Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Sola: On 15 May, more than three weeks ago, the Peel region chairman, Frank Bean, requested an emergency meeting between all regional chairmen and the Premier. To date, there has been no response.

This should not come as a surprise, since the issue that Chairman Bean and his colleagues wish to discuss is the cost of exploding welfare case loads that municipal governments are bearing. This is an issue the NDP government seems resolutely incapable of handling, despite the fact that there is no shortage of reports, both provincial and municipal, offering suggestions and possible solutions.

Chairman Bean's call for a meeting was prompted by announcements made by the Minister of Community and Social Services in response to the so-called Back on Track report.

The Ontario Municipal Social Services Association, in a letter to the minister, has expressed its concern with the announcements, arguing, as Chairman Bean did, that the government failed to consult in good faith with municipalities regarding its intentions. In fact, OMSSA calculates that the $25 million provided in the minister's announcement is merely a 5.2% offset against projected municipal general welfare expenditures this year of $475 million. As co-funders and co-managers of the social assistance system, municipalities' advice should be sought out and taken in full partnership.

The NDP government appears to have directed its efforts at relieving municipal welfare pressures by streamlining the delivery of general welfare assistance. The moratorium on home visits undermines a recipient's access to his or her worker and the advice and information welfare workers are able to provide. Perhaps what is of greater concern is the fact that the moratorium creates an unfortunate general public suspicion of those who are forced, for reasons beyond their control, to accept social assistance.

MARIE VERMUELEN

Mr Cousens: I would like to pay tribute today to a young lady from my riding who will be undertaking a very significant initiative later this summer. Marie Vermuelen, a grade 13 student from Thornhill Secondary School, will be participating in a 2,000-plus kilometre Sony Cycle Classic on behalf of the Christian Children's Fund of Canada. Marie is with us today in the member's gallery.

The 21-day event is scheduled to start in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on 11 August and end on 31 August in Toronto. The Ontario cyclists hope to raise $1 million, of which Marie hopes to personally raise $20,000. Marie's travels will take her through Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick before entering Quebec through the Gaspe Peninsula. She will then proceed along the St Lawrence River and then head south toward Quebec City and Montreal, continue through Ottawa, arriving at the final destination at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto.

The Christian Children's Fund of Canada is a non-sectarian, non-political international child care organization currently assisting over 29,000 children in Third World developing countries. Established in Toronto in 1960 as an independent and autonomous affiliate of the US organization, the Canadian fund, along with its counterparts in the US, Germany, Great Britain and Australia, assists over 500,000 needy children in 30 countries worldwide.

We in this country too often take for granted the advantages and standard of living afforded to us and our children. The selfless endeavours by people such as Marie Vermuelen on behalf of those less fortunate should be met by our thanks and appreciation.

In Marie's own words: "Not only will the money raised benefit children in many countries, it will give me a truly unique opportunity to visit many of the diverse cities that make up Canada, meet all sorts of people and see some beautiful Canadian scenery. It is sure to be an adventure to remember and cherish for ever."

Marie, all the best on your travels.

CAROUSEL OF NATIONS

Mr Dadamo: I would like to take this opportunity to inform members of the House about an ethnocultural festival which takes place annually in my riding of Windsor-Sandwich. It is called the Carousel of Nations.

The festival is now in its 16th season and is organized by the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County. The dedication of its many volunteers has made the celebration multiculturalism in action, a great success. As well, it attracts tens of thousands of visitors from Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Wisconsin.

The Carousel offers the very best in traditional world cuisine and entertainment, with special emphasis on education through ethnocultural exhibits in themes, art and literature. This year's theme is harmony among nations, showcasing the industrious, multicultural nature of the Windsor community.

The festival will feature 30 villages located throughout Windsor, and new on this year's roster are the Japanese, international and seniors' villages, and this year we welcome back the Croatian and Portuguese villages.

Admission to the Carousel is free. The festival takes place 7, 8 and 9 June and also 14 to 16 June. Opening ceremonies commence on 7 June at Lanspeary Park in Windsor, followed by multicultural entertainment and a colourful parade of villages.

I strongly urge members and their families who might be in the area on those dates to attend the Carousel of Nations, Windsor's multicultural celebration.

1340

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Miclash: As we celebrate Mining Week in Ontario, we are reminded of the positive social and economic role of the workers, companies and communities involved in the mining industry in Ontario.

The mining industry is important to Ontario in terms of the revenue it generates for and within the province and in terms of the employment it provides, over 85,000 direct and indirect jobs. It is Ontario's second largest exporter of goods after the automobile industry.

Celebrating mining's past is important, but we must also be ready to meet the future.

The situation in the mining sector is serious. In 1990 the value of mineral production dropped just over $1 billion, from $7.4 billion in 1989 to $6.3 billion in 1990. This was the first year in the past five that the value of production has dropped. In 1990 as well, nine mines were closed, resulting in a total of 3,715 layoffs, of which 2,910 were permanent job losses.

If we are to learn from the past, we will know that the resource industry has traditionally given Ontario a competitive advantage. What we need from this government are initiatives to encourage exploration and development, and measures to address the continued competitive disadvantage since the federal government withdrew its support for flow-through shares, and especially in light of Quebec's provincial government efforts.

The Minister of Mines rightly states that mining has fostered a quality of life in this province that is the envy of the world, but it will be the actions of this government that will determine whether Ontarians will continue to enjoy it in the future.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Jordan: Today I inform this House that the citizens of Almonte, Carleton Place, Lanark, Ramsay and Tottenham are outraged at the proposed closing of the new Almonte land registry office.

The minister has not acknowledged any of the correspondence from the mayor of Almonte, the law society, small business or any individual, including the president of her own association.

Less than one year ago, this new registry office was opened at a cost of $1 million. This closure in October of this year will take away a service the ordinary area people have used for more than 100 years. The residents will be forced to drive over 120 kilometres to use older, rented accommodation. To this day, there has been no consultation with municipal officials in Almonte.

Over 600 people have signed this petition, which I will present later in the House.

I urge the minister to please inform the staff that she has already directed a review of this decision, and of the many advantages this new building has relative to the handicapped and with modern computer services and space for the future development of Lanark county. Almonte is centrally located to the urban development of Ottawa and Kanata.

TELE-DIRECT SOLICITATION

Mrs Mathyssen: I would like to read a letter I received from Paul Clarke, a constituent who runs a small business in Middlesex.

"Dear Mrs Mathyssen:

"Tele-Direct, a Bell Canada company, is soliciting US retailers in Michigan and New York to advertise in Sarnia, Windsor, Chatham, London, Toronto, St Catharines, Hamilton and Mississauga yellow page directories. This is a totally irresponsible act by a major Canadian corporation to encourage Canadians to spend their money outside of Canada and not support their local retailers and businesses.

"It is an opportunistic act motivated by their greed to cash in on the cross-border shopping activity and sell more advertising space in their Canadian phone directories. What they do not see is that the advertising space they gain will probably be offset by the loss of a Canadian retailer and advertiser who goes out of business."

What Mr Clarke is referring to are these flyers that encourage American businesses to place ads in Ontario directories. The flyers describe the growing influx of Canadians to the United States to purchase American goods and services because of free trade and the GST, which make shopping in the United States so attractive.

This is like asking to be looted. As Mr Clarke so clearly points out, this is reprehensible, certainly as reprehensible as a federal government that is killing this province and killing this nation with its irresponsible policies in terms of the dollar and the free trade agreement.

I join Mr Clarke in his condemnation.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Fawcett: Picture this: a beautiful, pure source of spring water, buffered from acid rain, flowing such that it was the most near-perfect spot for a fish hatchery. Forty years ago, Codrington fish hatchery was born in Northumberland county. This week, its life comes to an abrupt and unjustified end as the brood stock of the sole source of disease-free brown trout in Canada is moved to southwestern Ontario. I hope they survive the trip.

The ministry's financial analysis to refurbish the hatchery is wrong. This year, $25,000 spent to meet the health and safety concerns would have kept the hatchery intact.

The minister says water quality and quantity are less than ideal -- wrong again. Consultation would have shown that the water quality is second to none and there are 700 gallons per minute, gravity fed, requiring no hydro or pumps. I ask what more he wants.

Last year, 7,000 people visited this ministry showcase to picnic, browse or be educated. In fact, it is visited by many schools in the area as an integral part of their environmental studies curriculum.

I cannot comprehend how the minister can rationalize this decision in his own mind. This closing has to be one of the most unnatural management decisions made in many years. I believe the minister will regret this bureaucratic financial decision. It surely flies in the face of his government's self-proclaimed environmentalist and naturalist position.

PROPERTY ASSESSMEMT

Mr Turnbull: Today the people from Metropolitan Toronto will be gathering at Queen's Park for a rally against the imposition of market value reassessment. They come to deliver a message to the government. They are not seeking reductions in their tax bills, only a system that is fair. They know the present system for establishing property tax value is inequitable. However, the proposed market value reassessment is also inequitable.

With the change of government in the fall, the people of Metro were expecting to see the whole issue of property taxation receive careful study and all alternatives examined and equitable taxes achieved. It is very disappointing to see this government once again back down on past principles. The reassessment presently occurring is costing the taxpayers of Metro over $11 million and will give Metro council information on only one method of taxation.

The Minister of Revenue has at her disposal a vehicle to ensure the citizens of Metro are given a fair hearing, the Fair Tax Commission. It should be examining many tax issues. It makes sense to look at it and see how properties are assessed and to examine such alternatives as unit assessment system. Will the Minister of Revenue agree to this simple and logical request?

UXBRIDGE COTTAGE HOSPITAL

Mr O'Connor: I am pleased to inform the House of an important event taking place in my riding of Durham-York. The Uxbridge Cottage Hospital Foundation is holding a Hospital Fun Day Saturday 22 June at the Uxbridge Arena and Community Centre.

I would like to pay tribute to the members of the foundation for their hard work in raising funds for the Cottage Hospital in Uxbridge and particularly organizing this fun day.

The Cottage Hospital is determined to develop a broadly based, participatory, community-oriented strategic plan for health and social services in Uxbridge township. They deserve our congratulations and our support for their efforts in this regard. The Uxbridge community is very concerned that this caring attitude as a function should be used as a role model for other communities.

Bring your families, join us at the hospital's Fun Day. Enjoy a silent auction, dunk tank, putting green, bingo and a strawberry social. The children will participate in face painting, antique fire truck rides, a miniature train ride and model rocket demonstrations. They are also having a car rally, a fashion show and a bake sale.

