Journal des débats 1989-janv-04 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). She will no doubt recall that I asked her on November 22 to establish an educational advisory program to inform the public about the importance of smoke detectors in homes and how these devices can save lives and reduce injuries.

I raised this matter with her following several tragic fires in the Orillia area that resulted in death and serious injuries to occupants of homes that were built prior to the mandatory installation of smoke detectors. I am referring to regulation 67/87 of the Ontario fire code, which requires electrical, hard-wired smoke alarms in all single-family dwellings built since 1976. She will recall that I pointed out that there is no such requirement for homes constructed prior to that.

I urged her to establish an educational advisory program because I felt it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to regulate and enforce the retrofit installation of electric or battery-powered smoke detectors in older buildings. Therefore, I urged her to launch an advertising program similar to those used to point out the hazards of drug and alcohol use.

Some of my constituents have told me that they recently saw short television ads of the type I suggested. I would like to commend the Solicitor General and take this opportunity to thank her for following up on my suggestions.

ONTARIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the efforts of an outstanding organization that is represented in almost every community in Ontario. This organization is the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which, since its founding in 1911, has brought together industry and business groups to the forefront of the communities in which they reside.

Working collectively for a common cause, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce now boasts a membership of over 60,000 businesses. From its early beginnings, the chamber of commerce has been successful in shaping the province’s economic structure and in creating change in the political arena. Throughout the years, its influence has fostered a co-operative relationship between the public and private sectors.

I recently met with Jim Carnegie, executive director of the chamber, and we discussed many issues, including the Computerized Ontario Investment Network, known as COIN. Launched in November 1986 with the assistance of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, COIN is a computerized information network run by the chamber of commerce through its 160 local offices across the province. It is the first large-scale, community-based electronic matching service in Canada. It has brought together hundreds of entrepreneurs looking for equity capital and investors looking for places to invest their capital.

As the small business advocate, l am delighted that COIN is helping many small businesses in Ontario succeed that might have otherwise failed due to lack of equity capital. As a member of this House, I look forward to continuing the working relationship with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Hampton: It has now been little over a month since the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board announced that it thought that Ontarians could afford increases in insurance rates from 35 to 40 per cent, as it initially stated.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Stop propping that straw man up.

Mr. Hampton: I think it is only appropriate at this time to repeat a little history, particularly for the honourable member directly opposite me on the front bench.

It is interesting if you compare the insurance rates in Ontario and how they have climbed over the last five years with some of the insurance rates in western Canada and how they have climbed over the last four or five years. It is very interesting that the government sometimes wants to refer to one year if the comparison is favourable for it or to compare averages if the comparison is favourable to it. But the fact stands that no province anywhere in western Canada -- British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba -- has proposed an insurance rate hike of 35 to 40 per cent.

For the government to believe and to try to hold the position that consumers in Ontario should pay this, that consumers in Ontario can afford this, is nonsense. The government ought to look again at what it is doing.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr. Pollock: Today I would like to bring to the attention of the House a letter sent to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) about our party’s concerns with the government’s review of conservation authorities, the Burgar report.

In this letter, the leader of our party has asked the Minister of Natural Resources to bring the recommendations of the Burgar report to the public forum for full discussion. We feel that an all-party committee of the Legislature should hold hearings on the report to provide individuals and groups with an opportunity to be heard publicly.

These public hearings and information sessions are urgently required to discuss and explain the implications of the Burgar recommendations and the minister’s proposals. We find it appalling that the minister and his ministry have no plans whatsoever to consult meaningfully with the people of Ontario about this critical matter.

On this side of the House we believe Ontario conservation authorities are a true success story. They are one of the flagships of the province’s goals for sustainable development. Conservation authorities have been protectors of our natural heritage, they have improved the quality of life in Ontario, they have enhanced environmental awareness and they have protected both lives and property. To tamper with such a successful program in the back rooms of Queen’s Park is not acceptable to us or to the people of Ontario.

We trust the Minister of Natural Resources will give full support to this initiative for public hearings on the Burgar recommendations.

PRODUCT INGREDIENTS

Mrs. Sullivan: I would like to take a moment to congratulate a company in my constituency which has followed through on its commitment to list all product ingredients on its labels.

G. D. Searle, now renamed Searle Canada Inc., last August pledged to become the first pharmaceutical firm in Canada to voluntarily list all nonmedicinal ingredients in its prescription and over-the-counter drugs. With the new year just under way, Searle can boast that all of its major products now carry such labelling and the company’s complete line of products will be so labelled by March.

Canadian consumers, especially those who suffer from allergies, will benefit greatly from the convenient availability of such product information. This will be particularly useful to the more than 3.5 million Canadians who have allergies, in particular the 150,000 who are treated annually for adverse reactions to ingredients in drugs and food.

I am hopeful that other drug manufacturers will, in 1989, follow Searle’s lead and voluntarily list all nonmedicinal ingredients in their products. Public concern about potential health hazards from allergic reactions is growing and Searle’s welcome initiative is a model to be followed.

1340

ENOSH GASTER

Mr. Reville: For 14 years now, my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Gaster have worked very hard to make certain that their son Enosh, who is developmentally handicapped, could live as much like other children as possible. It has not been easy. It has just gotten worse.

Enosh recently began suffering from seizures. These seizures come at any time of the day or night, making it necessary for someone to always be there to watch over Enosh. They have taken turns staying up all night, but because they are both employed, this has put a great strain on their lives and they have hired assistants to care for their son during the night.

The cost of this care, combined with other expenses needed to nurture their son, has caused great financial hardship to the family. They have now exhausted every possible avenue of assistance to solve their problem and they are faced with some very serious decisions regarding their son’s future, not the least of which might be having to consider institutionalizing their son. This couple has struggled heroically to keep their son at home. Surely this government must do whatever is necessary to support their efforts.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Harris: This is an appropriate time to take a look at the situation in this province with respect to housing, regarding what has emerged through 1988 and what we can expect for 1989. First, in 1988, the possibility of home ownership was pushed further out of reach for the vast majority of Ontario residents. House prices continued their upward spiral unchecked, making the price of an average new home in Toronto more than $250,000.

Despite the minister’s rhetoric about affordable housing, it was our own government which pushed land prices yet higher by allowing government land to be sold to developers above the threshold of $4,000 per linear foot. Analysts say this could mean an increase of as much as $25,000 to $40,000 per new home. After ripping off their own $4,000 a foot for land, supposedly for affordable housing, they have the audacity to suggest the federal government give its land for free.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, as you know, well over half of the newcomers to Canada choose to come to Ontario. Currently there is in this province a large number of refugee claimants awaiting the determination of their legal status in this country.

While these people wait, they often turn to immigrant settlement service agencies for help. In the recent past, the number of people who have been seeking help has put a severe strain on many of these organizations. Twice in the past, my ministry has supplemented the funding of these organizations. The most recent of that supplementary funding expired at the end of December 1988.

Today I am announcing additional emergency funding to 14 of these agencies in the amount of $276,000 under a project we call the community projects grants program of my ministry. This special funding will cover the period from January 1989 to March 1990.

I am sure that the members of this House will join me in acknowledging the important work done by the many immigrant settlement service organizations we have in this province. This special funding recognizes the partnership between the government, with agencies such as our own Ontario Welcome House, and the community-based organizations which serve newcomers so well in this province.

RESPONSES

REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

Mr. Philip: While we can welcome the fact there is some funding being provided by the minister today, we should look at it in the context that the $276,000 is a small amount when funded over a period of two years.

These organizations or these groups are living from hand to mouth, from year to year, without any systematic planning by this government in terms of core funding, in terms of strategic planning and long-term goals. While we can welcome this gift from the minister, one has to say that we hope he will start to look at the overall situation of these groups and develop a long-term plan for funding them.

Mr. Cousens: I commend the minister for his efforts to assist immigrants to our country in becoming Canadians and becoming part of our society. In fact, he and I have participated in events in which we have recognized the importance that new Canadians bring to our society, to our culture and to everything that we are. Indeed, when you start talking about the investment that we are making here, it can have long-term ramifications.

The one thing that I am interested in and our party has always had a genuine concern about is, when the government puts money out, we certainly want to get something back. I am always worried that when they are having a program, it might be just to cover more administration or the costs of more overhead of already existing staff and people in this increasingly growing bureaucracy that is the Ontario Liberal government.

I would hope that when the minister is putting out $276,000, a large proportion of it -- in fact all of it -- will go to the sources that really need the help, and it is not just added to the bureaucracy that is the David Peterson government. In other words, there has to be some monitoring of the cost, and it is not just a matter of saying, “Hey, here is some money,” and throw it against the wall and think it is going to do something. There has to be some supervision to make sure that this is not just window-dressing or some way in which you are continuing to support the bureaucracy that you already have.

I think there is an awful lot more that needs to be done in the form of educating people who are coming into our country so that they become Canadians first. There has to be a real emphasis here that we in Ontario are not the only province, that we are one of a group of provinces that make up this Confederation, so the sooner we begin to encourage people to take an active role in government, in politics and in the community so that they become integrated into what is Canada and Ontario, the better we will be.

I would be glad to give the honourable minister commendation if he could increase his efforts to make this a society in which we increase the respect we have for one another, so that those new people coming into this province will have a sense of really being part of one of the most beautiful places there is to live in the world. I think the minister is in a position to give that kind of leadership. This $276,000 can lead towards that end. Let’s just hope that it really is used in the way the minister has described it now and not frittered away on some of the bureaucratic concerns that seem to be taking so much of the taxpayers’ money right now.

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF HOLLOW-POINT BULLETS

Mr. B. Rae: I know that charges were laid today -- at least I understand that they were laid today -- with respect to the death of Wade Lawson. I might have expected the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to make a statement in that regard, simply informing the House officially of that fact.

But I do have a question to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General will no doubt know that I cannot ask and she cannot answer questions dealing with the particular tragic death of Wade Lawson, and I do not intend to put her in that position. I do want to get to the bottom of this question of the use of hollow-point bullets -- what she knows about it and how widespread the use of hollow-point bullets has been across the province.

Yesterday I asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) whether or not he had been able to ascertain from the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) what was the nature of the report or study done for him about the use of hollow-point bullets across the province when he was Solicitor General. I would now like to ask this Solicitor General whether she has spoken to her colleague from Kingston in order to find out exactly what information there is about the current use and past use of hollow-point bullets in the province.

1350

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Police Act is very clear in its description of what is and what is not permitted by way of both bullets and guns.

Since I became Solicitor General, I have assumed that this was being 100 percent obeyed. It turns out that there was some discussion some years ago around the issue because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police did indeed change its regulations and allowed hollow-point bullets. Therefore, it was sent to the usual committee that looks at armaments; I know as a lawyer the member would know of its existence.

They appointed a subcommittee which was going to examine this along with other matters. This subcommittee has not met, as far as I can gather, certainly has made no report and has made no recommendations yet that I am aware of, although I do understand that individuals who sit on this committee have expressed some individual points of view. The committee has made no recommendations and has not yet reported even to the committee to which it reports, let alone to the ministry.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister did not answer my question, which is not novel, but it nevertheless deserves comment. I asked her a very specific question. Let me try again.

On Wednesday, December 28, the member for Kingston and The Islands said -- and so far as I am aware he has not written to the paper or refuted what he is quoted as saying in the Toronto Star: “The former Solicitor General, now MPP for Kingston and The Islands, said finding out the banned bullets were used ‘in regular police work and in target practice’ bothered him. ‘These bullets do quite a number on a person.’” The damage that is caused to a person who is hit by a hollow-point bullet is substantially greater, graver and more serious than the damage that is done by a regular .38-calibre bullet.

I would like to ask the minister: Has she spoken with her colleague when he says, as a former Solicitor General, that finding out the banned bullets were used in regular police work and in target practice bothered him? What was he talking about? How did he know those bullets were in fact being used? Why was a blind eye being turned to the use of those bullets? Those are very simple questions.

Mr. Speaker: It seemed like quite a number of questions.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Indeed, as the Leader of the Opposition points out, the bullets under question do more damage and for this reason the Police Act specifically states the kind of bullets that can be used, and this does not include that particular type of bullet. I do not think there is any argument with that.

The minute I found out there was even any speculation about whether they were being used, I immediately sent out a directive to reinform all police chiefs that they were not to be used, that the regulations specifically said they were not to be used. Because there had been some speculation as to whether they in fact were on occasion used, I asked for a report back so that I might be reassured that indeed this law is being obeyed as it should be obeyed. As soon as I have this report ready, I will submit it to the House.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can answer this question. She herself refers to speculation about the use of this bullet. Can she tell us what speculation she is referring to?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I refer to the article the member read. That is the only speculation I have on this. I prefer to deal with facts, with the officials of my ministry, and will continue to do so.

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. I understand from his office that he is going to be delayed for a little while, so l will stand down my second leader’s question.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement to stand down the question?

Agreed to.

Mr. Brandt: My question as well is for the Solicitor General with respect to the same matter that has just been discussed. Would the Solicitor General confirm in the House that there has been an advisory body of the Ontario Police Commission studying the use of the hollow-point bulletin this province for the past two years?

Hon. Mrs. Smlth: There is indeed a committee that examines these matters, as the member knows, on a regular basis. It is always a matter, one might say, of negotiation and speculation between police forces as to which is the appropriate weaponry for them to be allowed to use.

It was in fact because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had re-examined this issue that it became one which was referred to the committee for discussion, as I already stated. The committee itself then referred it to a subcommittee, which had not reported back during my term of office, and I was not myself aware of the fact that this was being considered. I knew what the regulations stated and assumed that these regulations were not being questioned.

Mr. Brandt: The use of the hollow-point bullet in this province is illegal. It is very clearly pointed out in the regulations that this type of ammunition should not be used; the minister has stated that in the House.

Some two years ago, the former Solicitor General indicated that he was aware of the use of the hollow-point bullet in Ontario. Will the minister confirm in this House today that she has evidence at her disposal at the moment -- information, not speculation -- that this particular bullet has been used by some police forces over the course of the past two years since the revelations were provided by the former Solicitor General?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: No, I have no such information.

Mr. Brandt: If the minister has no information with respect to the use of these bullets, she did in fact indicate that she issued a directive to all police forces to cease and desist any use of these bullets.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: No, no, no.

Mr. Brandt: Well, the minister can clarify that. My understanding was that the minister issued a directive on this particular question indicating that the bullets were not to be used.

Could the minister confirm again that, as a result of two years of study, as a result of this question having been confirmed in the words of the former Solicitor General that he was aware this bullet was being used in some circumstances, she has no knowledge whatever -- if that is what she is telling the House, then we have to take her at her word -- that this particular ammunition was not being used by any police forces, illegally, in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: If the member looks, he will see clearly that I sent out a directive reminding them that they were illegal and were not to be used. This is reminding them of a fact that is in the police regulations. There is no reason I can think of that I would be particularly rushing back a report which is recommending their use. I had not received such a report, and until I get such a report, I do not have to consider it. I was quite satisfied with the regulations as they existed, and that was the law.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: If the minister knew what was going on in her ministry, and I am sure that as the days unfold we will find out more about this question –

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

HOME CARE

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who is just going for a walk in another direction, and it is with respect to the ongoing matter of concern we have on this side of the House with respect to the funding for the Red Cross.

Yesterday, and I want to quote him accurately, the minister responded to a question by saying: “I can tell him that homemaker services will continue to be offered. What I cannot tell him is who will be offering them.” The minister went on to say that other homemaking services were available to take over from the Red Cross.

Since a very large part of the activity of Red Cross homemaker services is in rural areas, and since in those rural areas there are very few alternative services, would the minister indicate to the House today who he thinks is going to provide the service that is now being provided by the Red Cross in Ontario?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister is waiting to respond.

1400

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would appreciate the opportunity to clearly say that we are not looking forward to the demise of the Red Cross. I believe in my answer yesterday I clearly indicated that the negotiations were ongoing and that the review within the government itself was ongoing to try to help the Red Cross resolve its particular deficit. Let me make that very clear. No decision has been made.

The second point that I made yesterday, and I would repeat today, was that our responsibility as a ministry is to see to it that the service itself is available. We cannot guarantee in any community who is going to deliver that service, and it may or may not be the Red Cross. The honourable member will be aware of the fact that across Ontario in many communities there are other agencies delivering that service. In some communities it is the Red Cross and others. In some other communities it is other agencies and not the Red Cross at all. There are other agencies across the province which are delivering that service and could be called upon to go into various areas and to pick up that service if -- and let me underline that big “if” -- the Red Cross is not able to manage its deficit.

