don't know if he had a chance in his brief 10 minutes - you only have 10 minutes now under Mike Harris's new rules to speak in the Legislature, so I don't know if you had a chance to mention Tom Long. I saw him in the hallway. His name was being taken in vain. I shouldn't say taken in vain. He was being complimented by the member for Fort York previously because of the fact that he had made US$250,000 simply for being a headhunter, that is, a person who was to get a new head of Hydro.

I saw him in the hallway. I said I would rush down to the Legislature immediately to defend his honour because I was afraid that perhaps he was being attacked unfairly. But then I found out that the member for Fort York was merely looking on in envy at the fact that Tom Long, former president of the Conservative Party of Ontario, the person who was responsible for running the campaign of the Conservatives during the last election and will have a major role to play in this election - he is in fact in this very building today. I don't know whether he's counting the US$250,000 he made as a result of the contract as a headhunter or not, but I hope he's treated better than the Minister of Health, who was hung out to dry today by the Premier, who said she was at fault for not flowing the funds to the hospitals.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre has two minutes in response.

Mr Newman: I want to thank the members for Kenora, Dovercourt, Muskoka-Georgian Bay and St Catharines for their comments.

The member for Kenora talked about the exemptions and the duties of the Integrity Commissioner. I appreciate his comments.

To the member for Dovercourt, if you've got your pen out, I can give you the Web site address. I know you said you didn't catch it. It's www.hellonewman.com. I'm sure you visited the Web site.

1720

To the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay: I'm pleased that his children are some of the many people who visit the Web site, some of the 13,400 who have visited the Web site in the past year. The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay also asked the question, why didn't the Liberals and NDP, when they were in power, bring something like this forward? And why is this government waiting somehow until the end of its term? The answer is very simple: Those governments were too busy hiking taxes in this province and driving jobs out of Ontario. Combined, over that 10-year period they hiked taxes 65 times. We have been very busy as a government cutting taxes. We've cut taxes a total of 66 times so far in just over three years, and I'm sure that number will even grow higher.

What's important is that this bill here is the first time a provincial government in all of Canada has brought forward lobbyist legislation to protect its taxpayers. That really isn't discussed very much by members of the opposition, but we are the first government to bring forward legislation to protect the taxpayers through this lobbyist legislation.

It's also important to remember that this bill deals with all members of the Legislature, not just members of the government side but members on the opposition side as well.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Scarborough North?

Mr Curling: I really appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 69, this lobbyists registration bill that's put forward here.

When this government came into power, the first thing they announced was, "We're not going to bow to any special interest groups." I thought it was a rather interesting comment to make, because here we are now with a lobbyist bill to protect the interests of the public.

Let me just make sure we're on the right track. It says, "To protect the public interest to ensure the integrity of the government process; to avoid the culture of preferential treatment on the basis of who you know and how much you're willing to contribute to the governing party." I thought that was quite a statement to make. This government came into being in 1995 and has emphatically stated, "We are not going to kowtow to any special interest groups." What they really meant was that those individuals who had no access in the beginning - to get access you have to demonstrate, you've got to make some noise, you've got to protest, to get your point of view across. Normally, taking up the phone, for these ministers, was a no-no. Those special interest groups couldn't get through: maybe special interest groups who would like to create a nursing home for those who are more unfortunate; maybe special interest groups who don't have access to jobs; maybe special interest groups who find that government contracts are going through and this could help their constituency.

No, the government announced immediately, "We don't need any of those knocking at our door and demonstrating out here because it's a democracy." They do not call for that, because the people who get to them are those who can take up the phone or play a golf game with them and make all the decisions out on the golf course. Long after we think we're debating things in here, the fact is that the deal is cut already, the deal is all over. We're here thinking we can really change things, but the deal has been cut already for all those friends they have who have greater access to them.

This bothered me somehow, because we think we have democracy. In a democratic country, here we are, a government who was elected by the people for the people, but it was elected by the people for a few who have access to the government. That really bothers me.

I'm sure you will recall, Madam Speaker; you were here the night of Bill 26. It was the height of arrogance of no access. "We will introduce legislation, but we don't want anyone to lobby us," not even the members who are elected to lobby you and say to you: "Listen, let us debate this in a proper way. Let us have committee hearings." No, you shut down the process completely. No access.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): You shut it down.