I look forward to seeing some of the members at this event. Everyone will have a good time, and I am sure they will have a warm welcome at Uxbridge.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY RADIO / RADIO COMMUNAUTAIRE

Hon Mr Marchese: I am pleased to announce today a program to strengthen Ontario's culture and allow more public participation in the affairs of the province. The program is called Community Radio Ontario.

Je suis heureux d'annoncer aujourd'hui la creation d'un programme qui permettra de renforcer la culture en Ontario et d'assurer la participation accrue du public dans les affaires de la province. Il s'agit du programme de radio communautaire de l'Ontario.

Over the next two years, our commitment to community-based radio will open up the airwaves to people who live in isolated communities and to a great number of people who are not able at present to communicate easily with one another.

Today, I am announcing funding of $1.78 million for this initiative. The program will focus on the needs of native and francophone community radio stations. We will begin immediately to ask native and francophone communities what they need and invite them to assist us in designing strategies to improve their financial positions. By April 1992, licensed native and francophone stations across Ontario will be eligible for grants to employ station staff or for other operating expenses.

À compter du mois d'avril 1992, les stations autorisees de radio communautaire autochtones et francophones de la province seront admissibles a des subventions pouvant être utilisees pour embaucher du personnel ou effectuer d'autres depenses de fonctionnement.

Non-profit community radio plays a crucial role in many parts of Ontario. Already, 33 stations are a cultural lifeline for the communities of the first nations throughout the province. Currently, two community radio stations serve the francophone community in Ontario, but there is clearly a need for more French-language service. There are also 15 campus and general community radio stations.

Despite the great value of these stations, they are all underfunded and understaffed. In making this announcement today therefore, we recognize the value of a service created and maintained out of necessity by people themselves.

My government supports community radio because: it creates equity and fairness by providing information to people in their own language; there is a demand for it; we believe in public-interest radio; community radio falls outside the market economy and therefore needs government support.

From news to stories to statistics to simple talk, the need for information in languages people understand is real. We know there is a demand by the very existence of some 50 licensed stations already providing community-based, non-profit radio service in Ontario.

It is a fact, moreover, that many communities have not managed to attract commercial private radio. Whether it is because the audiences are not big enough or whether it is because the advertising dollars are not there, we have seen that the market is not willing to support community-operated radio.

Cutbacks to the CBC, cutbacks to rail service and cutbacks to postal service have all intensified the need for strengthened communications systems in Ontario. The dedicated people in community radio need to know that they are not without partners in their efforts.

This is an historic and happy occasion. The needs of these communities have been known for some years. Now this government is able to respond to those needs in a way which will lay the foundations for community-based radio service in Ontario.

Il s'agit d'une occasion historique et heureuse. Les besoins de ces communautes sont connus depuis quelques annees. Notre gouvernement est maintenant en mesure d'y repondre d'une façon qui nous permettra egalement d'etablir les fondements de la radio communautaire en Ontario.

Today, we are acknowledging that community radio stations make airwaves more accessible, more relevant and more participatory for the local and specific needs of the communities they serve.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Hon Mr Farnan: As I have announced this morning, and as all members of this House have been informed, we are proposing today the Retail Business Establishments Statute Law Amendment Act.

Our purpose is to provide for a common pause day for Ontario. This is a commitment we made to the people of this province in the throne speech last November, and I am proud to play a part in its fulfilment.

This act has two main thrusts: first, it amends the Retail Business Holidays Act with respect to the operation of retail business establishments on Sundays and other holidays; second, it amends the Employment Standards Act with respect to employment in retail establishments.

Principally, the first section of the bill will support and protect Ontario's tourism industry. The second section primarily provides retail employees with a guarantee of 36 hours of rest in every seven days of work and an absolute right to refuse Sunday and holiday work without fear of losing their jobs or suffering disciplinary action.

The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in March of this year confirms the Retail Business Holidays Act as the law of the land. It has withstood constitutional challenges and it offers us a framework with which to provide a common pause day while improving protection for the rights of retail workers in Ontario.

At the time of the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, I stated that amendments would be presented to improve the effectiveness of the Retail Business Holidays Act. The most significant amendment we are proposing will provide province-wide criteria for an exemption to holiday retail closing requirements for tourism-based businesses.

Through discussions conducted with a wide range of groups between February and May of this year by my ministry and the ministries of Tourism and Recreation and Labour, we have identified the tourism industry in Ontario as an industry with unique requirements. This had not been adequately addressed by the existing legislation or any previous legislation.

The provisions of this proposed amendment establish a responsive mechanism to meet the needs of the tourism industry, an industry which is one of the cornerstones of our provincial economy.

This amendment will replace section 4 of the Retail Business Holidays Act, the section that currently deals with the powers of municipalities to enact bylaws.

The virtually unrestricted powers granted to municipalities in 1989 under this section of the act offered potential for inconsistencies that would have threatened to undermine the overriding importance of providing a common pause day.

These amendments we are proposing today will enable the establishment of province-wide criteria relating to tourism which must be met before an exemption can be granted. This will ensure a reasonable degree of uniformity and, ultimately, clarity and fairness in the application of the law.

This tourism exemption will strike a balance between responding to local needs and the overall need to establish fair and enforceable laws that promote a common pause day for Ontarians.

To qualify for exempt status, businesses will be able to initiate the exemption process with their municipal council in accordance with local economic development plans. This process also anticipates local initiatives and growth as exemptions may be granted to maintain or promote the development of tourism businesses.

In a district, metropolitan or regional municipality and in the county of Oxford, the council of the municipality may apply for a bylaw to the upper or senior tier of government.

The amendment states and reaffirms that the council shall take into account the principle that holidays should be maintained as common pause days.

In order to minimize confusion, municipal bylaws in force as of 3 June 1991 will continue for one year from the date of proclamation of these amendments or until those bylaws are repealed, whichever comes first. Bylaws which come into force on or after today, 4 June 1991, are repealed on the day these amendments come into force.

1400

I wish also to note that the proposed amendments will set out minimum fines for breaches of the law. This reflects the seriousness with which our government regards this issue.

In addition, the act we are proposing today includes amendments to the Employment Standards Act. The amendments further protect the rights of retail workers by giving them the absolute right to refuse Sunday and holiday work and by guaranteeing them 36 continuous hours of rest in every seven days, whether or not they work on Sundays. There are also provisions which strengthen the role of the employment standards officers in dealing with employees' complaints.

Our government is firmly committed to protecting the rights of retail workers through the provision of a common pause day. Towards this end, the essential elements of the Retail Business Holidays Act remain intact and in force.

However, we recognize that Ontario embraces diversity, as clearly indicated by the variety of ways in which Ontarians earn their livelihoods. By recognizing this diversity and accommodating the distinctive needs of local tourism-based economies, I believe we have addressed the concerns of a great many Ontarians while continuing to demonstrate our support for a common pause day and the rights of retail workers in this province.

On an issue such as this, on which a broad public consensus is difficult to reach, the government is proceeding in as fair and open a manner as it can. However, we believe we must take the lead on this issue because it affects the quality of family and community life of all Ontarians.

As was stated in the throne speech, our government is committed to guaranteeing a common pause day and to protecting the rights of retail workers in Ontario. We are making good on that commitment.

RESPONSES COMMUNITY RADIO

Mr Elston: I would like to say first of all to the Minister of Culture and Communications that while I am sure there is welcome relief that there is some assistance for the community radio program, and while there are initiatives there that will help at least a couple of communities, there are other needs that have not yet been met, including that of our publishing industry.

The members opposite know just how critically in need of the assistance, which was announced first in the budget, those people are finding themselves now, while in other parts of the area people like Mel Hurtig can find themselves out of business and we find our publishers going out of business. The minister should get on with the business of doing his cultural department administration and with helping those aspects of our culture as well.

While he has done that one thing to help gear up local radio so that it can talk about Sunday shopping, there is more work yet to be done.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Elston: Getting to that, I cannot believe that member actually rose in his place today to pass this cruel joke on to the public of this province. He has put in front of the public a concept which he says is not local option. Of course, from the man who said he did not write, authorize, see or sign the letter, we find a man who did not authorize municipal option. He does not know what municipal option is; he does not understand municipal option.

From the man who does not know about letters, we find a man who does not know anything about the words "common pause day." He does not know what a common pause day is. He did not authorize a common pause day by this stuff and he does not have a routine common pause day. He does not know what in the dickens is going on over in his ministry. He has done one thing only in this place today: He has made a mockery of the Agenda for People, of all the ridiculous utterances he made when he was a member of the opposition and of all the things he said and that he and his party stood for. This is laughable.

Mr Curling: I challenge the Solicitor General to define what a common pause day is. He promised a province-wide common pause day, and I am sure he could not give me a legal definition of that.

He promised to exempt the border communities from any new Sunday shopping law. He said to reporters: "We think it is important. It is significant." Those are the Solicitor General's words. He travels around the province with a rubber chicken under his arm and can say that this was our chicken way out of it. He does not need a rubber chicken now. He should just travel on his own and that is chicken enough.

He has broken all his promises. It is typical of this government to continue to announce its Agenda for People and what it has. They have broken every promise they have made here. They have tinkered with this legislation. It is not working, and we also find that what we put forward, our government laws are --

Interjection.

Mr Curling: The establishment of provincial criteria to designate official tourist areas is very complex. They are unworkable. It is subject to abuse. It is just like the old Tory law. That is why the previous government, our government, amended the Retail Business Holidays Act. We made it fair. We made it understandable and enforceable.

Interjection.

Mr Curling: As my colleague said, this is just unworkable. This is awful, and the Solicitor General should be ashamed of coming into the House today and saying, "This is our Sunday shopping law." I ask him to say whether or not the Eaton Centre could be opened under his designation. He could not answer that in the press conference, and I asked him what we will do with those people when they ask to open.

Mr H. O'Neil: The Solicitor General has referred to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and what it does or does not do for tourism. I can tell the minister that this is going to be very confusing to people in the tourist industry. I do not think he has set this thing out very clearly. The tourism industry is having a lot of problems at the present time. If he is going to confuse these people and make it harder for them to make a living, he is going to drive them out of business.

I can just tell the things the Treasurer did: 30% increase in gasoline taxes, the gas guzzler tax, the increase in alcohol taxes, the surtax on small business, the cutbacks in marketing, the money the Treasurer took away from marketing, over $100,000 from the Ottawa area alone; this is going to be devastating to the tourism industry.