Mr. Brandt: Let’s look at some of the facts with respect to the Red Cross. Ninety per cent of all of the demand for homemaker services that are given by the Red Cross are generated by the government. The government is the one that provides it with the people, the client group, if you will, which need to be serviced. There are now 180,000 seniors who receive a homemaker service from the Red Cross.

My understanding is that the minister is not prepared to provide funding for the $1.1-million shortfall in the Red Cross’s operating administrative deficit because he is concerned that it does not know what its deficit is going to be next year, and this may be an ongoing problem. I would suggest to the minister, in fairness to the Red Cross, that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the minister himself do not know what his operating deficit is going to be next year either. Why will he not do the right thing for 180,000 seniors in this province and indicate clearly to the Red Cross that he is prepared to provide $1.1 million in funding?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It was not so much the fact that we did not know what its deficit was going to be. As a matter of fact, in response to a question from the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), I said that the Red Cross had already indicated to us directly that while its deficit for the current fiscal year would be in the $1-million range, it was projecting a deficit in excess of $3 million for next fiscal year, and even it could not tell us what it would be for the subsequent year. It was in that context that I said it was difficult for us to make a decision to resolve this year’s $1-million deficit, because obviously that does not solve the problem, just its deficit alone, which is for the administrative operation of the service.

The other side of the coin is that the big problem which has been brought to our attention for the last five or six months is the direct wages being paid to the homemakers themselves. As the honourable member is aware, they are in the range of $5 or $6 an hour. Because of that, all of the agencies delivering this service are telling us that there is such a turnover of direct-service workers that they have a big problem: they do not know whether they are going to be able to continue. Just solving the deficit problem for this year does not solve the problem at all. It just puts it off in terms of what the subsequent deficit is going to be and how we are going to deal with the question of the direct wages of the workers themselves.

Mr. Brandt: Not providing the Red Cross with $1.1 million jeopardizes the service to 180,000 seniors. I am sure the minister will agree with that statement.

Let me then ask the minister very clearly: If he is saying that he cannot provide the $1.1 million because there may be an ongoing and perhaps escalating operating deficit to the Red Cross, will the minister state very clearly that in his opinion, if this is what he is saying, the per client cost of providing homemaker services by the Red Cross is too high? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are two different kinds of costs that we as a ministry have to be aware of. The first one is the hourly rate that we pay to the agency to run its own administration, to pay the hourly rate to the workers themselves. The second one is the hourly rate to the worker. There are some agencies that require a higher rate to the agency itself; even though they are not paying the worker any more, their administration costs are higher. That answers the question in a kind of backhanded way.

Mr. Brandt: What about the Red Cross?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The Red Cross is one of the higher-cost agencies, yes.

Mr. Brandt: Because it operates in rural areas.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: That is only part of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CANRON INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. The minister will be aware of the request by the mayor of Hamilton and the regional chairman, who have forwarded to him a resolution concerning the problems that may affect the Canron plant with 185 employees in Hamilton due to changes in the Hydro regulations. I am wondering if he can tell us if he has arranged a meeting with the Hamilton authorities yet, as per their request, and if he can give us the date of that meeting.

Hon. Mr. Wong: I am aware of the Canron situation, which has been brought to my attention. Ontario Hydro, in introducing time-of-use rates for industrial use across the province of Ontario, made this option available to each of the local electrical utilities. Hamilton Hydro opted in favour of this. Perhaps Hamilton Hydro and/or the mayor have been in touch with my office -- I believe they have been -- but I am not aware of a specific meeting having been set up at this point.

Mr. Mackenzie: I understand from the correspondence I have that they have requested a meeting with the minister in his office. I think the concern is the 185 employees in that plant, which is in the ingot mould division. It is a cut-throat business at best, and it is very likely that this plant will go under and go under very quickly if there is not some agreement reached. I think all of the options at least have to be explored, and I would request that the minister give some urgency to a meeting with the Hamilton officials over this plant.

Hon. Mr. Wong: I will undertake to look into this matter to see if we can find a resolution to it. I might re-emphasize that Hamilton Hydro is primarily the entity that has the responsibility for setting the rates to Canron, and I appreciate that over the years Canron has had a preferred rate treatment given to it by Hamilton Hydro, and this complicates the matter. But I do appreciate what the honourable member has said in so far as it affects 185 employees; I will undertake to look into this.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition may wish to ask his second question to the Premier.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: Of all the commitments made by the government in the last election, the promise the Premier made that the compromise which had been worked out in this House on Sunday shopping prior to the 1987 election, the promise that he made to the people in August that that compromise would be maintained and would be supported by him, was an important commitment to a great many groups across this province, as the Premier well knows.

He broke that promise. He decided to bring in very different legislation from the legislation contemplated by him, according to what he told the public in the course of an election campaign. He now has opposition from virtually many, many religious groups across the province, 99 per cent of the municipalities that are members of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the small and many large businesses across the province.

I would like to ask the Premier: Rather than force through this legislation by using closure, as he said outside the House yesterday, why not convene a meeting of the coalition that is opposed to his bill, as well as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and for the first time actually sit down with them and discuss what kind of workable compromise could be reached which would make the use of closure in this House unnecessary?

1410

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is quite obvious to me that my honourable friend would like this government to use closure.

Mr. Laughren: Is that what you said?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If not him, certainly the leader of the third party is virtually inviting that.

I respect my honourable friend’s point of view on this matter, but he has consciously undertaken to take endless time discussing this matter, 55 or 60 days in committee, wasting time. He may feel that is appropriate in the circumstances.

I respect the fact that he disagrees with this. He disagrees with many things. As a matter of fact, he disagrees with everything the government does, except the good things, and he wants to take credit for them. I understand that, but I think there has been endless discussion with virtually all groups concerned. They have met privately. They have met publicly. They have met before the committee. All the views are known on this matter.

We came to the conclusion that the act was unenforceable, that the bill that has been put forward in this House is a sensible one. It works in other provinces extremely well. There is no obligation on any community to open, should it not desire to do so. If the people of Sault Ste. Marie want to stay open, why should they be prevented from so doing?

Mr. Brandt: They can do that under present legislation.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Some of my honourable friend’s own members have indicated a high comfort level with the idea of letting Pembroke do something different from Kingston. Why would we not, in a land mass this size?

We think it is a sensible and sensitive solution that makes common sense. I know that common sense does not always fly in this House with the opposition, but I invite them again to think about it and, just perhaps, they will come to the conclusion that this bill makes sense.

Mr. B. Rae: First of all, I want to say to the Premier that, as Leader of the Opposition, I do not approve or condone the use of closure by this government to get its legislation through. I want him to know that.

The second thing I want to say, by way of question, is simply the short answer to my suggestion, a very practical and constructive suggestion; that is, if he was interested in resolving what I think any objective observer would see as an impasse between his approach and the approach that is favoured by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and by all the members of the coalition that I have referred to -- and I am not referring to members or affiliates of the New Democratic Party, though of course the trade unions involved are opposed -- that he recognize that, sure, he has a big majority and, sure, he can abuse that majority any way he chooses, but sometimes it makes sense to listen to the people on the other side, particularly when he himself changed his mind and broke his promise, the very specific promise he made to the people of the province back in 1987.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend refers to the majority on this side and, indeed, that side of the House, and in fact he is right.

One of the things we try very hard to do is to be sensitive to the desires and wishes of the opposition. It is inevitable, in our processes, that there are differences of opinion. As a matter of fact, I get the impression sometimes that the opposition manufactures differences of opinion just to fulfil its role in opposition. At least, I used to do that, so I understand if he wants to do that. Let me say that to my honourable friend.

I think he is quite right that we have to be very sensitive, sitting, as we do, with a majority. But may I say at the same time that a minority party has to be sensitive of its role as well. I find situations here when people sitting in minority parties think that they are responsible for the government, that their wisdom should prevail in all cases. It is important that both of us are sensitive to each other.

After 55 days of debate and endless committee hearings, this government has shown forbearance, understanding and a willingness to cooperate and work with the minority in this House. But I say at the same time, just because of pique or some other reason or disagreement with the government, which is responsible for the legislation of the day, he wants to stand up and drag this thing out for ever -- I think, frankly, he is pushing this to the limits of his responsibility.

Mr. B. Rae: I was delighted to hear the admission of the leader of the Liberal Party that for years he manufactured differences of opinion with the Tory party, which was then in government. This confirms a theory that I have held about the two parties for many years, and I am glad to hear it out of his own mouth.

The difference of opinion that we have is not the difference of opinion between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the third party. That is not the issue here.

I am suggesting not that he meet with me or with the leader of the third party to resolve this difference -- I gave up on that idea a long time ago; what I am suggesting is that he meet with those groups who represent citizens of this province who are not Liberals necessarily, who are not New Democrats necessarily, who are not Conservatives necessarily, but who are, in very substantial numbers, people who have a profound disagreement with the fact the Premier broke his promise in 1987, that he said something in order to get people’s votes in 1987 and then said “Let’s do the exact opposite” after the election.

All I am asking him to do is to sit down and meet with them before he makes the decision to ram through this legislation by means of the closure mechanism which he himself has referred to outside this place. He can just meet with them.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have observed to my friend opposite that the last socialist leader who had comments with respect to the two-party system in this country lived to regret it. I just want to remind him of that little piece of recent history.

Let me say that my friend uses inflated rhetoric about “ramming through.” Surely there has been no government that has been more patient in discussing this issue, as with many other issues. We have great respect for the rights and responsibilities of the opposition, having laboured there so long ourselves.

He has had an opportunity to put his views there, in this House. I recognize there are many people who disagree with this legislation. I also recognize that there are many people who do agree with it. Why does he not meet with the people who agree with it?

Mr. Philip: Name them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are numerous people who think it is a very sensible approach to the matter and I say to my friend that I think he has chosen to dig in his heels on an issue that is not appropriate. It works very well in other provinces and when people come to realize this they will be extremely comfortable with it.

He can look at what is happening in British Columbia and in Alberta. Even Saskatchewan is following along in this regard. It recognizes the diversity of the provinces and the differences, and I think it is a sensible and sensitive way to proceed in this matter.

So I say to my friend, there is no ramming through. We know the views of the people who disagree with us, just as people disagree with almost everything we do. We understand that as well. But we have a responsibility to be as sensitive as we can, to govern, and he has a responsibility in this Legislature to not endlessly obstruct. As far as I am concerned, the opposition members are the ones who are obstructing; it is not us ramming anything through.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Premier. It has been noted in the press recently that he intends to establish a provincial garbage authority. We have not been informed in this House as to what action is being taken, or is going to be taken, by his deputy minister, Mr. Church, and the office of the greater Toronto area, on this matter.

What is the status of this new provincial body? What is the role of Mr. Church? When can we expect a formal announcement on how the Premier plans to deal with this garbage crisis in Metro Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Approximately six months to a year ago, we established a new deputy minister, Mr. Church, responsible for what we refer to internally as the GTA, the greater Toronto area. This was in response to a number of problems with which I am sure my honourable friend would be familiar, in respect to waste disposal transportation, and a variety of other issues that cut across the traditional regional and municipal boundaries.

I am sure my honourable friend will agree with me that in many ways, they are artificial constructs. The best results in the future will be achieved by co-operation, particularly in this extremely high-growth area around Toronto.

Mr. Church’s responsibilities are to bring together new forms of co-operation in dealing with the regions, the municipalities and the provincial government, with respect to a wide number of issues. I can tell the honourable member that he has met extensively with the regions, municipalities in a variety of areas and we are bringing together new dialogues on issues of transportation, housing, waste disposal and other things.

I am not in the position -- there are discussions going on -- no question about it -- with respect to taking a more co-ordinated approach to waste disposal; historically that is something that is the region’s responsibility. Those discussions are ongoing. But as I am sure my honourable friend would agree, it is important that a high degree of consultation go on -- we are not trying to catch any of the regions by surprise -- and that they work with them in a co-operative way. I am not in a position to give my friend a specific announcement about the nature or structure of a waste disposal facility or corporation, but discussions are going on along those lines. When we have something specific I will share it with my honourable friend.

1420

Mr. Cousens: The Premier is undoubtedly aware of the scathing articles that recently appeared on Toronto in the United States. The fact is that it is long overdue for action to be taken by his government in dealing with the crisis that we now have with waste disposal -- as well as a number of other problems, for that matter -- in the Metro Toronto area.

Which regional municipalities is he dealing with and negotiating with in trying to resolve this crisis that we have with garbage? What is the mandate for this new authority, or is it just another one of his all-talk-and-no-action proposals? I would like to know specifically what it is he hopes to achieve out of all these talks and conversations that he and Mr. Church might be having.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is not a question of my conversations with Mr. Church. It is a question of Mr. Church’s conversations with a number of the regions, and trying to be as helpful as we possibly can in the short term as well as in the long term in developing approaches to solving the waste disposal problems. As the member knows, in the greater Toronto area some regions are under far more pressure in the short term than are others. So the immediacy of the problem is more serious in some eases than in others. Obviously, that is a question of landfill; it is a question of recycling.

I can tell the member that the minister has been very aggressive in that area and I can say with some pride that we have one of the leading programs in North America with respect to reducing the quantity of landfill. We are taking a multiplicity of approaches. My honourable friend asked me for the terms of reference, specifically of the corporation. There has not, at this point, been a corporation formed. That may or may not come out of it, but it is going to be done on a co-operative basis with the regions. It is their legal responsibility, as my honourable friend knows, but we are here to play a co-ordinating, facilitating and helpful role with those regions that want to work with us.

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Mr. Offer: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. There is a wetlands complex referred to as the Creditview bog in my riding. I have posed a question to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on another occasion dealing with this issue. However, this wetland is on property which is the subject of preliminary subdivision agreement approval. There has been concern raised about safeguarding the bog because of its ecological value. I ask the question of the Minister of the Environment because I understand that he has received communication from the parties concerned. Could the minister share with me his understanding of this situation surrounding the Creditview bog?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am aware of the situation regarding the Creditview bog and some of the conflicting points of view that are associated with it. I have received a number of letters which have been expressing concern over the potential development of this bog and requesting its preservation. I understand that there is a petition which has been signed by some 10,000 individuals who have in fact supported the preservation of that particular bog. I understand, as well, that there is a question over the specific classification of this wetland under the Ministry of Natural Resources wetlands evaluation system.

I have also received -- I can tell the member -- requests for designation of the Creditview bog under the Environmental Assessment Act. Those are the circumstances which surround this and the kinds of communication which I have received, which have been in fact in writing and, in addition to that, the information that the member has provided to me and some considerable coverage which has been allocated to this particular situation through the news media.

Mr. Offer: Based on the request for accreditation under the Environmental Assessment Act, could the minister please inform me as to the processes which are used and involved with respect to this very important process?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I certainly can, and I would think a number of members of the House would be interested in this particular process. The request for designation is in fact under review by the environmental assessment branch of the Ministry of the Environment at the present. As members may be aware, the environmental assessment branch gathers all available information on the case and contacts some of the parties which have expressed an interest.

They have been in contact with the Ministry of Natural Resources, for instance, which is responsible for the wetlands of Ontario. Based on this review of all the various people with whom we make contact, the branch makes a recommendation to me. If a project is designated under the Environmental Assessment Act and the proponent develops an environmental assessment document which is reviewed by the government agencies and, of course, by the public at large, based on the environmental assessment document and the government review, a member of the public can request a hearing and then, of course, the hearing officers determine whether the proposal is rejected or accepted.

Mr. Speaker: Just so the question period does not get bogged down, new question, the member for Cambridge.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Premier. The consumers of Ontario -- the driving public -- are being ripped off because the Premier is pandering to his big-business friends. With the recommendation of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board of a 12.5 per cent profit on investment, auto insurers will have a guaranteed profit margin far in excess of the rate of inflation. Instead of protecting consumers, the Premier has in fact set up a mechanism whereby this government has become a willing ally and partner in the maximization of guaranteed profits.

Will the Premier admit that his government’s intervention in the insurance field is one that favours the insurance industry at the expense of the driving public, the consumers?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the minister will handle that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Financial Institutions.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. This question about the issue of the return on equity has been asked several times. Of course, it is unfortunate that he continues to misunderstand and in fact tries to communicate to the public of Ontario that misunderstanding. It is not that way at all.

The idea of looking at a return-on-investment figure at all was merely to provide the basis on which some projections for a rate-setting structure could be brought before the board for hearing. There was no guarantee provided by the decision of that part of the hearing process. The honourable member knows that, in fact his critic knows that, and in fact his leader knows that, because it is very clearly indicated that there was no guarantee provided by the decision that was presented late last year.