Mr Curling: Sure, and I will shut it down again if you deny individuals their own democratic rights to have access, to express their view. I would say I have more legitimate right, and many of us here, to lobby you and lobby the government to make sure you change the process, to make sure that the voice of those who don't have access to the government is heard.

Since then, this government has continued to put closure on every bill they could, because their old colleagues and friends outside told them: "Shut it down. We don't want much debate on this. Let's rush it through." So what do they do? They create the minister of privatization. You would believe that if you want to make sure you still have a good lobby, you would do that before. But, oh, no. You appoint a minister of privatization, get all your colleagues in on the show quickly, get all the deals cut and finished, and then say, "Now, let's close the door, because we don't want anybody else to have access to us." But the doors are not really tightly closed.

It is weak, as we have pointed out. Bill 69 is weak. But on this side, we understand that it's a start. If they even give a little window, a little peep of light coming through, maybe it's a start to say that some people have to be accountable. I don't know how accountable some of the individuals are who have those big pockets, who can really fill the coffers of all those who are fundraising. They brag about how much fundraising they can do and how much money they have to fight the next election. Of course. They are saying, "Here is where I could have access to the government."

Let me just raise one particular case that is so important about access. The other day, Madam Speaker, you must have heard about a group of individuals who actually want access to government. Yes, they want access to projects. This was the African-Canadian Society on Health Care Issues. The government said if they identify issues, they would like people to come forward and have access to them to make sure that those seniors who are in need now would have a place to go. Those who may have access to those individuals are from their own community, the African-Canadian community, who feel, "Yes, we will set up a home." They put their tender in and, lo and behold, when they put their stuff in, what happened? The minister stated that they were one minute late.

I've got a letter from the minister here. It's important to read a very important part of his letter. He said:

"In terms of the specific details of the African-Canadian Society on Health Care Issues' application, the tender office followed its standard procedures. At 12 o'clock" - the closing time for the RFP staff, from the tender office time stamp - "a receipt noted that the tender was closed. As well, the minister's staff took the extra precaution of checking the lobby and the adjacent parking lot at the deadline and found that no one was in the lobby or approaching at closing time."

This is the interesting part:

"Based on the ministry's records, the African-Canadian Society on Health Care Issues arrived at the tender office at 12:01." Remember, he looked in the parking lot, he peered all over the place, and nobody was in sight. But guess what? When the application was stamped, it said 12:01. I think they beamed them in. All of a sudden, they appeared. At 12:01, there they were and said, "Here's my application," and they said, "We deny it." It says:

"Consistent with standard procedures, the tender office staff immediately date and time-stamp the submission as received. The time appearing on this stamp was 12:01."

Talk about access. I presume this special interest group - the Premier himself stated: "I will not listen to any special interest group. All those people are making noise." I presume that's it. So when you even see a light and you feel you can get through that door, this same government is denying access to individuals who must serve the needs.

To me, basically this Bill 69 is a joke. It's a smokescreen. It's not going to do anything at all. It lets you believe that they're doing something, but it's nothing at all. Then the minister, in his quiet, consoling way, stated that, "Next spring we will offer these projects again, and then you may, of course, apply." "Try again," he said to those special interest groups.

1730

But if you were the individuals who could fill the coffers of the Conservative Party, maybe you didn't have to go through this exercise. If you could come to the $500 or $1,000 fundraising, it's quite possible that you would be able to meet with the minister and talk one to one, or play golf with the minister. Then you would not have this beaming in, the fact that, "Whoops, you are late."

I'm telling you, don't believe one iota of this, that this lobbyists bill will help any of those individuals who need proper access following proper procedures to get any of their projects. They have to form the back of the line and wait all over again to make sure the guy and the gal with the money who are coming through, with the big pockets, will have access to this government. Bill 69 will do nothing for them, for our very multicultural society. They've got to form the back of the line again.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Silipo: I listened with interest to the member for Scarborough North. He focused his comments on the issue of access. He went a little bit more broadly than just the bill, but I think he made some very important points around what this bill will not do. It will not in effect provide the safeguards that even the government members claim they want to see, which is to have a system in place that would ensure everything is done above-board - not only that there is a registration of who is lobbying and on whose behalf they are lobbying, but that there is actually some control over or some understanding of the influence that those individuals who act as lobbyists would have.