Mr Carr: I wish I could rise today and say that this statement was going to make the whole issue of Sunday shopping a lot clearer. Unfortunately, it will not. It will put it back into the hands of the municipalities.

As I read the tourism criteria, they virtually include the entire province. They include: historical and natural attractions -- most of this province has that; cultural and ethnic attractions, which include most of the province; concentration of hospitality services, which includes most of the province, as well as farmer's markets where handcrafts are sold. It will be any area where there is hiking and boating. It will be the entire province. Now taking the decision in that regard, it will be back in the hands of the municipalities and we are now going to have litigation when the exemptions are criticized by either side.

The Solicitor General, as my friend the member for Scarborough North has pointed out, went around during the last session of this Legislature with a little chicken on his shoulder to mock the last Attorney General, and then he turns around and does the same thing. It will be passed back to the municipalities. They will be the ones to decide in litigation, and the whole question is not answered. We have gone for years now and the whole question will be back in the hands of the municipalities. Our government said it would take clear directions. This Solicitor General clearly has not.

Mr Harris: Here is a government, a party that vigorously opposed the municipal option when the Liberals brought it in, and now it is back to the table with a municipal option.

Here they say on page 2 that council's decision is final, so now, if any municipality anywhere in the province wants to opt out, all they have done is to say, "Here's how you do it." The Liberals just said: "You don't need criteria. Do it." They have created a sham of criteria to do exactly the same things as the Liberals proposed with one exception. They are the same as the Liberals but they are much more expensive, because now the municipalities are going to have to have hearings and have consultants go through all the hoops, ultimately to do exactly what they want to do, open if they wish or close if they do not.

The Solicitor General is going to have a patchwork across this province. He is going to have uncertainty. This legislation is a direct pathway to the courts, the same as the Liberal legislation was, but there is a difference. When the Liberal legislation went to the courts, it was the Liberal government or the provincial taxpayer that paid. This government has a direct pathway to the courts, but the municipalities are going to have to pay all the cost.

Not only has the Solicitor General offloaded the chicken way out, as he said, made this a municipal decision, but he is pouring all the costs on to the municipality as well. I say shame on him.

1410

COMMUNITY RADIO

Mrs Marland: In responding to the statement from the Minister of Culture and Communications, of course we support community radio. However, we find the statement a bit confusing because, first of all, it does not talk about how many stations or where they are going to be, whether they are going to be placed or selected geographically. Also, in the budget speech we were told there was $400,000 for radio, and now we are talking about $1.78 million. Where does that leave the publishing industry? The publishing industry was promised $5 million. With these figures, it looks like the publishing industry is going to get $3.5 million.

Mr Villeneuve: Also in reply to the Minister of Culture and Communications, I presented a petition here last week regarding the installation of a low-power transmitter in southeastern Ontario, the Cornwall area I represent in southern Glengarry, Stormont and Dundas county, and I think I try to represent them well.

I keep reminding the minister that we do not even have a transmitter down there. We have had petitions. We have reminded him on a number of occasions. It is great to increase the budget, but if you do not receive the signal, there is nothing there and it does not help anyone. This is a bilingual community close to the Quebec-New York state border. All we need is a low-power transmitter to serve that area which right now does not receive the TVO signal.

GENE ALLEN

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: The Minister of Colleges and Universities has failed to inform this Legislature of one of the most important recent developments in adult education -- to wit, the decision of the University of Toronto to award a doctorate in history this very afternoon to Gene Allen.

As members know, Mr Allen is a respected member of the legislative press gallery, if that is not a contradiction in terms. Even though his employer, the Globe and Mail, from time to time has seen fit to ignore some of the more pressing issues which take place in this chamber, Mr Allen has always been ready to further the interests of the province. It is in this vein that Gene Allen has managed to serve as a beacon to those of us interested in a fully literate society.

His path-breaking work on the history of the Intercolonial Railway has astounded scholars with its depth of vision. There could be no better time than now, when our country is in peril of disintegration, for scholars to examine the economic basis of Confederation. That is what Gene Allen has done. His doctoral dissertation has even cast new light on the development of standard time, another great Canadian invention.

I am sure all members would join me in congratulating Dr Gene Allen for his decision to pursue the important and timely topic of the Intercolonial Railway. I am sure we all congratulate the University of Toronto for deciding to award him with a PhD.

The Speaker: The member has brought to my attention a particular point of order, and in deliberating on it I wondered if there were any other members who could contribute information to help the Speaker.

Mr Conway: I just wanted to say that I knew Mr Allen was hard at work on a very learned piece of work at the University of Toronto. Like all members, I am sure, I want to add my congratulations and make the observation that it was once said, I think wisely and well, that the Intercolonial Railway, on which the honourable member of the press gallery is now expert, was built not so much to carry passengers as to carry elections.

Hon Mr Allen: This is a case where there is no attempt to dissociate. This is an occasion where I am happy to see that a namesake has distinguished himself and that one of our colleagues has the drop on me and has called it to our attention.

It certainly is a very fitting observation that the member has made and that has been contributed to by the opposition party. I want to convey our congratulations to Gene Allen for not just quality of research, but also the institution that he did it at, which happens to be my own alma mater. So there are many points of contact that my namesake and I share in this undertaking.

I am sure this will be a matter of relish to his colleagues in the press gallery who will now all be assiduously enrolling in graduate programs at universities across Ontario. I am sure all of them will soon be dignified in their graduation celebrations with doctors of this and doctors of that and will be coming back here to the press gallery and giving us an even harder time than ever because of the skills they have learned in those places. Our congratulations to Dr Allen. We look forward to many more days and months with him in this place.

The Speaker: To the member for Leeds-Grenville, I listened carefully to the presentations by the three members, and unfortunately you do not have a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Scott: As a member of the House who is trying to get his law practice started, I want to say that I welcome the retail business holidays amendment act. I think in this recession it will provide thousands of hours of productive and remunerative work, for lawyers, on behalf of municipalities and individuals all across the province. It must have been designed in a late night at Yuk-Yuk's. But could I turn to a more serious matter, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Yes, a question.

Mr Scott: From the very beginning, the Solicitor General has said that he gave a written guideline to his constituency office staff. Even yesterday, when all was falling around him, he said, "...I

have given a written communication to my staff, of course I stand by that."

The only written communication is the Agnew memo of 25 February. As anybody who can read it will see, the Agnew guideline in fact permits correspondence with members of a tribunal as long as it is on the member's own letterhead and signed as an MPP.

The Solicitor General now attempts to deflect criticism of himself. He is turning this whole thing into a virtue by blaming two staff members in his office, as he did when he went out of here yesterday with the press.

Does the Solicitor General not understand that the staff members in his constituency office did precisely what the Agnew memo directed them to do, assuming that a justice was a tribunal? How can he blame these innocent constituency members when it was not until 24 April that he gave for the first time the directive in writing that the Premier's guidelines require?

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me just say again, through a verbal communication and in conjunction with that verbal communication, the written communication clearly delineates separation and arm's length from the judiciary.

My senior member of staff interpreted correctly the direction of both those oral and written directions. As it happens, a part-time member of staff, I believe, made an honest mistake trying to help an 82-year-old constituent. We have put in place procedures that ensure that kind of mistake cannot take place again.

My answers today remain the same as they have been consistently since this issue arose.

1420

Mr Scott: The one consistent feature of this whole affair is that the minister's answers do not remain consistent but are changing day by day, as the Toronto Star recognized in its editorial today.

Now let's talk, I say to the minister again, about the verbal advice which he persistently says he gave to constituency staff; he has consistently done it. Outside the House yesterday, he told the press what he did not say in here, that he told all the employees in his constituency office last October there should be no contact with judges. That is the first time we heard that. He also conceded to the press outside, after hanging out the Premier to defend him, that two of the three employees in his office were not aware of the prohibition, as they say, as late as March 1991.

With respect to a part-time member of his staff, he said, "I am not going to deny that there is a conflict between what I have said and what the part-time member has said." Will the minister tell us whether in fact he spoke to the part-time member and when he spoke to that part-time member?

Hon Mr Farnan: Again, long before the conflict guidelines arose, from the very first day that I discussed with my deputy minister --

Mr Scott: Did you speak to the part-time member? Because she denies.

The Speaker: Does the member for St George-St David have a final supplementary?

Mr Scott: I would like an answer to the question. I cannot get an answer to a simple question.

The Speaker: I take it that the minister has more to say and that he was waiting for an opportunity to say it.

Hon Mr Farnan: From the very first meeting I had with my deputy minister, as I have explained before, the most important fact at that meeting was that there had to be arm's length. I went back to Cambridge and I have preached the gospel of separation from that time on. All of those members, in my view, have been informed. Because one transmits a message does not mean that a person hears it. Let me give an example. I have transmitted a message 20, 30 times to the member for St George-St David. He has not heard it yet. What can I say?

Mr Scott: I think everybody sees the importance of the question, and maybe the press will be able to extract it: Did the minister speak to the part-time member -- because she knows nothing about it -- and when?

My second supplementary is this: This is the business of Parliament --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If members would like to have an actual question period, then I would suggest a little bit of decorum would be helpful.

Mr Scott: When the Solicitor General mounted his defence in this matter a month ago, he said to the House and outside it that he had a written direction to his staff and that he had spoken to all his constituency staff "frequently, persistently and regularly." Those words from Hansard are his, not mine.

Now, a month later, picking at it, because he will not come clean, what we have found is that there is no written direction at all. He conceded yesterday in the scrum that he had not spoken at all to one of his staff; he concedes that the second member of his staff does not recall him speaking to him or her, and that in regard to the third member of his staff, no comment is made by her in the RCMP report at all. The fact of the matter is that the Solicitor General's defence, so grandly mounted a month ago, is crumbling before our very eyes as a result of inconsistencies that have been noted everywhere in the press.

The Speaker: And the interrogative part?

Mr Scott: The Solicitor General, I am sure, recognizes that he is the second-senior law officer of the crown in the province of Ontario. Does he not understand that apart from the merits of the dispute --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Guelph come to order?

Mr Scott: -- his responses to it have besmirched his high office and require that in the public interest he should leave it now?

Hon Mr Farnan: Even in the member's question he clearly identifies the fact that the senior member of my staff not only heard but actually implemented the direction that I gave. A part-time member of my staff, with the same opportunity, made a mistake by not interpreting and not applying the directions that I had given and that were supported in a written context. The member himself clearly identifies that the directions were given, because in fact my staff acted upon those directions.