The public of this province for the first time ever, and maybe it will be the first time in most of the jurisdictions in North America, has a chance to fully explore the manner in which rates are established for auto insurance premiums.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It seems to me that auto insurance premiums being well understood, the components of which they are established and the makeup of the expenses –

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Farnan: It is a matter of record that the insurance industry made significant financial contributions to the Liberal Party during the 1987 provincial election campaign. Most members of this House will be familiar with this piece of literature produced by the Ontario private automobile insurance industry and mailed to every home in every riding in which a New Democrat was perceived to have a chance of victory.

Will the minister admit that the proposed gouging of the drivers of Ontario is simply a sacrificial offering at the insurance altar of retribution and that in making this offering, the Liberals are merely repaying their debt to their big-business friends who financed their election victory?

1430

Hon. Mr. Elston: That bit of rhetoric, I am afraid, really takes the cake. That is nonsense.

I can tell the honourable member and the people of the province that for the first time ever, there is a forum in which the consumers can receive the information that is the background on which the premiums for auto insurance in Ontario are established. There is a very full and open hearing. There is an examination of the material that is brought, not only by the people who are making reports to the board but also by those companies that say they need specific increases.

The gentleman from Cambridge indicates there is a guaranteed profit. Nothing could be further from the truth. This board is examining exactly what goes into setting up rates for auto insurance within the province. The people who work in all of those companies must do a series of marketing techniques. They have to do the administrative work, all the stuff that a competitive marketplace drives them to do so that they can establish some kind of return on their equity.

There is no guarantee that has been written into this for anybody. They have to work at it. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the public is well served by an open process that will allow them to be armed when they go to the --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

POLICE PURSUIT

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Solicitor General. On May 20, 1987, 17-year-old Tracey Cook died in the arms of her mother as a result of a crash following a high-speed police chase in Midland. Tracey Cook was a passenger in the car driven by her mother when it was hit from behind at the intersection of a four-lane highway and a street in Midland. This vehicle was struck by another vehicle fleeing from a Midland police cruiser after Mrs. Cook was forced to stop at the intersection by a second police car that was blocking her way.

Since the death of Tracey Cook occurred during a high-speed police chase, will the Solicitor General call for an immediate inquest into this troubled matter?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: This matter was drawn to my attention and I am making some inquiries, but as my understanding of it goes, the legal case is complicated at this point and an inquest cannot be called without stopping the investigation. I do not wish to be categorical on this at this point in time.

Mr. McLean: It is customary to expect at least an ounce of compassion in a tragic situation such as this, where a completely innocent family has been most unfortunately victimized. The Cook family has been waiting patiently for nearly two years and is still waiting for answers and for justice concerning the death of their daughter. The entire issue of high-speed chases will not go away, and it is simply not fair to fight this issue on the backs of innocent families.

I ask the Solicitor General, why will she not have a complete inquiry into this matter? The family has asked for help in this case. The two ministries, apparently, according to the Cook family, are ignoring them. Why will she not take some action?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As I have said, I will try to expedite the inquiry into this matter, but as long as it is being inquired into with any possibility of charges of any sort, then it would not be appropriate to hold an inquest.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I have received several phone calls and comments about trucks speeding on Highway 401. Personal observation would indicate that there are a few trucks that speed.

Scott Talbott of Laidlaw Transport of Woodstock says Laidlaw trucks run at 90 kilometres an hour. By dropping back from 100 to 90 kilometres, they save approximately $6,000 on fuel for each truck, which runs approximately 150,000 kilometres a year. Together with their lights-on policy, they have cut their accident rate by 17 per cent and saved $1.5 million a year on insurance. They have a fleet of 800 trucks. Should there be a different speed for trucks compared to other motor vehicles?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciate the question of the member for Oxford and his long-standing interest in public safety, and in highway safety in particular.

Way back in this province, and I think in other jurisdictions, certainly in jurisdictions in Canada, there was a variable within speed limits, but most recent studies on highways in North America indicate that a variance between types of vehicles increases the rate and often the severity of the accidents. We are not contemplating any kind of variance between one vehicle type and another in Ontario.

Mr. Tatham: Tach cards are used by many trucking companies for record purposes. There is some suggestion that tach cards would be of assistance to a trucker in case of legal matters. My question is, should transport trucks be equipped with tach cards?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think the equipment the member is referring to is analogous to the black box common to aircraft. The instruments are technically able to monitor the movements of the vehicle itself and in many eases the actions of the driver on the road. My understanding is that about 30 per cent of the trucking industry currently uses this, if I can call it, black box. We are very supportive, in the interests of public safety and highway safety, in seeing greater use of that kind of technology.

WATER BOMBERS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Could the minister explain why and how many of the CL-215 water bombers, which are worth about $7.5 million each according to Lou Lingenfelter, director of the aviation and fire management centre, are parked outside the hangar in Sault Ste. Marie in the winter weather and cold because the hangar is too small to accommodate the aircraft he has purchased?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: There is a very good reason for that. We felt it was imperative in Ontario that we buy enough water bombers to fight the fires rather than --

Mr. Wildman: But not to protect them against the winter.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Would the member just stop for a minute while I explain.

We thought it was imperative that we purchase water bombers to fight fires before we built hangars to house them, and that is the reason they are outside.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister not aware that because they cannot be accommodated in the hangar in Sault Ste. Marie, they also cannot be serviced there? If they cannot be serviced, they may not be available for use to fight fires if the fire season were to start earlier next spring than might originally have been expected.

Why is the minister having to use privately owned, inadequate hangars for the servicing of these aircraft, with all the risks that entails for fire protection? Why did the government not approve the approximately $4-million allocation of funds required in 1986 to build an adequate hangar facility in Sault Ste. Marie to accommodate these aircraft?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course, the honourable member brings to the attention of the House the fact that we do not have enough hangar space for nine CL-215 water bombers, the reason being as I described initially, that we saw putting the money in the bombers as the first and highest priority. That is not to say we do not have plans for the future not only to consider building more hangar space ourselves, but also at this time we are looking for options where there may be other people who will provide us with hangar facilities more cheaply than we can build new hangars. We have not been without our people out there examining every alternative.

I will make this comment to the member: When the fire season commences, and it does happen every year regardless, we will have all of our CL-215s in the air, fighting the fires and getting the reputation throughout the rest of Canada and everywhere else that we have the best firefighting forces in the world.

1440

INNOVATION CENTRE

Mr. Sterling: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology regarding the closing of the innovation centre at the University of Ottawa, in that this centre has received thousands of inquiries a year and has helped hundreds of inventors by providing advice support, and therefore must be considered one of the most successful programs of the ministry. What information, research, statistics, logic has the minister used as a basis for closing down this centre in Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure members will know that there were 22 innovation centres, made up of nine at universities and 13 at community colleges. Built into the legislation that provided for them was a sunset review. That sunset review has taken place. We have had consultants’ reports that evaluated them. It was decided the money could be spent with greater effect through other programs that are in place. As a result, the decision was made to inform the various innovation centres that after their term was up, which is now going to be the end of the month, they were going to be wound down.

Mr. Sterling: The minister says he bases his closure on the report of Jim McPherson, who I believe was the consultant. We would like to have an opportunity to look at that report. We have had to apply for it under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It cost the taxpayer, I understand, something like $50,000. It is our understanding that in that report, the University of Ottawa innovation centre was deemed to be very successful.

Many of the innovation centres had different mandates. Some dealt with the universities alone, some dealt with universities and the community, and some dealt with the community alone. In fact, the University of Ottawa innovation centre dealt with the community alone.

In view of the fact the ministry has diddled away money to Wyda Systems, Abe Schwartz and other kinds of groups in the millions of dollars, why has the minister closed a successful innovation centre spending $100,000 a year that is helping many small businessmen? The minister has closed the Ontario Centre for Microelectronics in Ottawa. He has closed --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has completed his speech.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member has been quick to catalogue the things we have closed and has neglected to catalogue any of the things we have opened under the Premier’s Council; under the technology fund. When you consider that under the innovation centres we were providing $100,000 in matching funds, with the institution providing the other $100,000, they do have opportunities to continue these programs if they are successful.

In the meantime, we have programs in place that are very effective. It was a decision made after careful consideration and I can tell members that it was not done on a whim. It was done after due consideration, after evaluating all the programs that were in place. It was decided we could get a better return on our investment through other programs that are in place.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The blue box recycling program has come to most parts of Metropolitan Toronto and I must commend the minister on his consistent efforts to assist municipalities in establishing their recycling programs. Indeed, as a former member of Scarborough and Metropolitan Toronto councils, I was often frustrated in attempts to get these councils to move expeditiously in this matter.

While blue box recycling is an important step forward in conserving resources and reducing the amount of garbage that goes to landfills, it is obviously not the complete answer to our disposal problem. Could the minister outline further initiatives his ministry will be taking to move beyond the present blue box program?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, I do not think we should diminish the importance of the blue box program itself. I am very pleased that at this point in time I believe we have 1.2 million households in Ontario that are on the blue box program. That is an effort other jurisdictions would like to duplicate. I point out as well that in the previous year, 1988, some 750,000 blue boxes were distributed in Ontario. I think that compares to zero in the specific year of 1984, which has some significance to the leader of the third party.

The member is quite correct in assuming that while the blue box program is exceedingly important, we have to go far beyond that. In that connection, I have had meetings, as have officials of my ministry, with representatives of key industrial organizations such as the Society for Plastics Engineers, the Packaging Association of Canada, the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada and the newspaper association. All that is designed to bring other aspects of recycling on stream, such as going into apartment buildings, which I think is very significant, and composting, which individual farmers have done for a number of years.

[Applause]

Mr. Faubert: I note the applause from both sides of the House for the minister’s response.

Now that we are into the winter season and the time for raking leaves is long past, I still recall the familiar picture of large numbers of boxes and bags of leaves put out for collection. Surely leaves constitute large bulk in the refuse stream at that time of the year. Are there any programs presently being developed to deal with this kind of refuse?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Again, that represents one of the areas where we can say there has been a downfall in many years gone by and in many jurisdictions. There is absolutely no excuse for not composting leaves in Ontario. Recognizing this, we are developing these composting guidelines so they can be effectively implemented in Ontario.

We are supporting composting initiatives in the city of Guelph, for instance, which is very progressive in this area, and of course in Metropolitan Toronto. These will be expanded throughout Ontario. I can inform members of the House -- they may be surprised by this -- that North York, Etobicoke, Cambridge and Guelph are some of the municipalities in Ontario which have developed recycling programs in the form of composting of leaves. It is not only an opportunity to divert them from the landfill sites themselves; it is also an opportunity to have them decompose and provide the kind of fertilizer that is required for gardens, lawns and all kinds of recreational initiatives in this province.

USE OF HOLLOW-POINT BULLETS

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have been troubled by the fact that it would appear at first blush that we are not able to ask questions directly of the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) with respect to the statement he made in the Toronto Star on December 28, 1988. If you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say this: There are two possibilities and I want to put both of them to the government.

The first possibility would be that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) would exercise his discretion, and the House would comply, in allowing the member for Kingston and The Islands to explain what information he had when he was Solicitor General with respect to the use of illegal bullets and to explain how it is that he came to make the statement he did on December 28.

I might refer you, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 29(h), which states, “Parliamentary assistants may answer for their ministers only when authorized by the Premier.” The member for Kingston and The Islands is a parliamentary assistant. He is admittedly the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and not to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith).

1450

The first request I would make of the Premier is whether he is prepared to authorize by means of exercising his discretion the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and The Islands, to make a statement to this House upon which he can be questioned in this House with respect to his responsibilities. If the Premier is not prepared to do that, then I have a motion which I would like to put with respect to the referral of this matter to the standing committee on administration of justice.

Mr. Harris: Briefly, as unanimous consent is not required for what has been brought forward by the leader of the official opposition -- at least I do not think unanimous consent is required, particularly for option two -- let me indicate on behalf of our party that we support both proposals put forward by the leader of the official opposition.

I suggest that the matter might be cleared up a little sooner and a little more quickly and expeditiously -- and that would certainly be the wish of our party, and I think it ought to be the wish of the Premier -- if he would allow the former Solicitor General to answer for his knowledge in this matter. Certainly there is a lot of confusion among members of this House and among the public, and it might put that matter to rest much sooner.

I just wanted to indicate on behalf of our party that we would support either one of the two options the Premier might choose to follow.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It seems to me that there are time-honoured traditions in this House that there is one minister and the one minister speaks on matters of responsibility. How far back does this go? Do we bring back former ministers of the crown? The answer is a very clear no. In my view, it would be a very serious violation of the traditions of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the three members who have spoken. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) did refer to a standing order. Of course, I do not believe the request made would by any means come under that particular standing order; therefore, I do not consider it a regular point of order.

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Should I ask for unanimous consent then that the member be allowed to make a statement with regard to what he said on December 28?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No.

Mr. B. Rae: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker: I did refer you to the fact that if I was not successful in convincing the Premier of the simple justice of the original request, I would make a motion. If I may, I want to make a motion that the matter of statements made by the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and The Islands, in the Toronto Star on December 28, 1988, be referred to the standing committee on administration on justice.

Mr. Speaker: I listened carefully. I understand that in the first point of order the Leader of the Opposition made he did state that he would be trying to place a motion before the House. I did rule that the point of order was not a point of order. The only way that a motion could be placed now would be by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No, there is not unanimous consent.

PETITION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council signed by 60 employees of Zimmer of Canada Ltd. in Mississauga. It reads in part as follows:

“We, the undersigned Ontario residents and taxpayers, wish to add our voices to the many other Ontarians who are concerned about the potential 35 to 40 per cent increases in auto insurance premiums. A 40 per cent increase is not anything like the ‘cap on insurance premiums’ that you promised in the last election campaign!”

MOTION

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that in the standing committee on social development, the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be considered following the estimates of the Ministry of Skills Development.

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, during the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet, I indicated that several ministries were denying information to the Ombudsman on the advice of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and that the rationale used was that the investigations were in violation of the freedom-of-information legislation. What I meant to say was that the ministries were using instead their privilege under orders-in-council rules, and I simply want to correct my own record.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Offer, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, moved second reading of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Mr. Offer: I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 124, the Children’s Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988.

The amendments to the Children’s Law Reform Act proposed by this bill are designed to assist both custodial and noncustodial parents to enforce access rights and obligations. The bill seeks to achieve a number of what I may say are worthy goals: first, to minimize the use of children as pawns in disputes between their parents; second, to provide a speedy and inexpensive means by which access difficulties can be determined by the court, including guidelines for the determination of a wrongful denial of access; third, to emphasize that the best interests of children are met through ongoing opportunities to learn from both parents, as is each child’s right, and last, to provide the court with enforcement tools other than jail sentences and fines when enforcing access orders. These alternatives include compensatory or makeup access, reimbursement for expenses incurred as a result of the wrongful denial of access or the wrongful failure to exercise it, supervision and, if both parties agree, mediation.

The bill also seeks to avoid the unfortunate circumstance which has arisen in three provinces, Alberta, New Brunswick and Manitoba, where wrongful denial of access has led to the courts ordering the suspension of child support until the access order is complied with.

The bill also addresses specifically this government’s concern about the domestic violence in families in Ontario. The bill proposes a means by which domestic violence would be drawn to the attention of the court on each and every application or motion concerning custody of or access to children. These remedies will only be available when the court concludes that such an order is in the child’s best interest.

1500

We have a bill that recognizes and supports the rights of children. This bill was approved by the Federal-Provincial Committee on Family Law Policy at the Uniform Law Conference of Canada in August 1988. That committee is chaired by the federal Department of Justice and made up of representatives of directors of the family law department of different ministries of the Attorney General in all provinces and territories.

In addition, this bill has been followed in its entirety in Newfoundland as well as in parts in the province of Manitoba; in Alberta this bill has also been considered in many of its most important aspects. The bill is in itself under serious consideration indeed in the country of Australia.

To reiterate, this is a bill that recognizes and supports the rights of the child, and I welcome the comments of all members of this House.

Mr. Hampton: I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on this bill because there are a number of comments both general and specific that I would like to make on the bill, both on behalf of my party and on behalf of a number of interest groups, a number of concerned citizens who have spoken to me about the bill and have spoken to other members of our party and expressed their deep concerns about the legislation.

I think it is important to place all of this in context, so let me first go into a little of the history of this bill because I think the history is quite important.

The original bill introduced by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) -- and I gather it was some two years ago -- was entitled Bill 60 at the time. That bill provoked such opposition from so many groups that the government wisely saw fit to amend some of, or should I say most of, the bill because so many sections of the bill were found to be offensive.