I think he drew an interesting comparison between what this bill may or may not do and the situation he described of the African-Canadian group that was seen to be or happened to be a minute or so late in applying for a particular project.

What I'm going to be looking for as this bill goes forward - and I hope he would agree with me - is to see whether the government is actually serious about taking an initiative where, to be kind to them, they have brought this forward at this point in time so they can say they have done something on this issue, but where if they're serious about having a piece of legislation that's got some teeth in it, they need to be looking to toughen it up.

I hope they will look to some amendments as we go through the process, things that would ensure some of the things that Democracy Watch and other groups have suggested: disclosing the kind of money people spend on lobbying; providing, for example, that where meetings take place between ministers and other senior civil servants and particular groups, that is also in particular areas seen to be lobbying; that those kinds of things are also part of this process.

Mr Klees: I listened with some interest to the member for Scarborough North. As he expressed his concerns about this legislation, it became very clear to me that the member truly has missed the point of this legislation. He went on at length to speak about individuals who can't afford to lobby government, saying that these people will not have access to the government. For those people, every member in this House is available to hear their concerns. Surely the member will not close the door to any member of his constituency, or anyone in this province as a matter of fact, who has a concern and wants to bring it forward. All of us are elected to do precisely that. This bill has nothing to do with that.

This bill is about ensuring that those who do have money and who have the ability to hire lobbyists to do their work for them are regulated, that this is done on the basis of a level playing field, that it's done above-board, that the taxpayers of this province can be assured that when lobbying takes place - and it's a matter of fact; it does take place. But this is the first government that has brought forward legislation to ensure that it's done properly, that it's done legally, that it's not done with undue influence. I suggest that the member, although I'm sure well intentioned, should come back into focus with this legislation and understand what its intention is.

He made reference to the fact that this government has not given public consideration to proposed bills. The average time spent on second reading of government bills in the previous NDP government, in the first session, was one hour and 28 minutes, in the Liberal first session of government it was one hour and eight minutes, compared to four hours and 50 minutes for this government. In its second session, the Liberals spent one hour and 38 minutes, the NDP three hours and 55 minutes and we spent five hours and -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Bradley: I'm deeply disappointed the member for York-Mackenzie did not have more time to talk about that because he was on a roll and I really feel bad when that happens.

Mr Shea: Well, seek unanimous consent.

Mr Bradley: I would almost seek unanimous consent but I won't go that far.

I want to compliment my friend the member for Scarborough North for an outstanding speech on this important subject this afternoon. He was right on the mark. What he pointed out was, "Listen, this is a reasonable first step in this particular field." But he also knows that we require some amendments to strengthen this legislation. I agree with him. I hope we can go to committee of the whole and have some of those amendments presented. I hope the government will look upon them as friendly amendments. In fact, I wouldn't mind if the government took the amendments that the opposition parties put forward and said they're their own amendments. I'd be happy to support them on that basis. I'd be applauding them. Naturally, I'd say where they came from originally but I would still applaud them for doing so.

The minister can't always carry the bill. The parliamentary assistant is carrying the bill. The minister, I suspect, is in Management Board at this very time trying to move those funds for the hospitals in Toronto. I didn't know if the member had a chance to mention how sorry he was that the Minister of Health was held out to dry by the Premier on the weekend, who said these emergency room crises that are happening in Toronto are just awful. They announced the money in April and now here it is, we're almost in November, and the money still isn't flowing. Who does the Premier blame? He blames the Minister of Health. I'm glad that didn't happen with this bill.

Mr Marchese: It's a pleasure to support the comments the member for Scarborough North has made. I would say that these are issues of access, and that's what he spoke to. Unless they do what we have recommended, that is, make amendments to strengthen this bill, then we will know that they're not serious about real change. But if all we're talking about is making sure lobbyists register their names, then I say it's a meaningless act with no teeth and no power, that no change will happen and it will guarantee that the old boys' club continues to be alive and doing very well. The old boys' club connects to the very special interests they dare not name, because they love to attack the special interest groups when they refer to women, when they refer to people with disabilities, when they refer to teachers and unions and the like.