Mr Nixon: I too have a question of the Solicitor General. I was interested to hear his answer to the first question this afternoon, in which he reiterated his stand that he had instructed his staff, as he has repeatedly said, not to communicate with anyone in the judiciary and to maintain an arm's-length position. This is in spite of the fact that the RCMP report indicated that his staff, at least some of them, were unaware of those directions and that yesterday in the scrum he had indicated that he shared some of the blame for the staff being ill informed.

On the basis of that information, how can the minister now say that his staff simply made an honest mistake, if he himself reiterates in this House that they were informed directly by himself and his senior staff? I do not believe that such an honest mistake is possible. Either they were told to write the letter or they were not informed that they should not write the letter. Which was the correct situation?

Hon Mr Farnan: Again, one member of staff heard the directions. In conjunction with the written documentation, this staff member comes to the right conclusion and follows the intent of my direction. That is one member of staff.

Another member of staff, a part-time member of staff, is faced with a situation where an 82-year-old constituent comes in. He has got a parking ticket from Toronto. He has not been to Toronto. She calls the courts; she gets a direction from the courts. That direction is in contravention of those repeated directions that I had given, but I believe she was working out of an honest desire to help an individual.

A great mistake was made, but I stand by the fact that the directions I have given are very clearly separation, arm's length.

1430

Mr Nixon: The honourable member was in the House in opposition when one of his Liberal predecessors received a call in the middle of the night that one of her constituents was being harmed at the police station. She went to see if that was so. When she found it was not so, she returned home.

Can the honourable member recall the fact that he and his colleagues pilloried her for that circumstance whereas he, under these circumstances, is refusing to accept any responsibility as minister? Can he not recognize the inequity and unfairness of his position, and that he must reconsider it for the reasons that have been put forward by my colleague the member for St George-St David?

Hon Mr Farnan: Surely the Leader of the Opposition can clearly see the difference between a colleague of his who directly -- I am not saying that the consequences were not harsh, but I am saying that member went directly to the police station. If I, under any circumstances, personally called a judge, if I picked up a telephone and called a judge, if I went to one of my staff and said, "I want you to call a judge" -- the difference is that the minister in the Liberal government was directly involved in the event. This minister is not.

Mr Nixon: I think the big difference is that no Liberal minister contacted a judge, either directly or through his or her staff. The minister has indicated that never before has anyone offered a resignation under these circumstances. The Premier, in defending the indefensible, has said that somehow the Liberals are vindictive in this regard, and yet every editorialist, every reporter who has dealt with this who has any heft or significance, has called upon the minister to resign. The minister is aware that the Windsor Star says the Solicitor General should do the honourable thing. The Toronto Star particularly, in the editorial today, said, "What is Farnan waiting for?"

Perhaps I should put the question to the minister this way: Has he, at any time, offered his resignation to the head of the government in association with this matter and if not, when is he going to do so?

Hon Mr Farnan: Very clearly, there were incidents that were investigated by the RCMP. The RCMP report has come out. It exonerated both myself and my staff from any criminal activity. In addition to that, I have reiterated constantly that I acted in transmitting information, both verbally and in writing. When you have done nothing wrong, there is no need to resign, period.

Mr Scott: You are turning this into a virtue, for God's sake. Give us a break.

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

Mr Carr: My question is to the Solicitor General as well. On 24 April in this House, he said: "So the answer is yes, both in writing and verbally I have said there must be an arm's length from the Solicitor General to the judiciary. Yes, yes, yes." Then he said: "I have consistently reiterated to my staff that I believe in the principle of separation between my office and the judiciary. I have emphasized that." These are the Solicitor General's words. This is what he told us. Did he mislead this House on 24 April when he made that statement?

Hon Mr Farnan: Of course not. My answer to the member is the same as my answer to the member for St George-St David.

Mr Carr: On 25 April, he said, and I quote, "I want to make it very clear that both in writing, through the conflict guidelines, and verbally through myself, I have consistently repeated the principle." Then he said: "It was ingrained in my consciousness that a Solicitor General cannot be in any way associated with the judiciary. I have from the very beginning transmitted that message to everybody I come into contact with."

The RCMP report says that not everybody on the Solicitor General's staff received that message. Did he mislead this House on 25 April when he made that statement?

Hon Mr Farnan: My answer to the member is the same answer I gave to the member for St George-St David.

Mr Carr: We have heard it clearly. Last Thursday he told the House six times that he had given the message to the staff. Yesterday I counted at least seven times when he said the same thing, that he had given the message. In fact, he has on about 20 occasions said that he had very clearly given direction to his staff. The RCMP report said that a member of his staff did not have any written guidelines or directions. Somebody is not telling the truth. Who is it?

Hon Mr Farnan: I have answered the question time and again. Verbal communications, written support of those communications -- it is very clear that the senior member of my staff --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would you stop the clock, please. I realize this is a very contentious issue and that members on both sides of the House feel an emotional attachment to what is being discussed, but I really do not think it helps when serious questions are being posed, presumably expecting serious responses, that we hear far more than just one voice at a time. Among other things, the Speaker has a responsibility to be able to hear everything that is said because, when the Speaker does not hear it, somebody draws a point of order to the Speaker's attention. So I would appreciate it if we could proceed in a little more orderly way. Start the clock, please.

Hon Mr Farnan: It is very clear that a senior member of my staff heard the oral directions, the written communications, and applied my directions absolutely. A part-time member of my staff did not follow those directions. In her view and in her testimony she claims that she did not hear those. I accept that fact.

I gave my testimony to the RCMP; so did all of my members of staff. The senior member of staff followed the direction. One part-time member made a mistake. My testimony is the same today and tomorrow.

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Solicitor General. The throne speech said, "When my government makes mistakes, it will admit them." I wanted to believe that, so when it was first revealed that the Premier's guidelines were breached, I did not immediately call for his resignation. If he will recall, I stated that if he had admitted he made a mistake, if the Premier admitted that his new guidelines were not being followed, let alone treated seriously, and that if we had an apology from both of them for that, I would accept that.

But instead of that, the Solicitor General opted to go the coverup route. Instead of the route that the government promised in the throne speech, he decided to go the coverup route. He has made a mistake. He has not apologized for that mistake being made. He has not apologized to the Premier or to the justice of the peace. He has not apologized to this House. He has not apologized to the people of Ontario for that mistake and he has not accepted responsibility. Clearly, he has not lived up to his government's promise as outlined in the throne speech.

Now that the facts are out, when is the Solicitor General going to accept responsibility for both the lack of serious attention being paid to the Premier's guidelines and for the actual breach of those guidelines?

Hon Mr Farnan: Throughout this matter we have been totally open. We have given all information, absolute information. I have very clearly indicated to the previous questioners what has transpired and the same answer applies to the leader of the third party.

1440

Mr Harris: Given the stated promises of the Premier throughout the last year, in the campaign and then in the throne speech, I want to tell the Solicitor General that on behalf of members who are all affected by this kind of behaviour, I am ashamed that the Solicitor General has attempted to whitewash over these mistakes. This is not acceptable to me, it is not acceptable to this Legislature and it is not acceptable to the people of this province. Not one of us is untouched by the Solicitor General's failure to live up to his ministerial responsibilities. Why will he not show some integrity and at the very least step aside until we can have the standing committee on administration of justice look into this matter?

Hon Mr Farnan: I am rather perturbed when a leader of a party rises in the House and in his form of questioning reduces himself to talking about whitewash, and then talks about coverup. What does that do? It debases the coinage of politics. I really do not want to be part of this kind of politics.

Mr Harris: The Premier's own conflict guidelines of 12 December promised "common sense and a well-developed sense of public duty." Clearly, the Solicitor General has shirked that duty. We are left with glaring contradictions, vague, unsubstantiated explanations for the minister of the crown, exact opposite statements from him versus the RCMP report. The public was promised by the Premier on 12 December that the minister's actions would "bear the closest scrutiny and...ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government." That is what the Premier said when he made the statement in this chamber on 12 December.

I do talk about whitewash and I will tell the Solicitor General this: The whitewash is wearing very thin. I ask him to try to salvage what integrity he has left by stepping aside. When the Premier says "bear the closest scrutiny," why it is that he is afraid, the Premier is afraid and the whole lot of the members opposite are afraid to allow any scrutiny at all, let alone the closest scrutiny? Why will he not allow this to go to the standing committee on administration of justice, which is the proper vehicle to have some scrutiny of this whole matter?

Hon Mr Farnan: It is almost a joke when I hear the leader of the third party. He talks about scrutiny. I have made absolutely every document available upon request, whether it is from the official opposition or the third party. If there has been any document that has been in my power and free to release, I have made all those documents available.

I actually said that I welcome scrutiny, that I welcome the investigation, because I knew an investigation would clear my name. I have no problems with putting the cards on the table because I have done nothing wrong.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Kwinter: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Earlier this morning, Kitchener's largest industrial employer, Uniroyal Goodrich, announced it will be closing at least one and maybe both of its Kitchener tire-making plants at the end of the month. If it closes one there will be 1,000 jobs lost, and if it closes two there will be 2,000 jobs lost. The company president said he made this announcement today because of widespread industry rumours and speculation that has been going on for months about the Kitchener plants.

Given this, could the minister give me some details and share with members of this House what he has been doing to try to prevent this company from losing its production and the jobs which are so important to that community?

Hon Mr Pilkey: To the member for Wilson Heights: Was he the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for the period 1987 to 1988?

Interjections.

The Speaker: He has to answer questions.

Mr Kwinter: The minister answers the questions, we ask the questions.

The Speaker: We do have a general routine of questions being asked and responses given, although in both cases sometimes neither are acceptable.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I just made a simple inquiry in response because I am advised that in 1987-88 a joint industry-MITT assessment of the tire industry was undertaken, and I wondered what the previous government had done to lead us to this circumstance.

In further response --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Have you completed your response?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am attempting to do that, but it is difficult over the din of the opposition to complete the remarks.

We, as a government, are very concerned indeed by this possibility of retraction of employment levels and the cessation of business by Uniroyal Goodrich Canada in Kitchener, Ontario. There are in fact some 2,000-plus jobs that could be in jeopardy, and certainly we, as a government, have made contacts with this company at the highest level to try to ensure these employment levels and these jobs stay here in this province.

It would be a very difficult situation indeed if this employment were lost. We understand that as a result of consolidation, as a result of the purchase by Michelin last year, this company is attempting to restructure and rationalize its worldwide operations.