I think it is only fair to delineate some of the groups that spoke out against the bill. For example, a submission was received by the Attorney General from the Canadian Bar Association’s family law section of Ontario. It was a submission which -- I think it is fair to say -- condemned what the government was proposing to do with that bill.

As well, numerous responses were made and numerous submissions were received by the Attorney General and by the opposition parties from women’s groups: organizations and groups that represent battered women, that represent women who have been through serious custody and access fights. They all said to the government that the previous bill was offensive for a number of reasons and should be withdrawn.

The government in its wisdom -- I will give it credit for some wisdom here -- did not reintroduce the same bill. Bill 124 contains some significant amendments compared to the previous Bill 60.

However, as is our job, we spent a considerable amount of time conferring with a number of those organizations: the family law section of the Canadian Bar Association, a number of women’s groups, father’s groups, parents generally who are concerned about questions of custody, concerned about the specific question of access, concerned about solving problems of access and concerned about enforcing appropriate access orders and access agreements.

What we found, after conferring with many of these organizations, is that they do not find it adequate, even though the government has amended or changed significantly the former Bill 60 in its present form of Bill 124 and even though the government did listen somewhat. Most of the organizations that we spoke to still find this bill offensive in some respects, find it inadequate in some other respects and find that it really misses the mark. In fact, we had a number of organizations say to us that this bill will likely do more harm than good.

Let’s be clear. I think everyone out there agrees -- everyone who is concerned about this question, people who want to see the best welfare for their children, whether they be divorced or separated, whether they be grandparents or parents or whether they be aunts or uncles -- that there is a problem. I do not think there is any disagreement about that. Everyone agrees that there is a problem.

But there is fundamental disagreement and where I think the government has it wrong is that the organizations out there that we spoke to said it will be very difficult to find a solution to this problem by simply sending people back to court. What is involved here is a question that courts are not equipped to handle, are not organized to handle and really do not have the capability or the skills to deal with.

Really, in the majority of the access dispute cases, what you have had is a situation where the parents, the former spouses, have already been through, at the very least, the battle that surrounds a separation agreement, arguing back and forth as to who is going to get custody, arguing back and forth how much support there is going to be and arguing back and forth over property settlement. You are already dealing with a situation where people are in conflict.

In many cases, the conflict is more serious than just having gone through a separation agreement. In many cases it has also been a battle in the court. They have been back and forth on the witness stand. There have been applications and motions back and forth in court. In still many unfortunate cases -- I say unfortunate because it truly is unfortunate -- in the background of all of this, there may have been a situation of spousal abuse, child abuse or some kind of family violence. In many cases where you have these types of access disputes, the factual background is not one which would easily lead to either trust and a co-operative or, shall we say, a compromising attitude or approach to solving these kinds of disputes.

The ground is already rough. Yet what does the government propose in the way of solving this or in the way of leading to a better solution? It proposes sending the couples who are already in dispute back into court so they can dispute some more. We think this approach is fundamentally wrong. We have said this previously. We have said it in question period and we have said it in other written statements to the minister and to the minister’s assistants.

1510

We have said to the government that if it is really serious about dealing with access disputes, if it wants to help the situation, if it wants to provide a mechanism which will allow parents who are no longer spouses or who are separated, if it wants to provide a milieu where child access can be exercised in a reasonable manner which does not promote conflict, the way to do that is to fund agencies which already exist.

They are funded so far by the voluntary sector. They are funded by the churches. In some cases they are staffed by volunteers. Fund those types of agencies because that is a way that we can deal with access disputes; disputes which, as I have said, are often already very volatile. That is a way the government can deal with them in a manner which tends to diffuse the conflict, which tends to play down the conflict rather than throw it into court to enhance it and start it all over again.

In my practice as a private solicitor in family law, time and time again when I came away from family court I had to ask myself: Why do we have to go to this institution which in so many ways does not fit the needs of the people who are here? I know, from speaking to other people who practise much more family law than I, that with the current regime that exists in terms of settling family law disputes there is not a lot of happiness out there, there is not a lot of satisfaction. Yet, to turn people back into the courts again and expect that we will somehow do better, that we will handle the situation better, that we will come away with something more positive, again I say we are headed down the wrong track.

There is another factor which plays into all of this. The government says and the Attorney General says in his opening statements -- I think I can quote him in the statements he made back in April 1988, when he introduced the bill -- he thought that the 10-day application period -- in other words, allowing an application to be brought in 10 days, allowing the application to be dealt with in terms of oral evidence -- would provide for quick hearings and quick determinations of the dispute.

I think we are forgetting something here. I think we are forgetting about the mechanism of many of our courts. For example, let’s look at the provincial court where a number of custody and access disputes appear. The Attorney General has admitted in this House in question period that there are serious backlogs in many of the provincial courts of this province. He says they are mainly confined to Metropolitan Toronto and the surroundings of Metropolitan Toronto and parts of Ottawa.

After the Attorney General gave that answer, I looked quickly at the latest census for Ontario and, lo and behold, that involves far more than just a simple majority of Ontarians. If you look at the population centred in and around Metropolitan Toronto and in and around the city of Ottawa, a majority of Ontarians are already having difficulty getting access to the provincial courts.

We are well aware that something can say the most wonderful things on paper, and I suggest that is what the Attorney General is doing. He is saying there shall be 10-day applications, this will all be solved quickly by means of an oral hearing, but the fact of the matter is that if you have a shortage of courthouse facilities, as we have, if you have a shortage of judges, which we have, if you already have backlogs which may in some cases be up to a year in length, which we have, then all that this is is paper.

Even if you accept it on its own terms, even if you were to accept, which we do not, that the government is headed down the right track in this kind of legislation, when you look one step beyond into the shape that our courts are in in terms of backlogs, in terms of shortage of judges, in terms of shortage of facilities, it just does not fit. It ain’t there; it is paper only.

The only conclusion we can draw from this, whether in terms of substance or in terms of the mechanisms of the courts and the procedures and the facilities that are there, is that this legislation is not going to help. It is not going to make things any better, it is not going to provide realistic solutions, it is going to make things worse and there are going to be more angry people out there, more frustrated people. Access is not going to be easier, but it will result, as I say, in more conflict.

And to what end? There are children who, in most cases, deserve to be able to see both parents, who want to be able to see both their parents and who want and need the kind of neutral access mechanisms that can provide that sort of realistic access and can do it while playing down the conflict and the volatile situations which already exist.

To put it very specifically, what we would like to see this government do, what we think this government should do, instead of creating another court mechanism, instead of making more lawyers wealthier because they are going to spend more time in court fighting to no positive end and you are going to waste more court time, you are going to spend more money in the courts and the court process, instead of spending the money there, do something positive and provide some funding for those voluntary agencies that are already out there, many of which are cash-starved.

Provide some money for them so that they -- whether through an enhanced day care facility, which as I understand it sometimes works, or whether through the Access for Parents and Children organization which exists in Etobicoke and is a voluntary, funded agency -- can provide the access mechanism which is really needed. Do it that way. Do not waste more money sending it all back through the courts.

I want to deal with some other parts of the bill. I want to deal with some specific sections which we feel have to be looked at, which we feel are deserving of amendment and which we feel will lead to problems if they are not amended. I put the government on notice now that when this is looked at by committee, we will be proposing amendments to the end that I am speaking of right now.

1520

I would first draw the parliamentary assistant’s attention to subsection 35a(9) of the act. As it stands now, it says, “The motion shall be determined on the basis of oral evidence only, unless the court gives leave to file an affidavit.” That is, if you have an access dispute, one of the parties, or the party who feels that he or she has been denied access, can make a motion to the court asking for a hearing within 10 days. Then subsection 9 says, “The motion shall be determined on the basis of oral evidence only.”

Again, a number of the advocacy groups we have spoken to have said to us quite distinctly that the expectation of an orderly oral hearing, the expectation of an oral hearing where justice is done, cannot be supported.

Keep in mind that what you will have coming into court in these situations are people who are already fighting, very likely people who are already angry with one another, very likely people who do not trust one another. In some situations, one of the spouses has perhaps been violent, either physically or verbally abusive, to the other spouse. Do you expect to have an orderly oral hearing? I doubt it very much.

We feel that if you are going to have any type of orderly court procedure in this kind of instance, the evidence will have to be provided by affidavit. If it is provided by affidavit, we suggest that is at least one mechanism of playing down or diffusing some of the anger, some of the mistrust that is likely already there.

Can you imagine having former spouses or separated spouses who are already in a situation of conflict, a mere 10 days after the latest round of conflict has occurred, going into a court and settling their differences in terms of an oral hearing and expecting that oral hearing to be in some way orderly or controlled? I doubt very much that can happen.

In fact, I would suggest that this is a recipe for disorder in our courts and, as I have said, a lot of wasted time and a lot of increased and heightened conflict which we do not think will result in just solutions and we do not think will result in solutions that have any finality or are in any way conclusive.

There is another aspect to this which I think deserves emphasis in terms of the oral hearings, and it is an aspect that is very sad. The fact is that if there has been a history of physical abuse in the relationship or a history of substantial verbal abuse in the relationship, or both, then I would suggest that it may be very unlikely indeed that the party who has been abused, who has been the victim of abuse, will feel confident enough, will feel in control of the situation enough, to be able to go to such an oral hearing and honestly state to the court what her position is and why that is her position.

The Attorney General is asking an awful lot here of someone who may, very recently, have gone through a situation of serious physical abuse to then come to the court, perhaps only 10 days later, and say to the court, “This is why I did what I did and this is why I denied access and this is why I think perhaps continued denial of access is in order.”

The minister is asking an awful lot, particularly of women who may have lived in a physically abusive relationship to do that. Once again, I doubt very much that the minister is going to see justice come out of that kind of situation.

I want to go on to what some advocacy groups have stated is the most significant flaw in Bill 124, and that is in section I of the bill, which adds subsection 4a to the act and will amend, as I understand it, section 20 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. It says:

“(4a) Where the parents of a child live separate and apart and the child is in the custody of one of them and the other is entitled to access under the terms of a separation agreement or order, each shall, in the best interests of the child, encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other.”

It seems to me that that may be a wish, that may be something we would all like to see. In the ideal world, in the best of all worlds, that is something we would like to see. But how a Legislature and how a court can, first of all, try to state that duty, how we can make that a duty and then how a court can try to enforce it, to me is quite unrealistic.

I know very well that it has been stated in law before and I can only say from my perspective that it is a dumb law. To order someone, regardless of circumstance, that they shall encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other, to me is asking an awful lot of someone.

To me, government, the state really is stepping beyond its bounds to try to make this a legal duty, to try to force separated parents or former spouses to do this kind of thing. I think we are way out of bounds and I think we are going to get ourselves into trouble trying to do this.

How does a court seek to enforce this? What kind of inquiry does it go on? What kind of conflicts are we inviting here?

It shall be the duty of each to encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other. I can think of all kinds of circumstances where I would not want to order someone to do that. I can think of all kinds of circumstances where a court would not want to order someone to do that, where a court would not want to get involved in that kind of thing. I can think of all kinds of circumstances where a custodial parent may be quite justified in not promoting and not encouraging a child to continue a parent relationship with a former spouse.

Again, we are out of line here, where we have situations of serious physical abuse, of serious child abuse and then we are faced with this -- it shall be the duty. I think we are inviting some very difficult situations. I really do not know what this adds in the way of a solution to what are already some very difficult situations. I do not know what it adds in terms of defusing a situation. I think it can only lead to some more difficult altercations, to some more difficult conflicts. So I would urge the government to look very closely at that particular section and consider taking it right out of the act.

1530

To put it bluntly -- and some advocacy groups have put it to us this way -- an abused parent should not be told that he has to encourage and support the child’s continuing relationship with an abusive parent. If an abused parent is forced to foster the child’s relationship with an abusive parent, it may be that all the safeguards included in the later amendments in this act, all the safeguards that occur later on in the act, are of no value.

If we remove this section from the bill, I do not think it would weaken the bill in any way, but I do think it would improve the chances, particularly in the case of women, that violence against women would be more seriously considered by courts in these kinds of situations. That kind of occurrence has to be considered. It cannot be subtracted, it cannot be removed, from the dynamics of the relationships which go on here.

Those are some comments from some of the advocacy groups we have spoken to.

I also want to refer to the submission to the Attorney General by the Canadian Bar Association, family law section. I grant that at least the submission I received -- and I do not think there has been a later updated one -- was aimed at the original Bill 60. However, many of the comments that were made in the Canadian Bar Association submission fit Bill 124 just as they fit Bill 60.

The comment that jumps out at me, the comment that to me is relevant, is, “There is concern that this bill does not satisfy the objective of ensuring that noncustodial parents have contact with their children.” In fact, it says, “A bill may not be required to meet this objective.” In other words, the Canadian Bar Association, in its brief, was saying if the interest is -- and I think that is our interest here. Our interest is in ensuring that noncustodial parents have contact with their children. We are interested in ensuring that the contact is one which is handled in a reasonable manner, that it does not result in all sorts of difficult relationships, in violence, in enhanced conflict, and that it does not result in the child going back and forth from custodial to noncustodial parents in a very unhappy state, in a state of conflict where one parent is saying nasty things about the other. If that is what we want to avoid -- and I think that is our interest here -- the Canadian Bar Association is saying that a bill may not even be required. In fact, it says, “Some members are of the opinion that the access problems which are designed to be addressed by this bill are not a universal problem, but rather touch a small percentage of the total number of access parents.”

It says, “Certainly there are some access enforcement problems, but it is believed that, by and large, the present method of solving these problems is adequate.” In other words, the present method in the courts is adequate, because it is speaking here about the court system. The present manner of solving these problems in the courts is adequate, and this bill will not add anything in terms of a court solution. In fact, it says: “The bill may create problems which did not exist heretofore. For example, there will undoubtedly be more litigation as a result of this bill.”

So there we have it from the Canadian Bar Association again. Its opinion is that this bill will likely lead to more litigation.

I say again to the parliamentary assistant, he already has a shortage of courthouses. The Attorney General has admitted that. He already has a shortage of judges. In fact, he has had to implement a case management system to try to deal with the backlog of cases, to try to get the backlog of cases moving through the courts more efficiently. He already has situations where judges have a backlog of a year. Now he wants to add, through this bill, more litigation.

Again, I say it is not going to help the situation. It is going to hinder the situation. It is going to result in more parents, more former spouses, more separated spouses, leaving the courts in an angry, frustrated way. I suggest it is going to result in more unhappy children, more children who are deprived of access, which they should have, to both their custodial parent and their noncustodial parent in a majority of cases. That is the opinion of the Canadian Bar Association.

Let me go just a little further, because I want to refer to some of the material that was presented to us by some advocacy groups which reviewed the legislation and which are also in touch with what is really happening out there in terms of the conflicts that are real, the kinds of situations that many parents and so on have had to deal with in terms of access.

I really want to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, having listened to some of these situations, if he really feels that the bill, as it is now, will result in solutions or can do anything for these kinds of examples. Let me give him an example. These are actual cases. These are actual telephone records, notations of situations that have occurred.

A lawyer called the Assaulted Women’s Helpline requesting advice. Every time his client, a former battered wife, drops off her son at her ex-spouse’s house, her ex-spouse assaults her. She called the police after the last such incident, but they left the scene without charging him. That is not unusual. In my practice, I experience that. The next day, the police called the woman into the station to show them her bruises. She felt humiliated in doing so, as the bruises were under her clothes. The police officer refused to request that a woman officer be present. The lawyer was attempting to set aside the abusive ex-spouse’s access.

Now, that is a real situation, where access will likely be denied at some future point -- access probably already has been denied -- where there is going to be an access battle. We are going to send those two people back into court. That is the solution that is proposed by this bill. Those people are going to go back into court. Does the government expect to get some sort of rational settlement out of that, which has finality, which the parties are in some way satisfied with? I doubt it very much.

I say to the parliamentary assistant again that probably what both of these parents want, or at least I am sure one of them wants, would be a neutral access agency where the child could be taken and left in the care and control of a child care worker. Then the noncustodial parent could come along a half-hour later or an hour later and pick up the child. I am willing to bet that is what they want, that is what they need and that would be a solution, very likely, in this case. But again, the Ministry of the Attorney General has decided it will not spend money on this, but it is going to spend more money on sending people back into courts to fight some more.

1540

Let me give you another case. It started on Wednesday at 7 p.m. A call was received from a physically and emotionally abused woman. She called the help line upon the request of a police officer who intervened in a recent attack on the caller by her ex-spouse. The assault occurred when the ex-husband came to pick up the children for their visit together. The help line counsellor discussed options with the assaulted woman. She suggested obtaining a restraining order and having the ex-husband pick up the children at a designated area other than a residence.