But the biggest special interest groups we have in this country are the ones who have a whole lot of money. We're talking about bankers, we're talking about the general financial institutions and the like. We're talking about insurance companies, big developers. These are their friends and this is the very special interest group that has a great deal of power because they've got the pecunia to make these boys listen.

Unless, I say, we make the necessary changes so as to make this bill genuinely effective, as they claim, then all the issues of access we have been talking about will remain, meaning people with disabilities have no access to these people. Tenants they will not listen to; women's groups, social agencies, food banks and teachers, they're not listening to them.

1740

Mr Curling: Let me just commend my colleagues from Dovercourt, York-Mackenzie and of course St Catharines and Fort York for their comments.

I emphasize again that when this government speaks about lobbying, I speak about access. Lobbying is about access. There's nothing wrong with access. It's who are the individuals who are accessing the government? What rules are being laid down for people to have access? That's fine; that's what it's all about. Democracy is all about access. But I would continue to say that this legislation, although it's a start, hasn't come very near at all to making sure that all those who would like to follow the rules as they're laid down, fair to all, still will not have the kind of access in a very controlled environment.

As my House leader expressed, I would say to the government that we are prepared to put forward amendments to improve this legislation. We hope it will be given proper discussion, proper debate in the committee of the whole where we can all partake in a full and involved manner to make sure that each person who has access follows the same rules, that when the taxpayers' money is collected, when it's being distributed, it will serve us all.

I remember my colleague saying, "The first in Canada and the first here and the first - " That doesn't make a difference. Is it fair even though it's first? Is it able to give those individuals access to the government in a procedure that is fair to all, not because of how big the wallet is that we can have access, but that anyone who has the interests of our citizens at heart, who would serve the interests of our nation or of our province, is able to get that access to the government that they elect?

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Klees: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I wonder if I could have unanimous consent from the House to complete the statistics that show the average time spent on third reading for the last three governments. I ask for unanimous consent.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard a no. Further debate, member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: I'm pleased to participate and close off debate for our caucus on this piece of legislation, Bill 69.

At this time of year, in October, a time of thanksgiving, many of us have had the opportunity to participate with our families in an annual banquet, a turkey banquet in many cases. This bill reminds me of those who prior to sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner promise themselves they won't eat too much but they don't really do anything about it. Then, after they've all been gluttons and they're sitting around or lying around on the couch and the chairs in the living room after having overindulged, they bring in legislation or a bill or a resolution and they say: "We should never do this again; it isn't good for us, so we want to control how much we will eat next time," but they have already consumed more than they should have and they are getting fat on the fact that they've already had too much.

That's what this is about. We have a piece of legislation before the House which presumes to do something about lobbying, something that all of us in this House, on all sides of the aisle, agree with. But what it does, like the federal legislation, is simply require lobbyists to register, to say that's what they do. So we will now know who the lobbyists are, whether they are lobbyists for large corporations, whether they're lobbyists for non-profit organizations, for unions, for municipal organizations, whoever.

We will know who they are. There's no problem with that. We all support that. The problem is that since this was first proposed by the Conservatives in 1996, there have been many, many Tory gluttons at the table who have overeaten at the public's expense.

Mr O'Toole: Name names.

Mr Wildman: I will.

What has happened right now, of course, is that the government is proposing an Americanization, a privatization of public services on a grand scale, although they've had some trouble getting it through the legislative process. This in itself requires this kind of legislation. As long as we have restructuring and contracting out, there will be lobbyists who are trying to get those contracts. It is necessary for the public to know who these people are.

My question, though, really comes to this: Will Bill 69 do anything about the hundreds of millions of dollars that private corporations and financial experts are expecting to make off the restructuring of Ontario Hydro? Will it do anything to ensure that the contracts for the maintenance of our highways will not in any way be improperly influenced?

There is no requirement in this bill to disclose how well paid these lobbyists are. I was asked a moment ago to name some people, so I'll do that. Would this bill have stopped Conservative insider Leslie Noble from selling her lobbying services to Ontario Hydro for $84,000?