This government has every concern. This government stands ready to participate in any way it can to obviate any kind of negative announcement that may be forthcoming in that regard.

Mr Kwinter: There are three kinds of people in this world: Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who do not even know something is happening. This minister epitomizes the third one.

If the minister had done his research and if he knew anything about that industry, he would know that the government that I represented attracted Goodyear to Napanee, put millions of dollars into that plant in Kitchener, put millions of dollars into the General Tire plant in Barrie. The minister has not contacted them. He has not been in touch with them. He does not even know what is going on and he is a disgrace to this province.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, I can assure you that the previous statements are in error, that this government has in fact contacted and been in contact with this company. I must say that the remarks by the member for Wilson Heights, I think, are very condemning in that he offers them as some great expertise or some great action that was taken. I think the concern and the circumstance that have arisen today are testimony to the fact that those actions he is so proud of obviously were grossly deficient.

1450

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Today, an announcement was made by the government that it is going to bring in two bills. One is labour legislation to protect workers, the type of bill he would know that I would be very supportive of, although I wonder why the bill is necessary unless there is going to be substantially open shopping in those municipalities that want to shop.

However, I want to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs this: Given that the Minister of Labour feels a substantial number of municipalities will opt to open up, given that his bill is virtually the same as the Liberals' in that it transfers all the responsibility to the municipalities -- the municipalities have the final say and the only difference is that if they wish to open, they have got to spend some money on some consultants and hearings and what not; it is a little more onerous route and it will cost a little more money -- can the Minister of Municipal Affairs tell us how much of the costs that are going to be borne by municipalities to conform to this legislation the government of Ontario is prepared to pay?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think the very positive aspect of the legislation that has been introduced today is that it sets out very clearly for the entire province the principle that there is going to be a common pause day for the people of this province. That is very clear. That is not in dispute. It says there is one exception to that, that if the municipality feels there should be a tourism area, the municipality could make that decision, and that decision will be made at the municipal level. What we have done very clearly in the legislation that has been introduced today is we have introduced criteria, and those criteria will mean it will be fair and even across this province, something neither the Liberal Party nor the Tory party could ever do in the past.

Mr Harris: The Liberal government introduced legislation that had a common pause day, unless a municipality did not want to have that pause day, and it is not common obviously and it is open. The minister has a common pause day, except if the municipality does not want that common pause day. In the criteria that the minister has laid out, there is not one municipality in Ontario that could not qualify for this, that does not have a tourist appear before it somewhere throughout the year, if it wishes to be open on Sunday.

Who is going to pay the costs? Who is going to pay for all the hearings? Who is going to pay for the consultants? Who is going to pay the court costs when this legislation is going to challenged? Is it going to be the municipalities, or is it going to be the government of Ontario, which brought in this disastrous bill?

Hon Mr Cooke: I could run through all the initiatives that this government has announced so far since we have been in power that the municipalities have very much appreciated, because we are not the type of government that offloads to the lower level of government. We are not like our friends in Ottawa, who offloaded billions of dollars to this government. We have decided there is going to be a real partnership, and that partnership -- -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: I guess the Conservatives do not want to have an answer.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I am sure I heard the leader of the third party indicate that I had indicated there would be all kinds of municipalities opening up. I do not know that and I do not know where I indicated that.

Mr Harris: I am not sure that was a point of order, but if it was I would like to respond and say that if in fact the minister is going to have a common pause day, why does he need any legislation for employees who may not want to work on that day that he says is commonly closed?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale come to order.

The Minister of Community and Social Services has a response to a question asked yesterday by the member for Burlington South.

Hon Ms Akande: Yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Burlington South concerning the establishment of two non-profit child care services and the fact that they were remaining empty at this time. I wanted to correct the information and to supply the answer.

First of all, the member was referring to two of three child care centres. One of them has not --

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While I think we in this House like the idea of the minister responding to a question that was asked by the member for Burlington South, it usually is good etiquette of the member to answer the question and at least give notice of the answer coming to the member so that he or she, in this case he, can be in his place, because there is a tradition as well that there be a supplementary allowed to the reply.

I would ask in this case if we could perhaps defer the answer being received by the House until the member for Burlington South arrives, either today, or if he is not in, perhaps he will be here tomorrow.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce raises a point of order, and you are absolutely right. I did not realize until the minister had started that the member for Burlington South was not in his place. The mistake is mine, and if you would be so --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Oh, you read minds as well. If you would add a minute to the time, I will recognize the member for Huron with his question.

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Klopp: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As the minister is aware, the previous Liberal government told the counties that they should do county studies --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Markham. Would the member for Huron place his question, please.

Mr Klopp: The previous Liberal government told us and our counties that we should do county studies. Many of us thought very much back to the Tories when we thought of the regional government syndrome, so we were very concerned. We thought, though, that we should do studies, but we had to make very sure that we were in charge of those studies. We asked the previous government to have that addressed.

The good news was that the previous Liberal government allowed us to do the study that we were in control of. The bad news was that they would not give us any money to help with that study. That was then. What can the minister tell the people of Huron about how the government views the Huron county study now?

Hon Mr Cooke: I certainly appreciate the question and the interest that the member has demonstrated over the last number of months about the need for effective local government but also the need to have the local government and communities involved in shaping that local government.

The county of Huron certainly showed leadership by beginning its county restructuring study on its own, because it had not received assistance from the previous government. I am very pleased to indicate to the member today that we in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in this government have indicated to the county of Huron that we want to contribute to that, and we have indicated a contribution of $36,000 towards this study.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Ramsay: I would like to give another chance to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to show that maybe he cares and is concerned about jobs in Ontario. The Liberal budget task force is travelling across the north this week, and it appears that the Liberal northern dream is now becoming the NDP northern nightmare for northerners, because on Friday, as I hope the minister is aware, Abitibi-Price closed its Thunder Bay division, throwing 400 people out of work, more northerners out of work and on the bread lines in northern Ontario. We have to add Abitibi-Price now to the list that starts by including Algoma Steel and Spruce Falls and Denison Mines, to name a few that are threatening to close or are now laying off people.

What is it going to take for the minister to wake up and start to be proactive, rather than reactive, and come out with some innovative plans to help jobs in northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We, of course, are being proactive in one of the most important ways that we can be proactive -- although it will raise some concern from members opposite -- which is to get this federal government to get off this kick of continuing this recession it has made here in Canada. Some of the most salient points and concerns that are affecting these northern industries, and industries in southern Ontario and all throughout Ontario, are in fact the high interest rates, the high dollar, the GST and any number of other federal policies that are negatively impacting these companies.

If members opposite do not want to believe me, they need simply pick up a newspaper or trade journal or report from any business magazine to see the CEOs of those companies expressing those very concerns.

In addition to that, in a positive vein though, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology will continue, through the Minister of Northern Development, through the Ontario Development Corp, through continued consultations with the presidents of those companies and the unions representing those workers, to offer assistance wherever we can and where it is in our purview. We have done that; we will continue to do so. We very much, however, urge the federal government to get off this made-in-Canada recession and produce policies that are more effective and allow our companies to be competitive again.

Mr Ramsay: It is sad that the minister is crying the woes of the world and all the problems of the world when he is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, which means that he is empowered to come up with some solutions to help the workers of Ontario. Where are the retraining programs that will enable Ontario workers to maintain their jobs in a competitive world? It is his responsibility to get those going, and northerners expect him to be coming up with those innovative programs.

Northerners would rather see paycheques than severance cheques, and that is what this government is about, severance cheques. We want to see some paycheques. What is the minister doing to stem the lack of confidence people have in an NDP Ontario, so that we will now have investment and job creation rather than job loss and plant closings?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I agree with the member opposite that under the previous government the retraining and skills training programs in this province obviously, by the record, had not worked. That is why this new government, through the Ministry of Skills Development, is developing a new Ontario training and adjustment program which will be before this Legislature very soon. I hope that it, coupled with added incentives in the education area, will in fact allow Ontario workers to be better trained and more flexible to be able to cope with the changing global economy, as we now find it.

1500

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Arnott: My question is for the Solicitor General and it pertains to police staffing at the Ontario Provincial Police detachment in Guelph, which serves the south and east part of my riding of Wellington. The minister will recall that my first appeal to him in this matter was contained in a letter dated 1 October 1990, the date he assumed the office of Solicitor General. In the Legislature, on 8 April 1991, I again raised this issue.

Subsequently, as a result of several letters from municipalities calling for action, the Solicitor General, in a letter dated 25 March 1991, indicated to the reeve of the township of Eramosa that the OPP province-wide review, which had been in the works for well over a year, had been completed.

Today is 4 June. Surely the results of this province-wide review are available. Would the minister explain to the Legislature his reluctance to release the findings of this report?

Hon Mr Farnan: I have to say the member is quite accurate in all the details that he has placed before the House. The review is presently being studied by myself and my staff, and we will be coming forward with recommendations to address the matter.

Mr Arnott: Just this past weekend, in conversation with one of my constituents in Puslinch township, I was told that his home had been broken into four times. Recently there has been a rash of break-ins in his neighbourhood. According to police statistics, occurrences in the area are up 10% per year over the past four to five years. When is the Solicitor General going to forgo his preoccupation with damage control and pay some attention to the substantive issues under his responsibility which are now being neglected?

Hon Mr Farnan: There is no question about it, our policing services are doing an extraordinarily good job with limited resources. As we look at the recommendations of the report, it is very clear to me that we will have to bring forward recommendations that may indeed call for structural review.

We are aware of the situation, but I want to point this out and I want all members of the House to support me in it: Our policing services, with the resources available to them, are doing a magnificent job.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mrs Haslam: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Now that the ministry has responded to short-term financial concerns of farmers with $50 million in interest assistance and $40 million for the gross revenue insurance plan and a commitment to the net income stabilization account, I would like to ask about long-term approaches to community development.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and others stress the need for a complete reassessment of rural policy. Bearing in mind that a large majority of rural residents are employed in the threatened manufacturing sector and other industries, could the minister tell us what his strategy will be in addressing the wider issues affecting all rural citizens?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member for Perth seems to provide more questions for Agriculture and Food than perhaps any other member in the House, and I thank her for that.

We have addressed some of the short-term concerns in agriculture. We are now looking at rural community involvement as a priority. It is mentioned in the new strategic plan for the ministry. We want to look at ways of stemming the exodus of people from the rural community to the cities. In order to do that, we have to come up with proactive, positive suggestions to maintain people in rural communities.