Again, that is the solution that is being suggested for many of these cases. I would suggest that these are the difficult cases. The vast majority of custody access disputes are not going to use this bill. They are not going to use this legislation. But these people who have difficulties will be forced to use the bill because that is the only mechanism the government is going to leave for them. Yet a professional counsellor who is acquainted with the situation says what is needed is a neutral agency where access can be arranged and yet you do not have to rub shoulders with one another and you do not have to confront one another.

I say merely to the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), that I could go on and cite case after case like this. The parliamentary assistant knows that there are many more of these cases that go unreported and are never documented than do become documented and that are reported because the statistics all show that. There are many more of these abusive situations that go on than ever are reported.

I want to go into in just a little greater detail about the various people this bill really impacts on, that this bill impacts on because it is not just the custodial and the noncustodial parent. Let’s look at the kids. Let’s look at the children. How can the government expect in this kind of conflict, when the Canadian Bar Association, family law section, says this bill is only going to enhance the conflict, is going to lead to more of it and is going to shove more people into already crowded courts, that there can be an outcome out of this bill which will lead to children having a healthy relationship with their custodial -- even their custodial -- and their noncustodial parent?

If children grow up in an atmosphere of conflict, conflict that is enhanced by this kind of bill, how does the government expect that a healthy relationship can result? If its only answer to the conflict is to throw it back into the courts and increase the conflict, how does the government expect that a healthy relationship between children and the custodial and noncustodial parent can result?

Moreover, let’s look at some of the other parties who are involved here. Usually when you have this kind of a situation it is not just, let’s say, the noncustodial parent who does not have access or who fights over access, because very often it is also the grandparents. Very often, when a family splits up and one parent receives custody and the other one has access rights, it is not only the access parent who has to negotiate for access, it is also the grandparents who have to negotiate for access. It is also them; they are also involved.

I am sure the parliamentary assistant is aware that last fall a group of grandparents -- there were a number of them, and the stories many of them told were very sad indeed -- came and said, “Look, we don’t see anything coming out of this bill.”

I spoke to many of those grandparents. I said: “What do you think would work?” They said: “Well, we’re sick and tired of going back to the courts. We’ve got legal bills a mile long, and we’ve got negative answers a mile long from the courts. Courts aren’t going to do anything.” They said it again: “We would like to have some sort of mechanism, some sort of agency which would defuse the tension, defuse the conflict and allow us to arrange with the custodial parent that we might see our grandchildren; that she could leave the kids at an access agency and we could come by and visit them.” They are also parties to this.

I say to the parliamentary assistant again, if he is interested in the best interests of children, a healthy relationship with grandparents is part and parcel of the best interests of children in the majority of cases. Yet the only answer I can get out of this bill is that grandparents will have to somehow go in and throw in their application and if they are awarded some sort of access, try to arrange it and if it does not work out, then go back in and fight some more.

Let’s just consider for a moment one of the further items I think is important. Again, as the parliamentary assistant will know, many of the access orders that come out of our courts are access orders which say access must be supervised. What does this bill say for those parents? What does this bill say for those parties? It does not help them at all.

I say again to the parliamentary assistant that if he were to head in the right direction, if he were to scrap this bill and scrap the eventual court expenses it is going to lead to and go instead in the direction of funding access agencies, he would be providing a solution for a far greater number of children, a far greater number of custodial and noncustodial parents, and a far greater number of people who have a legitimate interest in this situation and a legitimate interest in finding solutions to these kinds of situations.

In summary, let me say to the parliamentary assistant that we will not be supporting this bill. I believe that in my statements I have delineated all of the things we see wrong with it. I believe I have stated that fundamentally we think it is headed down the wrong track and that even if it is headed down the right track, the fact of the matter is that the court mechanisms, the shortage of judges, the shortage of court space will not permit some of the solutions proposed in this bill to ever occur.

How the government intends to get 10-day hearings into courtrooms that are already backlogged a year is really a magician’s imagination. I suggest to the government it can wave the magic wand as much as it wants and it is not going to happen; it is just going to get worse. Some of those parents who are out there are going to be even more angry, more frustrated and more disappointed. The best interests of children are not going to be served by this bill in any way whatsoever. I urge the parliamentary assistant to speak to the Attorney General. I understand he has great persuasive powers with him, whereas most do not. At least he tells us that when he is in the House.

1550

I urge him to discuss again with the Attorney General, and discuss again with the Attorney General’s adviser who is sitting over here within earshot but out of sight, that they are both headed down the wrong track and that there is a far better way to deal with the multitude of problems that present themselves here. I say again to the government: “We will not support this bill. We think it is headed down the wrong track. We think there is a much better way to do this. There is a much better way to meet the needs of children, parents, grandparents and all people who have a legitimate interest in this.” I hope the government will take a second look at what is going on here and do the right thing rather than what, I am afraid, is the expedient thing.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to wish the members good wishes for the new year. I have not had the opportunity to wish them the very best for the beginning of what should be a very good year. I hope it is for all of us, with health, happiness and prosperity. May we, in our own families, not have to face some of the problems we are talking about in this kind of bill. I guess, in the spirit of things, I only wish the Attorney General could be here for the debate.

I know he has a worthy parliamentary assistant who will pass on to him the concerns we have to raise and also, I hope, help mediate some resolution to the concerns we have here. I think it is going to take a fair amount of honest consideration by all members of this House, by the public at large and by those who are specifically concerned to work on this bill, and it is hoped, add to it and make it a stronger statement.

We are dealing with a very important issue. It has to do with our families, the families within our society and the importance of helping those families work out their problems effectively so that the long-term best interests of the children, the adults and all those involved are somehow better handled than they have been by past legislation. I realize it is an evolutionary thing. We are not going to solve all the problems with this bill. Bill 124 certainly has within it seeds for more happiness and better resolution of the concerns of those who are in a marital dispute and have a custodial problem over the children.

I see more positive things in it than does my friend in the New Democratic Party. Although I have criticisms and concerns, I trust our party will be supportive of the bill, with the expectation and hope that the government will consider some of the amendments -- I hope all of the amendments -- we will be tabling. This bill has great importance. When we are dealing with the family, with an issue as great as this, I hope we can stay away from parochial concerns. I do not see anyone in this House wanting to do anything other than that.

What we have to do is somehow show to those families that are in a marital breakup situation that there is a society that cares about the best interests of all those who are involved and that the legislation we have here, with the amendments I am going to be proposing, can assist those families in working out those differences.

The definition of the family has changed so much from what it was in my parents’ home and in our own homes, although we are suffering some of the problems we come through in a modern society. With conflicting interests, spouses working and all the things that are going on, it becomes far busier than I think it was years ago. I think we, as a society, have an obligation to really look at the personal needs of everybody. the family unit, as once defined, might well be a father living separately and the mother living separately, one or the other having the children. Then it also becomes a greater family as we are dealing with neighbours, friends and relatives.

Indeed, is any family the same as another, and are we in this Legislature going to solve all the problems of access and custody that really are out there? That becomes a challenge for us. Other jurisdictions have tried to deal with it, some with greater or less success. None the less, I think we face the challenge and I am pleased we have at least this chance to start looking more seriously at this whole issue.

I hope we are not rushed into trying to make a speedy decision and that there will be time for the government to consider the amendments prepared by my staff and myself and one other member of the provincial Legislature who was very instrumental in developing a bill I had the honour to present when he was not elected for another term. When Terry O’Connor was in this House he prepared a bill called An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act. I brought the bill in on November 24, 1987. He was no longer able to present it himself. I had been supportive of the bill when he first brought it forward.

The fact of the matter is that now we are dealing with another bill, placed by the government. I have taken the ideas and concerns that were going to be addressed by Bill 45 and put them into the form of amendments to modify government Bill 124. I am sure we will have an opportunity to go through those in detail in committee. I will copy these amendments to other members of the House so they will have some sense of what it is we want to do.

What we are anxious to do as legislators is to help solve a problem, a problem that has so many ramifications for our society. I just hope we are able to make a concerted effort to do something to help our families who have the problems that come out of divorce and marital breakup. It is a serious problem, and I guess there but for the grace of God go I.

There are those of us who have seen others go through this whole custodial battle where marriages have broken down and they have had to pick up the pieces, create a new life and set up a new household, with the movement of the children from one place to another and all the trauma that goes into that. I do not know how I could handle it, yet I have seen so many others try. The anger rises to such a level. Their way of handling their own problems ceases to be as effective as when there was trust and they had better days. Therefore, what we should do is look to a way to help make it easier, to help somehow establish a framework for the resolution of these access disputes.

I think what is most important is that we provide an alternative to the current system available in Ontario, whereby the recourse for an aggrieved party who wants to clear up an access infraction is to go through a lengthy and expensive application to court for contempt of court on the original court order.

Unfortunately, when you have someone who wants to have access to a child and he or she does not have it and something has happened along the way, it is all tied into so many things. It is tied into the anger that goes to the original marital breakdown. It is also tied into the financial commitments each has to give to the other or the failure of one party to fulfil financial commitments to the other. Then the whole problem of access is tangled up in the same web of this marital dispute, so the children, unless we are far more careful in the future, become the victims of what is going on within our society.

It is almost a farce when you have to go back, and though both parties in a marital breakdown have love for the child, that child ends up being at the losing end of the bargain when he has to go through an extended and prolonged court. I feel the agony of all those people who have gone through it, and surely the courts feel the agony, and the parents and children all do.

1600

So many people who have spoken to me since I brought in Bill 45, my own bill that would have helped deal with this access problem, have said: “Good. Please proceed with it. We could have used that in our own situation.” Maybe there is still time in this House, before we rise or within the next year, so that we will see changes enacted.

I applaud provisions of this bill that address reasonable grounds for denying access as well as redress if a parent infrequently exercises his right of access. The problem we have is the whole business of balance. I think Ontarians and people in this province really have a great empathy for others. Deep down we have a desire for fair play. We do not like violence. We want to be accepting of other people. Yet within our own families, when the anger flares and the tempers are hot, during that crisis, who knows what is going to happen?

It is extremely good to have the kind of balance I think the government is trying to give in delineating some of the concerns that can cause the court to hold back one or the other party from having such easy access. These are defined here in the bill.

I have some concerns with the bill. I guess I would like to touch on some of those concerns because they are embodied as well in my private member’s bill, Bill 45. I just want members to realize that I had hoped to be able to have that private member’s bill debated. Because I do not have any control over the House leader of the Liberal Party, there is no likelihood I would have had it brought up for House business. Inasmuch as I have had only one opportunity for a private member’s debate in the Legislature so far, my chance of having another one is some months away.

I am being waved at as if I want to join the party opposite. The chance of that happening is so slim I could not even begin to imagine it and I would not dare even to think of it.

The concern I have is that my bill, Bill 45, really began to do some of the things that are talked about in this bill. My amendments are going to be addressed in total to the Attorney General’s bill and hopefully will try to bring in some of the concerns I would have solved through my own bill.

I have to look at the business of highlighting the importance of grandparents, especially the parents of those who do not have custodial rights of children. What we really have to look at is, is there any way within this bill that we can have more access granted to those who have some kind of blood affiliation to a child, so that they have an opportunity to see that child?

I do not think we understand the agony that has gone on in the hearts and minds and families of grandparents. If you just go through the stages that happen when there is a marriage breakup -- I am taking a specific example I know. The husband and wife broke up and in the short term they said, “We’ll put the children with the husband’s parents.” So they did, and the children went to the husband’s parents’ home, the grandparents’ home, and were there for some months while the mother and father worked it out.

Finally, when they had worked it out, the mother got access to the children and took them away from the grandparents. Those grandparents, who had developed the same kinds of ties parents would, but understanding that they were grandparents none the less, gave them up knowing they could no longer really have any legal right to those children. Now that the mother had the rights to the children, the grandparents were cut off, absolutely cut off, and have not seen those children again, and under the present law, have no right to see them.

That becomes one of the real moral imperatives a bill like this can include within it, that grandparents have rights as well, and that we have to understand their feelings. Their empathy, their love and the kind of giving of themselves they want to give to their grandchildren is being denied to them, because present legislation does not force anyone to look at them as having any entitlement. That becomes one of the major concerns I have. We are talking about a society that has almost cut the roots off from the past.

I think of days gone by. I know that in my grandparents’ home, everybody was there. It was not just a small nuclear family as we have it today, where it is my wife, myself, my two kids and dog; there were all kinds of generations within the same household and everybody was working to help one another.

It was true in the agricultural society of Ontario, where you really were not sure who was the matriarch or the patriarch because there were several generations within the same household. Now it is more the exception than the rule, but what we are doing is legitimizing an act that is not really fair or right and has been outside the common law and common practice of the province by saying, “Grandparents have no rights when it comes to custody or access or seeing and gaining contact with their grandchildren.”

I have to tell members there have been more hurt and more silent tears by grandparents in this province because of this. It is something that has been just heartbreaking. It is something that has caused them to say, “Here we have given so much to get our children going,” and they might have helped their children get started, and then when the marriage broke up, all that has been forgotten and now the children are off elsewhere.

It is an emptiness for which there is no cure unless we give those grandparents some legal right, some legal hold within this bill that says: “You do have rights. You have a blood connection that has value to it, and the eyes of the law appreciate that, and there is now, therefore, a way” -- through what I am going to be proposing in my amendments -- ”for a grandparent to have those rights recognized.”

You could write books, and I am sure many have been written in the form of letters, which have gone unanswered, by grandparents who have written to their son and daughter-in-law or son-in-law and daughter, trying to open up the doors of communication, anxious to say, “Look, I have something to give you,” and the most important gift they have to give is just the love, the caring, the desire to see those children.

There are so many now who have been denied that access. I plead with the Attorney General and I plead with his parliamentary assistant that when we table amendments in the House that will deal with this whole issue of grandparents, they be open-minded on them. Maybe one of the advantages of having the Legislature have a committee that will look at this is that we will have other members of the House who will speak to the Attorney General and let him know they share some of the concerns I have.

I feel I am not expressing it as well as some of the people in the gallery could express it right now. I know there are others who have gone through this in their lifetimes. They do not have a great long future, but they do want to have within the future days of their retirement a chance to be close to their grandchildren.

These amendments have been carefully drafted. The use of legislative counsel has given us a chance to highlight the importance of the grandparent in this process of child access. What we have tried to do is put the grandparent relationship as something that is implicitly stated in this bill, and that underlines the importance of the grandparent as any other crucial player within the family model within Ontario. I do not think there is one member of this House who in his own lifetime has not appreciated that. The fact that our legislation now does not force it when we have a marital breakup becomes the issue that my amendments will have something to say about.

1610

I have been inundated by the concerns of grandparents in this province who feel they have been victimized in this way and I seek to ensure that over and above the ultimate responsibility of the parents, grandparents are also given the responsibility to the basic right to access of their children. In saying that, I am recognizing the fact that the parents still have primary responsibility. We have no desire to override or pre-empt, through this amendment, the importance of the parents’ role in raising a child in this process. What I would like to see and what I implore from the government is some openness to this change in the process.

I have a number of other amendments to this bill and they are lengthy. I have no intention of going into them in detail here, because I know they will appear when this goes to committee.

One of the things that has to happen is an increased emphasis on mediation as a means of solving disputes, especially custodial disputes and access problems that parents have once they are separated. We can look at so many other ways of doing it. We can do it through court orders. We can do it through supervision, and the legislation outlines different ways in which access can be worked out. But one of the things that is missing in this bill, I feel, is the whole process of involving a mediator.

I remember the days when I was involved in negotiations on the school board. We did not always have the best of negotiations. We ended up with a few strikes, and mediation did not always work. That is the tragedy of it.

You have two parties, and sometimes in trying to work out your differences, it turns out that you go farther and farther apart. Before you know it, it is hardly possible for any mediator or anyone else to come within that and to work it through. So compulsory, binding arbitration and many other techniques have been implemented through government to force two parties to get together.

One process I am sure many couples could look at when they have had their marital breakup and they are really still fighting over what they are going to do with the children is, within this bill, to find and develop a methodology for mediation.

In the bill, the minister has said mediation is a way. What I have done through the amendments that I will be proposing is to define in greater detail how mediation will work, what would be involved in mediation, how we would select a mediator and how that whole process could begin to bring two willing parties together to start working it through.

I heard what the honourable member from the New Democratic Party had to say and I think his concerns about the court backlog are extremely valid. I think that within Ontario we all know that right now. You get into that system and it is horrendous if you try to rely on the courts to help you solve your problems.