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: You asked me to name some people. I'm doing it, at your request.

Would it have stopped consultants involved in the Niagara casino bid from advising both the government and the successful bidder? Would this bill have stopped Conservative insider Tom Long from getting a contract for US$250,000 to find a new CEO for Ontario Hydro when everybody already knew that Mr Farlinger was going to be appointed?

Mr Guzzo: No, no, no. He's the chairman.

Mr Wildman: No, sorry, he hired the American, the American guy who now won't give out the information about how much he's paid.

Would this legislation have stopped the contracts for highway repairs going to a company that hired the ministry official who set up the privatization of the contract? Would it do anything to rein in the many former aides and advisers of Mike Harris, starting with Bill King or Mitch Patten and many others, who are now either seeking government contracts or working as consultants for companies that seek government contracts?

Speaker, you know I would not normally have done this, but it was at the request of the member for Durham East that I had to name names. He asked me to do so, and I've just done it.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Wildman: I want to make something clear: We support this legislation. We think it should go to committee so that there can be some discussion of amendments, amendments put and debate of that so that we can have this bill strengthened. I hope the government will accept some of those amendments at least.

As Democracy Watch has challenged us and said, we must not just register lobbyists, we must close a number of loopholes and we must make this really transparent. We must know how much the lobbyists are paid. What are their fees? How much do they spend on advertising? What do they spend on their expenses? We must eliminate the tax deduction for lobbying expenses. We must require ministers and senior staff to disclose whom they meet with.

Finally, we must eliminate the loophole that if you're invited to a meeting, it's not lobbying. To use an example, if I invite a representative of, let's say, OSSTF to meet with me, according to this legislation, that individual is not lobbying me. That's a little bit strange. In other words, if a minister invites a representative or a consultant or a group of people working for a company that's interested in a contract for which that minister is responsible to meet with him, then according to this legislation they aren't lobbying. They're only lobbying, I guess, if they invite the minister. That's a pretty large loophole. I think you could drive a bulldozer through it, as it were, if the Minister of Transportation were to invite the representatives of the companies that might be bidding on highway contracts to meet with him, and therefore it doesn't come under this legislation and it doesn't count in lobbying.

We are in favour of this legislation. We think it should be strengthened. Keep in mind, this legislation is patterned after federal legislation that was brought in by the Mulroney government. I congratulate him for it. But I want to point out one thing: There hasn't been one conviction under this legislation at the federal level, so that means either the Mulroney government was squeaky clean or perhaps the legislation isn't quite as effective as it should be. It seems to me that where there have been conflicts of interest related to lobbying in Ottawa that have been suspected or discovered since Mr Mulroney left the scene and prior to that, they have been discovered in most cases by investigations of the RCMP. These are not allegations; these are matters of the public record - thanks partly, I guess, to the current Solicitor General of Canada they're matters of public record.

The fact is this: This legislation is a step in the right direction, but we believe it should be strengthened. We look forward to debating it in committee so we can put forward amendments. We hope the government will consider those amendments seriously and we can strengthen the bill so we have true transparency in how we deal with the public in this province.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Further debate? We'll take the vote.

Mr Grimmett has moved second reading of Bill 69.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr Grimmett: I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Acting Speaker: So ordered.

It being almost 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 this evening.

The House adjourned at 1753.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

October 19, 1998

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

FIREARMS CONTROL

DIWALI

HEALTH SERVICES

WINDSOR-ESSEX COUNTY SPORTS HALL OF FAME

AGRICULTURE IN NORFOLK

EMERGENCY SERVICES

PINOCHET ARREST

SMALL BUSINESS IN WELLINGTON

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY 407 ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SMALL BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EMERGENCY SERVICES

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

EMERGENCY SERVICES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

WOMEN'S ISSUES

HEALTH SERVICES

ABORTION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DEFIBRILLATION EQUIPMENT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

PROSTATE CANCER

PALLIATIVE CARE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ABORTION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

GERMAN HERITAGE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER AND LOBBYISTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 CONCERNANT LE COMMISSAIRE À L'INTÉGRITÉ ET LES LOBBYISTES