A team within my ministry is looking at the issue of rural economic development. I hope we can work with other ministries and talk to my cabinet colleagues. This is a co-operative effort from the government of different ministries working together to address some of the long-term needs in rural Ontario.

Mrs Haslam: As the minister knows, some of the recommendations of the agricultural finance review committee, in the Hayes report, dealt with issues of rural development. In particular, a variety of co-operative ventures was suggested to foster rural development. Specifically, the committee recommended programs designed to channel savings into rural development projects. Can the minister explain how these programs will be incorporated into this strategy?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The Hayes report suggested that we look at ways of having rural people, in fact city people as well, invest, if you will, in rural Ontario in terms of agriculture, but perhaps also in other rural initiatives that would provide new opportunities for people in rural Ontario.

That will be looked at in conjunction with the long-term finances which Mr Hayes is now looking at, and hopefully we will have a program to provide something in the fall so that people themselves in rural Ontario will provide the funds and the investment for rural Ontario, rather than having to rely entirely on the government to provide funds for investment.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Curling: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. The minister is in receipt of an investigative report from the Ombudsman on the case backlog at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The minister would be aware of the Ombudsman's recommendation that immediate action is required to eradicate the commission's backlog and rectify the inadequacy of its case handling procedures.

The Ombudsman also makes the following two points: "The commission's investigative action with respect to the complaints brought by these individuals was unreasonable and oppressive. The commission's omission to take adequate steps to enable it to achieve the objectives set out 31 March 1991 in its case management plan is unreasonable." The third observation is, "The commission's omission to effectively carry out its mandate is unreasonable."

I am waiting for this government to bring to this important justice issue the same seriousness of purpose with which it is attempting to address the backlog in the courts. Justice is being denied by the minister by this inaction. Will the minister tell this Legislature what she is doing to address the serious concerns with the commission's credibility and its inability to fulfil its mandate? Will the minister, in light of the Ombudsman's report, outline her plan or, more importantly, her timetable for action, if there is one?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I too have a very great concern with the backlog, as I did on 6 September, when I realized that so many consultants' reports had come through which previous governments had totally ignored and not carried through with.

We have already set up a plan of action. There is a new case management program in place. We looked at that in the six months to see how that could work and whether that would achieve its goal. Unfortunately, it has not addressed the issue, so we are now setting out to approach another form of case management.

I also want to say that what I have done is appoint five new commissioners who will start in July -- and the members have interviewed those five people -- who have a past history of civil rights and civil liberties and human rights, who cannot wait to get on to the human rights commission to start some new plans. As an arm's length relationship with this ministry, that is exactly what we have to do; that is, to have the commissioners take charge of the situation and make sure we have a justice system in Ontario that is true to everybody.

1510

Mr Curling: It would seem that the minister has no plan to get the commission back on track. We hear about blaming previous governments and all that. That is not a way for a plan.

I heard the minister comment that we have appointed these commissioners. I do not think we have appointed them yet. I think they were interviewed. I think the meeting is tomorrow or something like that.

The credibility of the commission has been badly shaken by reports of discrimination within the commission itself. As well, questions have been raised with respect to the $3 million which was allocated to the commission to facilitate the hiring of additional front-line staff to help reduce the case backlog. Nine months have passed and still nothing has been done to address the concern that the minister has already admitted she was aware of long before the election.

Although her party has consistently taken the position that the commission was underfunded and under-resourced, which was said by the Minister of Skills Development, clearly the minister felt that the money allocated by the previous government was sufficient or she would not have frozen funding for this commission. The minister chooses to respond to what her party describes as underfunding by freezing funding. Perhaps she too was questioned about how effectively the money was used.

Will the minister commit to an examination of the commission's finances before a committee of the Legislature? Will she take this one small step towards restoring the commission's credibility?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I do not think we have to appoint another commission, because there have been studies done in the past and we have to look at those recommendations.

The member discussed the $3 million that was allocated last year to look at case management. Unfortunately, that $3 million did nothing to relieve the backlog. We looked at that again and saw that if the dollars were not being addressed and if that could not help the backlog, then other measures had to be taken. We are looking at a whole process of how we can look at the backlog and a new way of case management. It is something that I think can be addressed and done. I think, very truthfully, we are moving towards that. We are seeing the results and we will see the results.

Unfortunately, we came to this position with this enormous backlog and nothing having been done on this backlog for five years. Five years ago the Office of the Ombudsman said that the backlog was a critical issue, and nothing was done. We have to make sure we address that issue, and we are moving towards that.

APPOINTMENT OF ONTARIO HYDRO PRESIDENT

Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. As she knows, the board of directors for Ontario Hydro has appointed Alan Holt as president and chief executive officer. The board cites Mr Holt's vast experience serving Ontario Hydro successfully in many capacities. He has the engineering and administrative experience. Former president Bob Franklin ranked him as an outstanding executive.

Based on a letter from the Premier to Mr Franklin on 16 May, this government will introduce amendments to the Power Corporation Act which will see the chairman established as chief executive officer. Given the fact that the board endorses Mr Holt as president and chief executive officer, why does the minister now want to give the chief executive officer responsibilities to the government-appointed chairman?

Hon Ms Carter: I would like to point out that until 1989 the chairman of Ontario Hydro was also the chief executive officer, and had been for many decades, and that in other provinces of Canada it is normal for the chairperson of the Hydro facility to be also the chief executive officer, so we are in a sense just reverting to normal. As the opposition member knows, the previous chairperson was also president and CEO, so that in effect the question did not arise. By strengthening the position of the chairman we are strengthening the link between the government and Hydro and the control that the public of Ontario has over this utility which does in fact belong to them.

Mr Jordan: How does the minister respond to the statement in the letter from the board where it states, "Mr Eliesen has also requested that the board, pending any change in the legislation, appoint him as president and chief executive officer"? He has not as yet even been approved by committee as chairman of Ontario Hydro but he has already now, according to this letter, asked the board, pending the change in legislation, to appoint him chairman and chief executive officer.

The members of the board state, "He does not have the experience and the proven managerial record to qualify as the chief executive officer." The minister said she would be more comfortable if she had a chairman who was in favour of her policies relative to nuclear power. She has succeeded in that manner, in that direction. Does she not think it is now important to listen to the directors and the board and have a chief executive officer who does have the administrative capabilities, who has come up through the company --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his question, please?

Mr Jordan: -- and will be of great assistance to the chairman and to the people of Ontario in managing that utility?

Hon Ms Carter: There are several points here.

First of all, although the Hydro board did indeed have the right to appoint the new president, it was rather unusual that it would do so when it was only at half strength and was about to be joined by new members.

As regards the new chairman, Marc Eliesen, he has not formerly been employed by Ontario Hydro but he does have extremely relevant experience. He is a proven administrator. He was chairperson of Manitoba Hydro and did a good job in that capacity.

The suggestion from the rump, as I call them, of the Hydro board was that the new president needed to be somebody who had been working within Ontario Hydro. I should point out that Bob Franklin, who is just leaving that position, was not a previous employee of Hydro when he was appointed and everybody agrees that he indeed did a great job in that position. I have every expectation and confidence that Mr Eliesen will do an extremely good job in that position.

HUDSON'S BAY CO

Ms Harrington: My question is for the Treasurer. We have heard in the news that the Hudson's Bay Company is considering relocating its corporate headquarters to Buffalo. Does the Treasurer know if this is true?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think it is important to assure members and others who might be listening or watching that this is not the case. As a matter of fact, Ontario is such a good place to do business and invest in that the Bay will be investing $15 million in new money in the next couple of years.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Ms Harrington: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. Last Thursday, the member for Ottawa-Rideau quoted from the Niagara Falls Review and said the following: "The member for Niagara Falls...said that government workers in particular should be required to shop Canadian because it is Canadian taxes that pay their wages." She went on to ask the government if it was considering requiring government workers to shop in Ontario. What was actually said in the paper in response to the Ontario Teachers' Federation press release encouraging teachers to shop in Ontario is this:

"'Most important is the change in the mindset of the consumers who cross the border to shop,' Mrs Harrington said. 'It's got to come from the grass roots. Government workers in particular should be convinced to shop Canadian because it's Canadian taxes that pay their wages. These people have good jobs paid by the government. Encouragement to buy in Canada should come from their own ranks because it's their pay.'"

The word "convinced" is significantly different from the word "required." I believe the Liberal member should know that the difference between the words "convinced" and "required" is also the difference between democracy and a totalitarian state.

The Speaker: I thank the member for the point of personal explanation.

1520

PETITIONS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Harnick: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, affiliated with the Royal Canadian Legion, North York Branch 66, either through membership or friendship, wish to add our voices to the protest regarding the removal of the oath to the Queen for the Metro Toronto police department. This action only further erodes the heritage of Canada at a time when unity is an issue not only for those born and raised in this country, but also for those who chose Canada as their homeland."

I have 169 signatures. My name is affixed.

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario reading as follows:

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

"That the assembly shall demand that the government of Ontario rescind its decision to eliminate the oath of allegiance to the Queen of Canada for police officers, who must uphold laws that are proclaimed in the name of Queen Elizabeth II."

I have attached my signature to the petition and concur with it.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Jordan: I rise in the Legislature today to present a petition from the residents of Almonte in the county of Lanark regarding the closing of the land registry office in Almonte.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Almonte, North Lanark county and surrounding area wish to here state our profound opposition and protest to the closing of the Almonte registry office.

"We are outraged that a basic government service, which has serviced this area for over 100 years, is being taken away. We are outraged that $1 million was spent on a new office less than one year ago and is now being closed. We are outraged at the increased cost in legal and surveying fees that will result and in the inconvenience and loss of service to the public.

"The registry office has been used for decades by ordinary citizens, not just lawyers and title researchers and other professional groups. It has been used for research and checking property records and heritage of the area. Not one good reason has been given as to why ordinary people should lose this facility and be forced to drive to Perth or hire someone there to look into a matter before going to one's lawyer or surveyor.

"This decision is completely outrageous and is designed to satisfy the government bureaucrats and politicians, not the people of Almonte and Lanark county."

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE / COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE

Mr White from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

M. White du comite permanent de l'administration de la justice presente le rapport suivant et propose son adoption :

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Fire Fighters.

Projet de loi 87, Loi modifiant le Code de la route relativement aux pompiers auxiliaires.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi devra passer a l'etape de troisième lecture.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RETAIL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE COMMERCES DE DÉTAIL

Mr Farnan moved first reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act in respect of the opening of retail business establishments and employment in them.