Though the best interests of all parties are considered, I believe that if we could develop and enhance the mediation process in this legislation, it could open up new and fresh opportunities for people who would like to work out a solution. Maybe if they know it is there and it is given priority and an element of importance within the bill, then those couples who are actually facing an expensive and long battle might be willing to say that with this process it becomes another way of trying to solve the problem.

My purpose will be to change and more clearly spell out the role of the mediator both in making recommendations on custody and access and in resolving access disputes.

My proposals further include a framework for mediation which entails the definition of who shall act as mediator. As we look at the whole process, I think there are people capable of acting as mediators who are not necessarily lawyers or in the court system but are family counsellors; they are in a position to offer tremendous guidance and assistance to those who are in the middle of a dispute.

What I would also like to do is to establish some guidelines for the process. I believe there should be a methodology by which the government can levy fees for that mediation as well as the provision of determination of mediation should it not proceed well.

In my recommendations, I give importance to the compilation of a mediator’s report. I would also give it increasing importance as a legal document so that the courts, when they are looking at what the mediator has done, and the judge, who is going through so many cases and his load is so full, will have a chance to say, “Okay, I now see some of the considerations that have been considered, tabled and documented.” The court will be able to draw upon that experience, that wisdom and that knowledge to develop its own strategy.

I feel the need for a report that comes out of mediation -- which is not addressed at all in Bill 124 -- is something that, when it goes back to the court, will be of assistance in interpreting what is best for all those who are involved. I feel this provision is a crucial one, given the proposal, to launching this motion.

Regarding the problems we have with the current backlog in the courts, I believe we should continually look for ways of helping to try to resolve and address them. I believe we have to be wary of adding more to the courts.

Although it is adding another level, because the needs of the people are going to be understood, the mediation approach can help to relieve some of the backlog of the courts, give more time to those who are involved without the pressures that the courts are under and at the same time give them the kind of advice and counsel they need. Sometimes it will just be the talking-out that leads to the long-term better resolution than we have at present.

I have no desire in my amendments to add to the burden of what is already a crowded and full judicial system. What I do propose is a methodology that will allow those couples who are having an access problem to find a way of addressing and resolving that dispute.

Maybe what will happen as well, if the importance of mediation is given a new level and a new statement as one of the things that is available within Ontario. It could act as a safety mechanism for those parties who are presently having a problem.

People hastily make out motions, they come before the courts, and it is not only expensive, it also commits them to something that sometimes they wish they had not committed to. Now, if they can do it through mediation, it is a far less stressful situation and it becomes far more conducive to both parties working out the interests of the third party.

Let’s not underestimate all the problems that come out in our society because of divorce and marital breakup. I think we all have to be sensitive to it. At the same time, while we recognize it is going to happen, if we can help those parties work out whatever it is that needs to be worked out with the custody of the child, that in itself can be a tremendous benefit to them.

1620

I have all the amendments ready that I will be copying to my fellow members of the House. I guess it really is not the time. I could go through it, but I have indicated I will not.

I have to say that I trust the Attorney General, who I sincerely regret is not here for our opening presentations on this bill. Maybe I could have some indication from the parliamentary assistant: Is the Attorney General planning to attend the hearings of the committee and participate when this does go to committee? Can he nod or does he know? There is no response. In other words, the parliamentary assistant has no idea whether the Attorney General will be further involved with this. I think that is too bad. Maybe it is something --

Mr. Hampton: He is less influential than we thought.

Mr. Cousens: He is a good man, but it is hard to influence the Attorney General when he is one of the top three of the triumvirate in Ontario and so busy doing so many other things. The fact is that this is so important, I would truly ask the parliamentary assistant to speak to the Attorney General and ask if he can have an appointment to have him look more seriously at what we are talking about. I think it is too important for him not to be here. I sincerely hope there is some way in which he can indicate to me, our party and all those people who are interested in the concerns I am expressing that he is going personally to do something about it.

We are dealing with a system in Ontario that needs refinement. What we are seeing in this legislation is something significant. It warrants very careful scrutiny by a legislative committee. It will allow then for thoughtful comment by members of the public and hopefully the government will be open to the amendments I have suggested and possibly to other amendments.

I liken this bill to the adoption disclosure legislation debated in this Legislature a few years ago, in which I was very involved, when the government was able to listen and work with all parties in trying to come up with a better system for adoption disclosure. I would like to see the same kind of spirit in this House when we are dealing with this bill.

While it is imperative to respond to the growing concerns of the parents who are party to disputes of this nature, we must always keep in mind that our actions must inevitably be guided by what is also in the best interest of the child or the children involved. That becomes the obligation we are addressing through Bill 124. It becomes that imperative I talked about earlier. As we look at the Children’s Law Reform Act, it will be amended. May it be amended in such a way that it includes the concerns I have talked about, addressing the needs of grandparents and giving a greater importance to mediation.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how many people I have talked to who have come to my riding with very serious problems because of marriage breakup. What you are dealing with is a legal situation. Many of these people are far more innocent when it all happens. Now they have become experts on the law, especially as it surrounds the Family Law Reform Act, especially as it affects themselves as you are dealing with one or the other party who has broken the law. I am not a lawyer, but it seems --

Mr. Haggerty: Be glad for that.

Mr. Cousens: I know. I am glad I am not, too. I think it is one of the reasons I got elected, that I am not a lawyer. We have a few around, and I am glad there are some, but even that might be too many.

The legal approach seems to be the one that always wins. Common sense does not necessarily prevail. The best interests of the people are sometimes, it seems, lifted up and above and outside what we see as normal, common-sense, good things to do, into what is called the legal world. Then you go to the courts and they deal with a different kind of process and they deal with all kinds of language. The whole jurisprudence becomes something the layman does not fully understand.

I am saying let’s somehow simplify it. Let’s somehow get back to those very fundamental and basic principles that allow for mediation and allow for the family to have a continuing contact where there is some kind of blood contact. In spite of the fact that its state of existence is different than what it was going to be, that family can still have its linkages. They can still have their contact. They can still see their grandchildren. The parents, who are now fighting over the rights of access for the children, can also work that through in another process. Therefore, I say mediation can play an important role in that.

I know there are many others who want to participate in this. I had intended to open up a whole different file that has to do with another matter that comes out of the Family Law Act. I think that what I will do is share it with my good friend the parliamentary assistant, the member for Mississauga North, in private to give him an opportunity to prove he is capable of helping solve a very significant problem one of my constituents has. I will be talking to the parliamentary assistant to see if he can do something about it.

In the meantime, I look forward to seeing this bill fully discussed in committee and I truly hope that the government will consider very, very seriously the amendments that our party will be placing before it.

Mr. Offer: Just on a point of information, Mr. Speaker: Is it proper that I can comment on this?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Yes.

Mr. Offer: Thank you. Just in response to the member’s question as to whether I will be carrying the bill, it is my expectation that as parliamentary assistant I will be carrying the bill not only in the Legislature but in the committee. The Attorney General, as is his option, has seen fit to entrust that to my responsibility. I have been working on the bill for a very long time and I would like to make it very clear that I look forward to discussing this bill in committee and responding to the amendments from the honour-able member.

Mr. Hampton: Several aspects of the honourable member’s speech interested me, but one area in particular intrigued me, and that is that the honourable member made a number of references to mediation of access disputes. I wonder if he could indicate specifically in what sense he feels mediation would assist in some of these kinds of disputes: mediation ordered mandatory in all cases, mediation when the court sees fit, mediation at the request of one of the parties where once the request is made the other party must comply, mediation when both parties are in agreement with mediation.

I wonder if he could indicate generally what he has in mind in this, because I too am interested in the concept of mediation. I am interested in the process of mediation and I am interested in how it might fit into these kinds of difficult situations, particularly if it is mandatory mediation, if it is mediation that can be ordered by the court -- if so, what is the process? -- or if it is mediation which immediately becomes available if one of the parties requests it or if it is mediation only when both parties agree.

Mr. Cousens: First of all, I would hope that the honourable parliamentary assistant will have an opportunity to drag the Attorney General out to some of the presentations. I would be very pleased if there is some way that we can have some discussion on this in public, because knowing how the system works, it is the Attorney General who makes the decisions in the final analysis and not the parliamentary assistant. Therefore, I believe, it is incumbent on the Attorney General to come to some of the meetings so that I know that he has really heard it. Although I have confidence in the parliamentary assistant as another member of the Canadian Committee for Soviet Jewry, and I have a good friendship there, I still worry about the power he has over the Attorney General.

With regard to the point raised by the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton), all forms of mediation, whether directed by the court or whether accepted voluntarily by the disputing parties, will be impacted by the kind of process that my amendments are going to describe. My amendments will make it possible for anyone who is into the mediation process to really know who is going to be doing it and how it is going to be done.

1630

The report that is going to come out of that mediation is something which will then come back and stand as a record of worth in the eyes of the court, so that mediation will then be given a far greater level of importance than it has been given heretofore. It will be any form of mediation -- I appreciate the member’s point -- that is required. Whether it is something that is voluntary or something that the court has required, regardless, this form of mediation that I am describing would fit into all those cases and gives it a level of importance that heretofore has not been possible.

Mrs. Grier: I am very glad to participate in the debate on this bill and to indicate that I certainly share the opinions expressed by my colleague the member for Rainy River that this bill is a very legalistic approach to what is a human problem and that it would be far preferable if this government, as it has been asked to do on many occasions by myself and other members of this House, seriously looked at a program that would provide a service that enables noncustodial parents to have access to their children in a supervised and appropriate setting. What we are doing with this bill is creating an expectation that that kind of access is going to be available.

It is said by the Attorney General that the purpose of the bill is to provide effective enforcement of access orders issued by the courts of our province. He also, of course, stresses that the bill is in the best interests of the child and that the best interests of the child or of the children are paramount. How are the best interests of the children paramount if all that is really happening is that they are being thrown back into the court system and the squabbling is taking place over issues other than the original one, which was who should have custody and how access should be organized?

If we do not have in place any system for implementation of the legislation, any way in which that custody and that access can be given without the custodial parent living in fear that somehow the children are going to be harmed, are going to kidnapped, are going to suffer psychologically by virtue of the way in which that access is given, what are we doing? What progress are we really making?

I want to put on the record the situation in my riding with the only program in this province that provides the kind of comprehensive access for noncustodial parents that this bill is going to create a demand for. This program in Etobicoke, called Access for Parents and Children, is going to close at the end of February because it has not been able to obtain the $100,000 a year required for its ongoing operating budget from either the Attorney General or the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The fact that there could even be some difference of opinion between those two ministries as to whose responsibility it is to fund such a program proves the folly of proceeding with legislation such as the bill before us today when we have not put in place the infrastructure that will allow the bill to be properly implemented.

Access for Parents and Children began in 1983 as a result of the identified concern by the Etobicoke family court that coming before them continually were cases where there were disputes over access. The court wanted to order access to the noncustodial parent but did not have a setting in which that access could be achieved in the safety of the child and the interest of all concerned. A group of volunteers got together, found some funding initially from the United Church of Canada and subsequently from Metropolitan Toronto, the city of Etobicoke and other social agencies, and put in place a program whereby children can visit with the noncustodial parent in a supervised setting.

Since 1983, there have been 6,500 visits to this program. Here, 47 families per month and about 71 children per month are serviced by the program. Now the United Church is saying that it can no longer continue to fund the program and so, for the last two years, the program has been asking the provincial government if there is some way in which this program can continue. The response has been, as I say, for one minister to say, “Go to the other minister,” and for the other minister to say, “It is not my job to fund any program that people dream up and think is worth while.”

In fact, the Ministry of Community and Social Services is funding a pilot project in another part of the province to try to identify the need; where the parents come from; what the program does; exactly the kind of information that could be obtained by looking at the existing access program. I think it is significant that in support of the continuation of the access program in Etobicoke, the Attorney General has received innumerable letters from lawyers and people involved in the system who recognize that the system does not work if there is not a place where this access can be obtained.

One lawyer in the city of Toronto, writing to the Attorney General last November, said:

“I am writing to inform you of my deep concern over the imminent closure of one of Metro Toronto’s only supervised access programs. Access for Parents and Children in Ontario is a very important service to my clients and myself. Without it, many children will have no access to their noncustodial parent.

“I would remind you that the right of visitation between a child and a parent is a right of the child and one that has been safeguarded with sanctity by the courts of this land.” But if there is no location in which that access can occur, what use is the right?

Another lawyer, in the city of Toronto again, wrote and said to the Attorney General and to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney):

“I represent a large number of battered women for whom this facility has provided a much-needed resource. Despite medical evidence to the contrary, I find the courts quite reluctant to accept the proposition that because a man has put his wife at risk, the children may also be at risk if they were to see their fathers in an unsupervised setting.

“I firmly believe that if I was not able to provide the court with the option of supervised access at this facility, judges would be ordering unsupervised access as an alternative to no access at all.”

By putting in place legislation that will guarantee the right of access without putting in place a program where that access can be safely obtained, we are perhaps making the situation worse instead of better. The Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers, again writing to the Attorney General about the imminent closure of the access program, said:

“A few such services have been developed, but are in danger of closing due to lack of funding. These few programs, for example, the Access for Parents and Children in Toronto, have proven their worth in providing safe, child-centred environments in which children may maintain contact with their noncustodial family members with a minimal risk of physical or emotional abuse or abduction.

“With the advent of access enforcement legislation, we anticipate an increased demand throughout the province for supervised access services. If provincial funding is not provided for such programs, their availability will be at least uneven and possibly nonexistent.”

I could go on and read very many more, many of which point out the fact that the bill we are discussing today is going to increase the demand for the access program rather than diminish it. Yet I find it inconceivable that this government would refuse to allow to remain in existence the one program that provides that service. People have written to the Attorney General who are very much in support of the original bill of the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson) on behalf of fathers all across the province and who also support this bill and the continuation of the access program.

One of them, writing from Toronto last November, pointed out, “At the present time I have a motion for interim access before the Supreme Court of Ontario in which I have requested an order for access supervised by a social worker at Access for Parents and Children in the Lakeshore Area Multi-Service Project.” Because of the lack of funding of the project, his application was likely to be rejected because there was nowhere where this supervised access could occur.

He goes on to say, “It is unconscionable that a city the size of Metropolitan Toronto has only one underfunded facility for the use of noncustodial parents, usually fathers, to make limited contact with their children, especially in light of the fact that significant funding is provided for women in duress.” So even the fathers’ rights movement is supporting the continuation of this one program which is now in danger of closing.

1640

I think one of the most moving letters that was sent to the Minister of Community and Social Services in support of the continuation of the access program came from a woman who writes as follows:

“I am the mother of two small children, one seven and one six, who has lived in hiding from a very mentally unstable husband who, by the grace of God, does not have my address. He is a continual threat to myself and my children, although the courts feel that there should be access for the father and his children.

“LAMP’s Access for Parents and Children in Toronto has afforded them this access. LAMP has allowed the visit to be a safe one for all concerned. The prognosis for my husband, unfortunately, is very negative as he refuses any medical help. He is on or off parole regularly, but not for offences which would demand he have treatment, although he should.

“The number of men and women who are in my condition are growing, not decreasing, as divorce increases. There is a larger group of men and women who simply need LAMP’s access program to help spell them over that time of anger during the initial stages of divorce in order to offset unnecessary pain for their children. LAMP’s access program is God-sent to a growing population of the hurting parents and children in our society who have found themselves victims of divorce.” And grandparents too, let me add. As one who is in that category, I could certainly foresee the need and the service provided by LAMP as being of benefit to them too.

In the application for funding that the access program placed before the Ministry of Community and Social Services, it enumerated the kinds of situations that its programs served. What I find interesting is that the situations that they enumerated that they cover are exactly those envisaged by many sections of Bill 124.

In response to the question, “Who uses the program?” they said, “Families from all socioeconomic backgrounds have made use of the program, although the bulk of its users are low-income families. Families come from all over the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and from the surrounding areas.

“The program addresses the following categories of need:

“Situations where the animosity and distrust between the spouses is so great that access becomes very difficult; situations where violence between the spouses is a concern; situations where there have been allegations of physical abuse or where there is fear of physical abuse of the child; situations where there have been allegations of sexual abuse of the child; situations where there are concerns regarding emotional abuse of the child; situations where there are concerns about parenting ability; situations where the noncustodial parent has been absent from the child for a lengthy period of time and needs an opportunity to re-establish a relationship; situations where the noncustodial parent has a history of psychiatric illness; situations where the noncustodial parent has a history of alcoholism and/or drug abuse; situations where the noncustodial parent has a physical disability which may interfere with the visit; situations where there are concerns regarding abduction, and situations where a supervised visit is not necessarily a problem but where a neutral dropoff point is valuable for maintaining access.”

The grant application went on to point out that the program fulfilled six important functions:

“1. It provides safe, unsupervised access.

“2. Where there is a question regarding the necessity of supervised access, program staff can evaluate the appropriateness of access on the basis of observation of visits to the facility.

“3. The program provides an interim arrangement which allows access visits to occur while the parties adjust to separation and attempt to make arrangements of another type.

“4. The program serves an educative function for the parents.

“5. The program staff assists the court as witnesses regarding the appropriateness of ongoing access, either through the program or elsewhere. Program staff assist in mediating aspects of access outside the program, thus avoiding the necessity of litigation. The program staff work closely with the office of the official guardian and, for some families, the program represents the only available opportunity for access to occur over the long term.”

Surely all of those points are precisely what we have heard supporters of the bill say the bill is going to achieve, but the bill is going to achieve it in a very legalistic and theoretical way. The practical ability to enforce the provisions of the bill and to have that access is not there in the absence of any kind of a program such as the one that I have described.

It is ironic that when the access program in my riding applied to the United Way for funding in the absence of funding from the province, the answer it got from the United Way was that this was surely a provincial program or ought to be a provincially funded program. The United Way wrote back to them: “In both 1987 and 1988:

“The developmental funding allocation teams which reviewed your application were impressed by your organization’s delivery of a much-needed service. The dilemma facing United Way is the appropriateness of allocating scarce voluntary funds to a service that should be directly supported by the court system. We understand that 90 per cent of the agency’s clients are court-referred. Our volunteers felt that the Attorney General and the Minister of Community and Social Services need to work out a funding mechanism for what is clearly an important support to the judicial system.”

That is essentially why I find myself unable to support a piece of legislation that is going to raise expectations. It is going to give to parents and to grandparents the feeling that they somehow have a right, that things are going to change, that they are going to be able to overcome the unhappiness that has occurred because of the separation of a family and the situation in which a child is no longer living with two parents but, as is so often the case, with only one.

We are creating expectations which are not going to be fulfilled by the passage of this legislation and we have seen no practical response from this government, no response in the case of one program that is asking to be continued, let alone any response that would imply any recognition of the need to put in place similar programs from one end of the province to the other if the provisions of Bill 124 are to make any sense at all.

For that reason, I cannot support the bill and I hope that the ministry, as a result of this debate, will perhaps take a second look at funding the one program that might in fact do what the ministry says it wants to do by introducing Bill 124.

Mr. Henderson: I happened to be writing a letter to a constituent as I was listening to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) and made mention in my letter of my view that this bill we are discussing is a little weak in places but said I would not be speaking on the subject. However, a couple of her comments have hooked me. In fact, I want to quote from that letter I was sending to a constituent, in which I said:

“No, I just got hooked. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore just referred to my bill” -- my private member’s bill -- ”as a bill for fathers. It is not that. It is a bill for children who do not deserve to be stripped of one or other parent and one set of grandparents because the family ends as a nuclear unit, and a bill on behalf of social justice that says that parenting responsibilities do not end just because the nuclear family did.”

I did want to say that because I think it is very important. I realize that although we seem to be disagreeing, I am perhaps speaking in much the same vein and a way that would accord with the views of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, but I do not consider my private member’s bill on this subject to be a bill for fathers. I consider it to be a bill for fathers, mothers, children and grandparents, and I am proud to have brought forward that point of view.

On the comment she makes, however, that there has been no practical response from the government on this subject, again, as a lowly private member, I am going to take issue with that, because to the extent that my private member’s bill is a response from at least a government member, I feel very strongly about these matters, perhaps strongly in a way that would accord with many of the views of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and I would like to be on record as having said this.

Mr. Hampton: I want to make just the following comments upon the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore’s statements. I think the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has highlighted really what the problem is here. The court system as it exists now has not been able to handle these difficult cases. In fact, what the courts have expressed on the access program in my colleague’s riding, what they have said is that program is a very important support mechanism for the courts themselves which allow the courts to sort through some of these very difficult access problems. It saves the court time; it allows the court to have greater insight into what the problems are; it saves parents a great deal of conflict. It allows them to move through the difficult transition periods of separation and divorce when children are involved.

It is part and parcel of any type of meaningful access system, of any type of meaningful access reform, and I thank the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for stating again that the bill that the government has proposed -- and the courts have said this, lawyers have said this and advocacy groups have said this -- is going to result in more conflict, and if this bill is brought forward without this kind of program to back it up, to provide the courts with support, then we have really achieved nothing. I thank the member for making that very clear.

1650

Mrs. Grier: I would really like to respond to one of the comments made by the member for Etobicoke-Humber. He pointed out that I had criticized the government for not having made any practical response to the program and he indicated that, in fact, the government had responded by Bill 124.

I obviously did not make myself clear. The thrust of my remarks was that I did not consider Bill 124 to be a practical response to the needs of noncustodial parents and grandparents and children created by the dissolution of the nuclear family. I think a practical response would be a program, a province-wide program, which would enable that kind of access to occur in a supervised setting such as occurs in the Lakeshore Area Multi-Service Project at the moment, because I think it is important to realize that it is, as the LAMP program said, a transitional service in many ways; that during the anger after a divorce or after a separation, there is need for this kind of supervised access.

As trust builds and as experience with separated living increases, then families find that they no longer need the program; but certainly as an initial response to a separation and to the breakdown of a family, we need not just legislation that says you have a right to access but we need a means of implementing that right and a way in which that right can be exercised on behalf and for and by the children of this province.

Mr. Sterling: I want to indicate that I rise in support of this particular bill. Although I am interested very much in the debate that is going on in the Legislature this afternoon, I will be interested in the debate which will take place in the committee when this bill is sent out to it.

I want, first of all, to congratulate the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General. I think he does a creditable job in bringing forward legislation on behalf of the Attorney General; in fact, the Attorney General has said to me privately -- I guess it is not going to be private much longer -- that the parliamentary assistant probably does a better job than he would in this Legislature in carrying the legislation, in that the parliamentary assistant does not raise the same kind of conjecture and debate that he does.

I might also add that the parliamentary assistant is fulfilling a task which I did on behalf of another Attorney General probably some seven or eight years ago, and I want to tell the members that the same arguments stood then as stand now with regard to the former Attorney General, and it seems to be a problem that all attorneys general have with the Legislature in dealing with them in a sane and logical manner.

I think the parliamentary assistant tries to clear away as many of the problems as he can before we enter into debate, and I thank him for his consultation on this bill and other pieces of legislation with regard to bringing them forward and trying to steer them through with as much give as possible.

One of the things I think all members of the Legislature can do with regard to this kind of legislation is to truly participate in formulating a change in law which will be for a better society in Ontario. Generally speaking, this kind of legislation does not deal with the hard-core political attitudes of one party or another.

I think that when we are looking at this particular piece of legislation, and I have heard the other members of the Legislature speak about it, one of the things that probably unifies all members of all parties with regard to this act, which deals with the access rights to children, is that it is probably the overriding concern of each and every member in the Legislature to do in this piece of legislation what is best for the children.

Up to now, we have basically talked about the rights of the mother, we have talked about the rights of the father, we have talked about the rights of other family members with regard to their rights to have the children in their custody for a period of time; but the overriding concern in this legislation must be that we draft it in such a manner that the kids, the children, will be best taken care of for even a short period of their lifetime and that the decisions relating to that period of time be done in a reasonable and logical fashion.

I think there are perhaps some differences with regard to the Progressive Conservative Party’s position on this bill and the New Democratic Party’s position on the bill. I think that our party would agree with the legislation more strongly -- we will be voting in favour of it on second reading -- than the New Democratic Party, because notwithstanding our concern that the court procedure does seem to fall down in dealing with issues like this, no one has shown, to me at least, at this time that there is a better procedure out there to deal with a very, very difficult problem.

This kind of legislation, when you are dealing with access and custody, who has the right to children and the separation of a marriage contract, of a contract between two individuals who have cared for each other, and often when that is done with a great degree of bitterness, is not an easy social problem to resolve. But the fact of the matter is that it must be resolved in some fashion and it must be resolved in a fashion whereby each of the partners or each of the people seeking access to these children must be dealt with in a kind and gentle manner.

Yet it must be a firm and final matter as well in dealing with children, because children cannot be left in a state of limbo as to whether or not they can see their mom or dad at a certain particular time. While I would like to think that people can sit down and there can be a mediation process where a social worker can say, “Mrs. X, you’re not being reasonable in this particular matter and, Mr. X, you’re asking for too much here. Therefore, I would like to resolve this matter by saying let’s agree on doing this or that,” the fact of the matter is that they are in court on this kind of matter because there is a significant disagreement between the two individuals who come before the courts as to what their rights are with regard to seeing their children.

Therefore I do not know of any other mechanism which has the importance in terms of the public eye, which has some finality to it in dealing with an issue that is perhaps more important than the financial aspects of a marital breakdown, than some kind of court process.

1700

I thought that the member for Rainy River, who is a solicitor and has practised some family law, said in his criticism of this particular act that all it will do is make more lawyers wealthier. I can tell him, from my limited experience of practising for about seven or eight years and having handled a number of custody and access fights that took place, that there is no kind of business in terms of a lawyer’s business that is less fruitful than dealing with cases of access and custody.

Notwithstanding the fact that one is trying to represent in a legal way peoples’ interests, one also becomes a friend and a confidant of one’s client. One becomes a person who is relied on very heavily, who is asked for advice that is legal and nonlegal, one is telephoned in the evening and on the weekend as a lawyer when one is dealing with these particular matters. One cannot simply bill these people, because they cannot pay, either under legal aid or off legal aid, for the kinds of services that one renders.

I really do think it was unfair of the member for Rainy River to attack this particular body of lawyers, who in my estimation are doing a yeoman’s service for the public in trying to resolve some very difficult social problems and social issues. I can tell him that most lawyers would prefer that their family law business would go away so they could pay attention to things that were much more lucrative to them, in terms of the dollars and cents of practising law. Again I say that lawyers who get into this business of family law are to be admired rather than slammed.

There has also been some question with regard to the intent of this act. This act does not kick into effect unless there is a problem with an access order that has already been made by the court. So we are not dealing with setting up the rules as to the original access order, or the original rules with regard to the access that spins out of a separation agreement or the access that spins out of a divorce case; we are talking about what happens after that.

I think what the bill attempts to do is deal with the fact that there is still a conflict that exists between the two parties, notwithstanding what one court order has said, and that there is an attempt by one member to exhibit strength over the other parent with regard to the rights he has been given under a court order. In an attempt to do that, there is a very important principle that has to be brought to the fore: that is, if one parent is being denied access by the other parent, it is really not the parents who are suffering, it is the child who is suffering.

Therefore I think that this law is good in that it attempts to bring to the court within 10 days the opportunity to have a hearing. In order to have a hearing we have to give away some of the other parts of our legal system which we normally have built in, in order to ensure that we have a perfectly fair hearing. Normally in a legal system, you build it up so that when you go into a hearing, both sides have to divulge to each side what in fact their case is, so that when you get in front of the judge, you can meet the case the other side is making.

I have heard it suggested in the Legislature this afternoon that oral arguments would not be satisfactory with regard to discussing an access order which had been breached by one parent or the other.

The problem with that argument is that if you formalize the procedure, if you start building up the procedure for this kind of hearing to have pleadings filed, if you want somebody to put forward their position in an affidavit and then you want an opportunity for the other parent to respond in another affidavit and then you have to set a date for the court hearing and you have to get both parents in that court hearing, what you are doing is setting up a procedure whereby you would not be talking about 10 days. You would be talking about maybe 10 weeks by the time all those things were filed, taken to the proper office, there is time for the other side to get it, to formulate its response, etc.

Notwithstanding that, I think there is a valid criticism that all of the evidence may not get in front of the court in 10 days. There is nothing within this particular legislation which I can see that limits the right of either parent to go back to the court in a more formal sense at a later date and ask for an amendment to the existing access order, which a court has made at a previous time.

I think that notwithstanding the fact that there may be “some injustices” which would take place, the pluses are much better than the minuses. The pluses are that you would theoretically -- and I hope that when the administrative and the financing part are put into place you can -- get a hearing in 10 days to put forward your concerns about the access to your child. I think that is very important. I also hope that going along with legislation like this, the family court judges would take a much more active role in the trial of the issue of access as it takes place. I think the legislation gives the judge a number of parameters to deal with when he is determining how he is going to resolve the issue when someone has been denied access. The legislation has a lot of pluses going for it.

I think what the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), in putting forward some amendments, would like to do is to extend this legislation so that other people could enter the fray. I am perhaps not as strong as he would be with regard to some of those issues, but I really hope the parliamentary assistant for the Attorney General and the Attorney General himself will consider those issues when they get into committee and look at the logic of it rather than placing themselves in a particular corner on a particular issue. I think there is a lot of room, when you are talking with regard to legislation like this, for the Attorney General to be quite open to reasonable amendments with regard to the legislation.

There has been some suggestion that this legislation would create more chaos, more disorder, etc. I hope this legislation, along with some of the other legislation which the Attorney General is bringing forward with regard to the obligation of police to be involved in the enforcement of access orders, would give some teeth to judgements which are coming down from day to day in family court.

1710

I guess a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the Legislature have put forward in the Legislature many of the arguments or concerns I would have about this particular piece of legislation. I will only say that the experience I have had with this kind of legislation has been that, unfortunately, it comes down to the level of trying to moralize in legislation. Basically, what we are trying to set in a piece of legislation like this are moral standards how people should act towards their own children. It is unfortunate our society is at that point today.

I think one of the most unfortunate parts when we are talking about access legislation -- l guess one of the better parts of talking about it is that two parents want access to their children, because it was not long ago when I and the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin), who is sitting here in the Legislature today, were talking with the Carleton Board of Education. One of their greatest concerns is that many parents are walking away from their duties as parents once their children get into the teenage years of their development.

Therefore, while we are talking today about two parents who want access and other people who want access to these children, I think our society is going through a period of time when sometimes parents do not exhibit much desire for any access to their children at all, and that is indeed unfortunate.

I hope that as we go through this second reading, and primarily when we get out to committee, people again will remember the primary purpose of this legislation, and that is to deal with the best interests of the children in reaching the final compromise as to the rights of both the parents and other family members and other people in society to control those children. We must always remember that notwithstanding an injustice must perhaps be done to a parent, the injustice cannot be done to the child.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions and comments?

Mr. Hampton: I merely want to reply to a remark made by the honourable member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling). In my statement, I believe I stated that I do not think the bill will solve problems because I think it will lead to more court activity -- to more disputes, not less. It will not arrive at and it will not enhance, nor will it contribute to access being exercised, but will lead to more disputes and more arguments over access.

I did not say in a derogatory sense that it will lead to lawyers making pocketfuls of more money. What I had said was that in that sense, it will be a money-maker for lawyers, not that I think solicitors will necessarily be there wringing their hands over this. In my earlier statement, I alluded to the fact that many, many solicitors have said that trying to solve these kinds of disputes in court, looking upon the court as the only way to solve these kinds of disputes, does not result in much success.

I did not intend in any way to cast negative aspersions on the legal profession. I know a great number of solicitors who practise family law. It is a very difficult practice. Once again, as I said in my earlier statement and as the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore said, merely using more laws or requiring people to go back to court to settle what the court has already been able to do is not what I think is a good law.

Mr. Offer: First, I would like to thank the member for his kind opening words, and second, on the bill itself and in particular on the way he has very rightly brought forward the reality of a solicitor acting on behalf of a client in matters, I think this has been very well brought forward in terms of the realness, the reality, the pushes, the pulls, the strains, the stresses and the pressures that the lawyers, as well as their clients, go through in matters such as this. I just want to publicly acknowledge the way in which he has brought that very real matter to the Legislature.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to say to the member for Rainy River that perhaps I was a little too harsh in my response with regard to his comments about our solicitor friends. I guess it is just a matter of the fact that the people of the province have seen, through the media, etc., and in this Legislature, that we continue to hack away at the legal profession. I think that each time that is done in an unfair manner, there should be some kind of response to that. I apologize to him that I responded as harshly as I did.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Reville: I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 124, An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act.

I am pleased for a number of reasons, some of which are intensely personal in nature. I grew up in a household that was partially headed by a lawyer who earned a large part of the family’s living in the matrimonial causes field of the law and who subsequently was appointed to the bench and spent a great deal of his time on the bench adjudicating disputes between parents, in which often it appeared the child or children had become a pawn or pawns of disagreements between parents.