M. Farnan propose la première lecture du projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours feries dans le commerce de detail et la Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des etablissements de commerce de detail et l'emploi dans ces etablissements.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1991

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (NOTICE OF TERMINATION), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI EN CE QUI A TRAIT AU PRÉAVIS DE LICENCIEMENT

Mr Dadamo moved first reading of Bill 116, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act with respect to Notice of Termination.

M. Dadamo propose la première lecture du projet de loi 116, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui a trait au preavis de licenciement.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

1530

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comite plenier.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE RÉGIME DES OBLIGATIONS ALIMENTAIRES ENVERS LA FAMILLE

Resuming consideration of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.

Reprise de l'etude du projet de loi 17, Loi portant modification des lois relatives a l'execution d'ordonnances alimentaires et de garde d'enfants.

Hon Miss Martel: I would ask for unanimous consent to stack the votes out of committee of the whole at the end of the bill. We have also agreed to defer the votes until tomorrow as well.

Agreed to.

Section/article 4:

The Chair: When we had our last meeting of the committee of the whole the following section was discussed, section 4 of the bill, proposed subsection 3.4(2.1) of the act. Mr Hampton has moved that section 3.4 of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(2.1) If the support order has been assigned to an agency described in subsection 33(3) of the Family Law Act, 1986 or if there are arrears owing to the agency from a past assignment, the court shall not suspend the support deduction order in the circumstances described in clause (2)(b) without the agency's consent."

Vote deferred.

Le vote est reporte.

The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that subsections 3.4(5) and (6) of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(5) The director is not a party to a motion brought to suspend the operation of a support deduction order; however, if the payor brings a motion under subsection 3.8(6), the director must also be served with notice of the motion and may be added as a party."

Mr Wessenger: As originally drafted, this subsection named the parties to the support order as the parties to a motion brought to suspend the operation of a support deduction order. This could be interpreted so as to prevent the addition of the Minister of Community and Social Services or other statutory assignee of the support order as a party to the motion. It is important that the assignee have the right to appear at the motion, which can affect the assignee's interests in the order.

Vote deferred.

Le vote est reporte.

The Chair: Mr Harnick moves that section 3.4 of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"(11.1) Despite any other provision of this section, a court that makes a support deduction order shall immediately suspend its operation if the payor requests the suspension and agrees to pay to the director the amounts owing under the support order to which it relates and the court is satisfied that the payor is likely to make the payments.

"(11.2) A suspension order referred to in subsection (11.1) is terminated if the payor, without an explanation that is acceptable to the director, fails to make a payment under the support order when it is due.

"(11.3) The support deduction order is reinstated when the suspension order is terminated under subsection (11.2)."

Mr Harnick: The purpose of this amendment is to take a person out of the system for collection if that person has a demonstrated track record of paying without the necessity of a government agency becoming involved. The purpose behind this amendment deals with many aspects that possibly could make this bill better than it is.

We know that past experience with the support and custody legislation indicates that there are far too many people in the system and not nearly enough people to administer the system. We know, and the evidence at the committee hearings indicated, that in many jurisdictions there would be one case worker trying to collect arrears from 500 or 600 people, far too many to make the collection proceedings a possibility.

The elimination of the 25% of those who pay without the necessity of a government agency becoming involved would make those ratios lower. They would make this bill possibly successful and they would make the job of those people within the support custody agency much easier.

The idea of a garnishment proceeding being eliminated, in and of itself, being the element that could make this bill a success is not there. What this bill has essentially done is remove the garnishment proceeding. However, the difficulty still remains that those who are in arrears have to be found, and if there are too many of them it would be impossible for the staff people to locate the individuals who are in arrears in order to have the automatic deduction come off of their paycheque.

Those 25% who pay should not be in this system. The amendment I have brought avoids the necessity of clogging the system with those individuals. It also avoids those individuals who do pay and who are responsible being stigmatized by their employers as being people who have to have a government agency chasing them to make good on their obligations. Certainly their self-respect is something that should be considered and that this bill does not consider.

1540

The other difficulty we have dealing with this legislation is that we have some $300 million that we know is in arrears. The government has indicated to us that those arrears are primarily caused by people who are avoiding the system. That is not exactly the case. Many of those people who are in arrears are in fact people who are paying, but cannot afford to pay the amount of money that the order has stipulated they pay. The alternative they have is that they must go back to court and they must seek a variation of the amount of the order against them.

We heard in the hearings that people who have support payment orders against them cannot afford to go back to that court because they need representation. Once they have that representation they cannot get a date to appear before that court because the courts are so clogged, and the remedy that they should have available to them is not available to them. The result of that is that they remain in arrears and the cumulative effect of those arrears keeps growing and growing to the point where they can never rise and get their heads above water. The result is that a great many of those individuals are going underground and avoiding the system altogether.

Certainly this bill will not do anything to correct those situations. Because of all of those people who are attempting to make payments but cannot make the payments to the extent to which they are obligated, it makes abundant sense to take out of the system those people who are payors who do not need a government agency overseeing their payments so that the agency has an opportunity to be successful with those people who have to be found before their paycheques can receive the automatic deduction.

This amendment does exactly what we need done in order to protect these individuals. If the members take a look at subsection 3.4 (11.1), it says:

"Despite any other provision of this section, the court that makes the support deduction order shall immediately suspend its operation if the payor requests the suspension and agrees to pay to the director the amounts owing under the support order to which it relates and the court is satisfied that the payor is likely to make the payments."

The payor must request the suspension, the money still remains payable by him directly to the director, and the court has a determination to make to ensure that this individual will make those payments.

The next subsection deals with termination of a suspension order and states:

"A suspension order referred to in subsection (11.1) is terminated if the payor, without an explanation that is acceptable to the director, fails to make a payment under the support order when it is due."

If that individual who is excluded from the system makes a default and does not pay when he is obligated to pay, the suspension order is automatically terminated. The only way that suspension order can be resurrected is by means of an explanation acceptable to the director, so certainly the protection is there if it is needed. I submit that this is a good amendment in that regard.

The other aspect that I wish to draw to members' attention is section 3.4, which is the section that permits suspension of a support deduction order. That section states as follows:

"(1) A court that makes a support deduction order may immediately make an order to suspend its operation or the court may, on motion, subsequently suspend its operation."

Then conditions to do that are set out:

"(2) The court may suspend a support deduction order under subsection (1)...only if,

"(a) it finds that it would be unconscionable, having regard to all of the circumstances, to require the payor to make support payments through a support deduction order; or

"(b) the parties to the support order agree that they do not want support payments collected through a support deduction order and the court requires the payor to post such security as it considers adequate and in accordance with the regulations."

If we go on, subsection 3.4(3) sets out what is unconscionable determination.

"The following shall not be considered by a court in determining whether it would be unconscionable to require a payor to make support payments through a support deduction order:

"1. The fact that the payor has demonstrated a good payment history in respect of his or her debts, including support obligations.

"2. The fact that the payor has had no opportunity to demonstrate voluntary compliance in respect of support obligations.

"3. The fact that the parties have agreed to the suspension of the support deduction order.

"4. The fact that there are grounds upon which a court might find that the amount payable under the support order should be varied."

This indicates, if one looks at this section, the chances of anybody going to a court and proving that it is unconscionable when those elements cannot be referred to is a task that is virtually impossible. I put it to the members that these cases will be few and far between. The opportunity to seek a suspension of a support deduction order will be rare.

The other way that the support deduction order can be suspended is by the posting of security.

"(4) For the purposes of clause (2)(b), security shall be in a minimum amount equal to the support payable for four months and the security shall be in money or in such other form as may be provided for in the regulations."

This ensures that only the wealthy can be suspended from a support deduction order. The idea that you have to be able to afford four months of security, payable in money, not as security by a bond or anything of that nature -- it must be an actual payment of money and it has to be four months' security -- eliminates all but the very richest people who have support deduction orders levied against them. Certainly those people who are not the richest people in our society are people, in most cases, who can be trusted to make the payments on their own. This act says that they cannot be trusted because they are not wealthy. I think that this section, 3.4, is an onerous test to avoid a suspension of a support deduction order that will rarely, if ever, be met by any individuals except those who monetarily can afford to do it.

1550

I would recommend to everyone in this Legislature that my amendment, as set out in section 3.4, adding subsections (11.1), (11.2) and (11.3), does a couple of things. They make it possible for those persons who have demonstrated responsibility to be exempted from this act, and they make it possible for 25% of individuals not to clog the system, so that those who are forced underground because the system cannot respond to their needs will be found and will have to make the payments that are necessary.

I urge every member of this Legislature to vote in favour of these amendments, because they will not change the fundamental principle of this act, but what they will do is give this act an opportunity to be successful. Without this, I can certainly say past history and experience has said this act will fail. At least with these amendments we are unclogging the system to a degree. We may meet with a measure of success.

Mr Wessenger: I must say I have a grave concern over this particular amendment. I think it would seriously impair the effectiveness of the new system, or in fact even perhaps destroy the new system in its effectiveness, because the basic premise of this support deduction is to make support deduction the normal situation, the one that applies in most cases. In effect, the whole way the system is geared is that it is the normal way except in very limited circumstances which are set out in the act. This is what we have tried to do with this legislation to try to make it apply as universally as we can.

In effect, this amendment would say that this system only applied in the case of default, because all a payor, the person who is going to pay the money, has to do is get up and say, "I would like it requested and I agree to pay it." Particularly if there is no evidence of any default in the past, the court would probably grant it. In effect, I think it would make the new system completely unworkable.

Second, I would like to add that there are various problems with respect to the amendment as well just from a technical point of view. The suspension order provides in (11.2) that the director is to make a determination whether a termination reason is acceptable or not. That is a judicial decision. I am surprised that my friend would want the system to take over the role of making judicial decisions when really it is a collection agency, in effect a collection agency, to be most effective in collecting support payments. That is the whole purpose of the legislation, and all the amendments that have been made and the whole process of the bill, to make it the most effective system we can, to make sure we have a system which can increase the level of compliance from a low at the moment maybe of 16% up to perhaps a level of 50% to 60%.

I might also add that the whole problem with respect to allowing people to opt out right at the beginning is that you would not have this basic information you need to collect if the person went into default, so you would have a problem in that regard too. The other aspect is, once you have the person on the system, you prevent the default because the payments are made regularly.