I recall with very strong emotion the kind of stress that seemed to place on my father. I know that on one occasion he heard a custody case that went on for 51 court days, and at the conclusion of that case, he had to write a judgement and award custody of the child. I remember him telling me some years later that by that time, both of the parents who were parties to the action had impoverished themselves, necessitated by the huge expense of spending 51 days arguing over which of them should have custody of the children.

Often, the viciousness of that kind of struggle leaves all of the parties to the action in a condition from which it is not easy to recover, both emotionally and psychologically and quite often financially. The fate of the children who are involved in such a legal struggle is something about which we all have concern.

I also had an opportunity as a young man to do a good deal of research on a book my father wrote annotating the Divorce Act. To that end, I read a large amount of law, albeit law relating to the Divorce Act of 1968, and through that exercise had a dose of marital problems from which I wondered whether I would ever recover.

In terms of my own life, regrettably I have had reason to be involved in a family breakup that resulted in a difficult custody action and I have some sense of what it is like for a parent to go through that. As it happened, I was awarded custody of my children in 1972. During one of the access visits my then ex-wife had, she did not return with the children. Three months later, I was able to locate my children in the Yukon, and through a most bizarre set of circumstances, had to lay charges of abduction against my ex-wife in order to get custody back again.

1720

That was a process through which I hope very few people have to go. It was not a process that was of benefit to any of us, let alone the children. I think I have some very strong personal sense of what the problems can be, in respect of access to children, that are experienced by the divorced parents thereof, and as well, a particularly strong sense of how difficult it is for the children involved. I had an opportunity, both through some of the intellectual work I had done and some of the personal experience I had, to do a good deal of reading about the question of best interests of the child, and lam pleased, of course, to see a section of this bill devoted to describing what the court should consider when it is trying to determine what the best interests of the child might be.

In terms of my political life, in my own riding, I have a number of people who are both associated with and served by interval houses. In fact, there is one of the original shelters for battered women and their children located in my riding, Nellie’s Hostels for Women on Broadview Avenue. So I have had an opportunity to speak at length, over a number of years, with the providers and the recipients of interval house services. I think I understand the concerns they have expressed and would like to reiterate them now. I know my colleagues will have done that, but I think it bears repeating again.

I think of interventions that have been made in respect of these amendments by Interval House on Huron Street, which runs a shelter there, whose major concern relates to the additional remedies that are provided when problems about access are alleged. I suppose it is not necessary to point out that it is most frequently men who take advantage of access provisions because men do not get custody of their children as often as women do, primarily because they do not seek it as often as women do, although I think when they do seek custody they secure it more often than women do.

The people at interval houses are concerned about the way remedies are being structured in the bill. They object strongly to the use of mediation as a solution to access problems. Of course, they do this because they think -- they quite rightly point out -- that we are not talking about mediation between equals. I think one of the essences of any successful mediation is that the parties to a mediation approach that mediation on an equal footing, and that is definitely not the case for many of the women who are in the care of interval houses because those women are there precisely because they have fled an abusive situation.

It is not possible, they say, and I agree, to mediate fairly when one of the parties to the mediation has lived in fear of her life. The concern is that the judge will direct that mediation occur because the judge is unable to decide between the stories of the two parties and will fall back on this mandatory mediation as a way of resolving a problem the judge has been unable to resolve.

Another flaw in the bill that is pointed out relates to the first amendment, which reads as follows and adds subsection 20(4a) to the Children’s Law Reform Act:

“Where the parents of a child live separate and apart and the child is in the custody of one of them and the other is entitled to access under the terms of a separation agreement or order, each shall, in the best interests of the child, encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other.”

The request of the women’s shelter advocates is that this amendment be deleted from the bill because, as they say, it negates further provisions of the legislation to provide some safety to abused women and their children.

They go on to say that an abused woman should not be asked to “encourage and support the child’s continuing...relationship with the other”; that is, the abuser. If she is forced to foster the child’s relationship with the abusive father, all of the safeguards included in later amendments are of no value.

They suggest that removing the section would not weaken the bill in any way; rather, it would improve the chances that violence against women would be seriously considered by the courts.

I know a lot of parents who are divorced and who want to continue involvement with the children agonize a good deal about the question of supporting the child’s relationship with the other parent, and clearly in the best of all possible worlds we would anticipate that should happen and would happen, and that in fact we should do everything we can think of to foster and encourage the support one parent gives to the child’s relationship with the other parent, no matter what disagreements may have driven the parents apart.

Clearly, it is a difficult enough situation for children to see their family broken apart without compounding that by having one parent bad-mouthing the other parent constantly. All reasonable adults would understand intellectually, if not always emotionally, the need to avoid filling a child’s mind full of hate for another parent.

It is, however, unrealistic to require one parent who feels that the other parent has grievously abused him or her to encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other, as the legislation requires, particularly in cases where the parent may have reason to believe that the other parent actually abused the children as well.

1730

It is not true that a relationship with both parents is a goal to be sought ahead of any other goal. Again, if we could create a perfect world, we would want to create situations in which a good relationship with both parents, divorced or not, living separate and apart or not, was in fact the case. But there are cases where a good relationship with both parents would not be in the best interests of the child, and I think that fact has been demonstrated clearly both anecdotally and by the literature a number of times.

People who work and live in interval houses certainly do know the dangers that assaulted women and their children face long after they have left an abusive partner. Their experience tells them that often the access to the children is the lever that a parent who would be abusive of another parent uses to get at the other parent. There have been examples of assault and intimidation and, on some occasions, murder of a custodial parent by a parent seeking access; in fact, the access to the children is the way the abusive parent has got at the other parent.

It will have been pointed out that there is a preference that evidence be given in affidavit form rather than oral testimony. That goes to subsection 35a(9). The court, of course, could give leave to file an affidavit, but unless the court did give such leave, the motion would be determined on the basis of oral evidence only. Obviously, the intention in preferring affidavit evidence to oral testimony is that the woman would be better protected if evidence were given on affidavit.

I do not know whether anybody has had a chance to read selected affidavits in these matters. They can be bloodcurdling in the reading. Certainly, oral evidence is often even more emotionally damaging than a progression of words going across the page, no matter how violent the images such words may conjure up. So the view of the Metro Assaulted Women and Children’s Advocacy Group is that subsection 35a(9) should be amended to say the motion shall be determined on the basis of affidavit evidence rather than oral evidence.

The major problem, however -- and I think this will have been clearly stated and I will be only emphasizing what others before me have said -- is that the requirement of mediation as a solution to access causes Interval House and the Metro Assaulted Women and Children’s Advocacy Group the most serious problem of all.

I am pleased that this bill will, in fact, go out to committee and there will be public hearings, because I know that the people involved with interval houses, the association of interval houses and particular interval houses, and lawyers who specialize in family law will want to come before the committee and describe their concerns in much more detail, with examples from their own case load and their own experience to show why there is such a serious concern, particularly about mediation as a solution to access.

I think it may have been referred to previously, but the Senate task force on family equity, which was a piece of work done in the state of California in June 1987, points out that there is a tendency to be driven in mediation by the goal of settlement. I know that all of us, as people who attend meetings, are familiar with agenda-driven meetings. You often get the sense that the chair is mainly interested in getting the meeting over with. Rather than dealing with the matters that are on the agenda, he just wants to get to the adjournment part of the agenda. That is sort of an agenda-driven meeting.

Often what happens in mediation -- and that is of concern -- is that the goal is to get a settlement rather than to achieve the best interests of the child. Clearly, a woman -- and in most cases it will be a woman, although it would not have to be a woman; it just has worked out that way -- who is a reluctant party to the mediation, having been forced into it by an order of the judge, is going to be likely to participate as an unequal partner in such mediation, and the settlement that is kind of wrung out of the parties to this will, in fact, be in the interest of getting the mediation over with rather than doing that which needs to be done to serve the interests of the children.

I am not sure exactly how you write a piece of legislation to ensure that goal settlement does not take precedence over settlements in the best interests of the children, and I think that is something we would have to take a good deal of advice on. There is nothing wrong, obviously, with mediation in itself. I think it is the notion that you may not be able to get good results when you force people into mediation, and that is clearly the case when in fact or in perception one of the parties to the mediation is an unequal party.

It is not surprising at all and it is quite appropriate to note that the Senate task force on family equity indicates that the legal duty of mediators should be to assist parents in developing custody and visitation agreements that are based on the best interests of the child. It is also true that whatever can be done to reduce the acrimony and hostility that exists between parents is going to serve the best interests of the children.

1740

I have said this before but I will say it again: A legal presumption in favour of one agreement, that is, one that assures close and continuing contact, does not necessarily serve the best interests of the children. For example, frequent and continuing contact with both parents may not be the best arrangement for children whose parents live in distant geographic areas or may be inappropriate in cases involving parents with drug or alcohol problems.

The frequent and continuing contact provision, which is a provision in state legislation, may also be misinterpreted by mediators to require a preference for joint physical custody agreements, which, of course, is what in fact has taken place in that state and which at least one member of this House has expressed a very strong preference for. I think he is sitting in the wrong chair at the moment -- no. The private bill of the member for Etobicoke-Humber, I think, has something to do with an excitement about joint custody which I do not think is warranted.

Mr. Henderson: That’s where you’re wrong.

Mr. Reville: I thought that perhaps the member for Etobicoke-Humber would disagree with me, and it is possible that at some point we will have an opportunity to debate that, although it may be that the government House leader will have the good sense to make sure that opportunity does not occur. You cannot always tell these things.

In any event, should that eventuality take place, I would be happy to participate in such a debate, but it would be out of order for me at this point to talk about that because, of course, we are not talking about that at all.

I did want to note, however, just parenthetically, something that was sparked off in my mind when I quoted the Senate task force on family equity report in respect of parents living in distant geographic areas. I am sure other members of the Legislature will have seen recently in the press an article in which another wonderful piece of jargon has been created, I assume by the family law bar.

It is called the mobility provision and it relates to provisions that are appearing and will probably increasingly appear in separation agreements and custody agreements about whether custodial parents can in fact move anywhere. In the instant case that was described recently in the newspapers, I think it was the mother who had been offered a job on the west coast and was unable to accept it because of a mobility provision.

It just indicates to us, I think, how difficult these situations are, and one has to wonder how best legislators can try to resolve some of these very difficult issues. You can probably find arguments that would say a career change that would benefit a parent might in fact be of more benefit for a child, when weighed against a disservice it might do to a parent who had access and whose access would be made more difficult. I am not quite sure what Solomon can be created to arbitrate some of those kinds of very difficult questions.

I do not believe, as I sometimes believe when I am dealing with government legislation, that the government’s attempts to draft legislation that will serve the needs of children and parents or any other of our citizens for that matter -- I had better recapture that sentence because it is becoming one of those rambling periods I do not understand, so I think I will start again.

Sometimes I think government legislation is wrongheaded. Sometimes I believe government legislation is in fact malevolent. I do not believe this legislation is either wrongheaded or malevolent. I think it is an honest attempt to deal with a problem that is very difficult to deal with.

I want any of the criticisms I have made to be understood in the light of the feeling I have that the Attorney General and the parliamentary assistant who is carrying this bill so ably on the Attorney General’s behalf have done what they think to be a reasonable job of trying to come to grips with this.

I do believe they may be too strongly influenced by some of the interest groups in this regard, but as well, I do not discount the very real feelings of some of the interest groups, and I am thinking mainly of the fathers’ rights groups. I believe they quite genuinely feel as though the law has not served them well. To the extent laws can be amended so that everybody is served as best we can serve them, then we should do that.

I think in the end the crux of this debate is around the question of power. I submit most urgently that it is not common for women in our society to possess and exercise the amount of power men do. I think that is wrong, but that is the way things have historically been. That brings me back full circle again to my concern that it will not be possible for the judge to make this mediation an equal mediation between people who come to the table with equivalent power.

This may be a concept that is embarrassing to men. It certainly embarrasses me that these power imbalances continue to exist in our society. However, I am not going to fall back on the fairly common male response of pretending these imbalances do not exist. I have spent enough time listening as carefully as I can to the way many of the women I have described feel about the situation in which they have been put and about the economic and legal powerlessness they feel in this situation.

All of us in our constituency offices know of women who have to stay in abusive situations because they do not have any other choice. If they could, they would gather up the children and run out the door, but they know their economic prospects are so bleak that they have no choice but to stay where they are in the abusive situation. For those women who have left the abusive situation, I think it would be an abuse of this Legislature to require them to sit down in a forced mediation situation with a husband or an ex-husband who had abused them. I think this particular section of the legislation must surely be amended.

I will conclude my remarks with that and I look forward to the widest possible discussion of these and other matters at the public hearings, which I anticipate will take place during the interval.

1750

Mr. Charlton: There is not too much time left this afternoon for all the comments I want to make, so perhaps I will just make some general comments about the principle of this bill and the way in which I see, and I think my colleagues in this caucus see, this legislation missing the mark in terms of the issue of children, the rights of children and the real needs of children in cases of questions of access in a broken family situation.

Perhaps a good place to start that discussion is to create for the members of the government party here this afternoon an analogy that comes right out of the family law situation as we have seen it evolve in Ontario, and elsewhere, for that matter, as well.

We now have set up in Ontario a mechanism to deal with the question of default in terms of support payments. If members think back over most of the comments that have been made from this side of the House about this bill this afternoon, it has been about litigation, about throwing the problem back into the court versus a mechanism to resolve the question of access. What this bill does not contain is an effective mechanism to resolve the problem.

Again, I go back to the analogy and the question of support payments. For years, spouses who were entitled to support, support which in most cases was ordered by the courts of this province, had the option of continually going back to court to resolve problems when there were nonpayment situations.

In this Legislature, I think we should be attempting to learn from the situations we have seen in the past and to learn from the ways in which we have had to try to move to resolve those situations. We finally had to move in this province to create a mechanism to resolve situations in terms of nonpayment of support other than continually going back to the courts to force payment. We set up a mechanism to do that. It took a long time.

Most of the comments I have heard from all sides in this debate are sincere in terms of wanting to address the problems of access for parents as well as protecting the interests of the children, but we are not going to resolve those problems in a litigative situation, and we are not going to resolve those problems in a forced mediation situation either.

I guess it becomes apparent, therefore, that on the one hand the government wants to address the problem and we get Bill 124; on the other hand, it is not really prepared to face the reality of what is required to effectively address the problem.

Over the course of the last number of weeks and months we have heard a number of questions raised in this House by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and a couple of other members, questions that were directly related to agencies in this province, that specifically related to agencies that deal with providing a real solution to the question of access in cases where there is a need for the agency because the two parents in question do not want to see each other, or at least one of the two does not want to see the other because of a past abuse situation or because of any number of other emotional reasons, and that agency can in fact provide a neutral go-between between the two parents, the one having custody and the other seeking access.

As well, we have those very difficult cases that we hear about from time to time in our constituency offices and read about in newspaper stories on a fairly regular basis, where for whatever reason, because of a reason of abuse of the child or of a drinking problem of the parent seeking access or any number of other emotional or social problems that can evolve in a situation like that, we see on the one hand parents who have the need to seek access to their children and on the other hand, in the child’s best interests, there is a need for supervision of that access. This legislation does not effectively address any of those realities. Those realities have become barriers to resolving the question of access.

A number of my colleagues have also commented on the question of mediation. I listened earlier today to the remarks of the member for Markham when he addressed the question of mediation. He was not very clear, and my colleague and friend the member for Rainy River got up and asked him, in the questions-and-comments period after, how he saw the question of mediation working. Should it be compulsory mediation, should it be mediation when one of the parties requests mediation or should it be mediation that occurs only when both of the parents and the children all agree to a mediation process?

I think if each of us stops and thinks carefully about some of the people we know personally in our lives who have suffered through broken marriages, some of the people who have talked to us in our constituency offices and elsewhere about their own legal problems around a marriage breakup, a family breakup and questions of access to children and the whole range of problems that grow up, emotional problems and real problems sometimes in terms of questions of abuse and others, the mechanism that we create has to be one that is flexible and understanding of the full range of problems that confront people, which are different from the last set of problems suffered and endured by the last set of people who were confronted by what may appear to somebody who has not been through it a similar situation.

It becomes difficult for the courts and the litigative process to deal with that in a fashion that will ever get to the problem and find a resolution.

This is one of the reasons a number of us have chosen to address this bill, not that any of us particularly feel that we are expert in the field or have all of the answers to the kinds of emotional and social problems that confront people in this kind of a situation. I think we do feel fairly strongly that in the same way that the court system in this province has failed in the past to be able to resolve the kinds of social and emotional problems that accompany a marriage breakup, the court system will fail to address adequately the problems that we find here around questions of access.

I see the Speaker rising. I guess the clock has reached six of the clock and I will move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion by Mr. Charlton, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

4 janvier 1989