For those reasons, I would urge the members of the House to reject this amendment.

Mr Harnick: I just want to correct something that the parliamentary assistant said. He stated that all a person has to do is say, "I will pay," and make the request and then he becomes exempted from the system. If he reads the rest of subsection (11.1), it states, "and the court is satisfied." He neglects to say that there is an onus to prove that you will make the payments and the court must be satisfied, and the court is given the widest latitude. They are not confined to looking at any particular factors. They can look at any factor they want. They can look at his history of payments. They can look at his income. They can look at his ability to earn. They can look at the stability of his employment history. The idea that the court must be satisfied is certainly the initial protection that is needed.

Beyond that, what the parliamentary assistant does not indicate is that one default automatically puts the person back into the system if, without an explanation, the director is not satisfied as to why there was a default.

The protection is there. This amendment does not change the fundamental character of this bill. In crafting this amendment, I recognized that this government believes in the concept of universality. I do not believe in that concept when one views it in terms of family law. I believe that every family is different and the circumstances affecting every family are different and that certain families will get along better without the intervention of a government agency and that certain families can in fact solve their problems and that way, by solving them among themselves, reduce the amount of friction within a family unit.

The more people have to be involved with government agencies and courts in matrimonial situations, the more adversarial the process becomes and the more difficult it is for that family to regain its self-respect and maintain the relationship among all members of the family. Universality in matrimonial law is abhorrent, but recognizing the way this government thinks and recognizing that it believes in universality in virtually every program that it will enact, I have maintained the integrity of its legislation and this particular section does not intrude on the concept of universality. I was careful to do that, in the hope that the government members would recognize that this does not offend the character of this act.

It might make this act better and it might make this act possibly a degree more successful. I do not believe it is going to be as successful as the Attorney General says it is going to be. The mere fact that they are getting rid of garnishment proceedings is not going to make it any easier to collect money for people who cannot afford the amount they are ordered to pay or for people who have escaped the system, and they are still going to escape the system.

What this does is take 25% of people with a demonstrated record of being payors, without the need to chase them, out of the system and it makes it possible for the people who have to administer this system to do so without being overwhelmed by the numbers of people they have to chase. That is all it does. It does not affect the fundamental character of this legislation. I urge the government to accept this amendment, because it will make this bill better and at the same time it will maintain the self-respect of individuals who are involved in a matrimonial dispute in which custody or access or support is involved.

To think that those other elements, such as custody and access, are not tied in to support is wrong. If we can eliminate extra friction within family units, then those other areas that are far more contentious than this can be amicably solved, we can reduce the level of tension within families and we can make this bill, to a degree, successful.

Do not get the impression that I am trying to change the fundamental nature or character of the act, because this amendment does not do that. This amendment alleviates pressure on the system and it gives people the idea that they are maintaining their self-respect. That is all this amendment does, and I urge government members to think independently, not to take the marching orders that come down from the Attorney General and the parliamentary assistant, and to look at this for what it really is. It is a non-political thing, something that will make this bill better, and that is why it is being offered. It does not affect the fundamental character of the bill or the concept of universality which the government holds so dear in every piece of legislation it brings forth.

1600

Mr Elston: I rise to speak on this item to remind ourselves that we do have a duty owed to people in conflict with respect to relationships which were originally based on the best of intentions, the highest degree of emotion. We have an obligation, it seems to me, to make sure we do not intrude in a way which prevents those people from actually coming to grips with settling the matters which have reached, undeniably, a difficult situation.

I agree with my friend the member for Willowdale that if we can minimize the number of times in which a government agency intrudes upon the personal lives of our people in the province we probably have set ourselves a target of good public policy.

For so long now we have understood and followed the directives, at least from the federal organization, that the government has no business in the bedrooms of Ontario and Canada in that regard, and here is a piece of legislation that tends to inflict the agency into the personal relationships of men and women who have found that for one reason or another they must separate.

The destruction of the family unit, in the first case, is a very serious matter and it generates all sorts of conflicts which are, without doubt, extremely difficult to overcome.

If there is a situation which is positive, it is that grown men and women are able to come to grips with how they will arrange for the management of their financial affairs upon the breakup of a union. Here is a situation where two adults who have reached an agreement can be allowed to opt out of the agency's activities.

An agency, by its very nature, cannot be personal. It cannot, as we were told during the hearings, get personally involved with the operations of the affairs between the two parties. It cannot become human in that very necessary way that helps heal the differences that have been generated by family breakup.

Why, then, is it that if there are no arrears, if there are efforts made to pay up the arrears -- if, in fact, all the arrears are paid up -- the agency must continue its meddling in the affairs of these people? If a consent has been arrived at between the parties, why is it that the government agency must be there? Why is it that someone who has no interest whatsoever in the emotion, in the financial arrangements or in any other aspect of the lives of the two people who are party to this be required by legislation to continue to prevent the two parties from coming as close together as is practicably possible under the circumstances?

I do not understand, as we talked about other parts of the bill, why this agency must be in on every attempt by two people, a man and a woman, who are trying to resolve their difficulties. I do not understand why it is that we cannot resort to them only if there is an impossible situation, where there is a problem. I do not understand why the government wants to meddle in the affairs of people who have made the proper arrangements. I do not understand why it is that when things are going right, the agency requires itself to be the payor to the people who require the money. If an exchange can be done directly, is that not preferable to having to go through a third-party organization?

I know the people have been told they do not want any changes made to this particular bill. I think the issues at hand, though, are extremely important from a social context. I spoke briefly last week about the problems of the bill being a collection agency not so much for the people who need the money but more so for the agencies which have already paid money out in the form of general welfare assistance or family benefits. That has, I think, quite clearly rung true for several people in the various parts of Ontario who have replied to me by telephone, indicating that they have been suffering from the intervention and in fact have had their financial affairs displaced to the point where there are some problems.

In fairness, in one case I think some positive steps have been taken by the people at the Ministry of the Attorney General to help the particular people get on with their lives, but is it not important for us as legislators to make sure we do not intrude too often and too deeply between the parties when they can come to a resolution?

Why should we not allow a provision in the bill to let direct payment continue? Why should we not be able to indicate to the people that every person who is in a relationship that breaks apart is subject to the monitoring of the act, but that he or she does not necessarily have to come under its aegis unless there is some grievous harm being done? If the money is changing hands as it ought, why not allow that to continue? Why does the government have to intervene?

If spouse A is paying spouse B and has never missed a payment, or if spouse A gets laid off and has missed one payment but then pays that up and continues to pay the others, why do we always have to have him from then on making the payment to the government so that the government can then launder the money, I guess, and pay it out? I do not understand what is so bad about having two people dealing directly when they have been able to come to the proper arrangements with respect to their relationship. What is so wrong?

I know the people will not answer the questions I have put to them. I know they do not want to have any changes in this act.

I have to make an observation. I had asked last week whether there were any regulations available. I do not know whether anybody is here now who remembers my question. I was told by several people over on the other side of the House, "We can't draft regulations because we don't want to deal with prejudging the result of the legislation."

Do members know what happened today at 11 o'clock when the Solicitor General, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation had their press conference about the so-called common pause day stuff they are trying to force upon the people of the province? They gave out not only the draft legislation, legislation which I presume was introduced today, but they gave us a draft regulation with all of the nice categories of exemptions. Did anybody see the draft regulation? I saw the draft regulation. I guess somebody is prejudging the legislation. If it can be done with one piece of legislation, surely somebody can show us the draft regulations they got with respect to this legislation.

I would like to see, for instance, exactly how those draft regulations are going to allow all the arrangements around the payments that are required, if no exemptions or no flexibility are allowed through the adoption of this amendment, to be made to the parties who had been receiving their money without fail so far. Is there anybody who can help me out by providing me with the current status of the draft regulations, perhaps sharing with us the draft regulations? As the minister in charge of the common pause day gave us the regulations attached to that bill, perhaps the people here could show us the draft regulations with respect to SCOE.

I would be very happy, then, to sit down on some of my other points of interest on this, perhaps feeling convinced that this whole area of the Attorney General's administration is going to be able successfully to carry out its mandate in administering this legislation. I would like to see the draft regulations. If we get them under one bill, I guess we should be able to get them under this. I would also particularly like the people to adopt the amendment that has been proposed by my colleague the member for Willowdale.

With that, I am quite prepared to give the floor to the parliamentary assistant, who has ably carried this bill most often for the Attorney General. Perhaps he could share with us his views on some of my points, and also the status of the regulations.

1610

Mr Wessenger: With respect to the member's comments and questions, first of all I would like to deal with the question of default again. I think it is fair to say that generally everyone honestly intends to pay his support, but the statistics show that anywhere up to 76% of payors are in default. That is the problem.

Also, as one member indicated this is a substitution for garnishment, I would like to indicate that garnishment will still exist for lump-sum payments and for situations where there is not an income source.

Another thing I would like to mention is that he said there is no method of dealing with this outside the system, while in fact there is a method of dealing with it outside the support deduction system. The support deduction system only comes into effect when you have a court order for payment. The fact of the matter is that matters can be dealt with by support deduction. There is also the fact that existing orders generally will not come under this legislation unless requested by the recipient and it is practical to make that deduction apply.

With respect to the matter of regulations, of course the ministry has done some initial work on them, but they are not ready. That is the fact: They are not ready yet. Before we present them, we want to have consultations after third reading of the bill with employers and other affected persons to make sure the regulations are workable. There are a lot more complexities, I must say, because we are dealing with employers and payroll deductions, and a somewhat more complex area than I would suggest the member is dealing with in the question of Sunday closing.

Mr Harnick: I point out for the members of the Legislature that it is interesting the parliamentary assistant stands and says that 76% of people are in default. That is exactly what I am trying to stress to members here today: 76% are in default and we cannot collect that money, so why are we putting the additional 24% who are paying and are not in default into the system?

All I am saying to members is that we are clogging the system with the people who can and do pay. It is that 76% the parliamentary assistant makes reference to that we cannot get at. The elimination of 24% of the people from the system will make it possible to concentrate efforts against the 76% who are in default.

Surely there must be 10 or 11 members who sit on the other side of the House who are independent thinkers and who can vote for this amendment so that this bill might work, because if they vote against this amendment there is no chance that this bill is going to work. It is going to be exactly what we have now, and nothing more. The statistics will remain the same. I urge at least 10 or 11 members to please be free thinkers so we can pass this bill in a way that is going to make it meaningful, not so that we end up with exactly what we have now.

Vote deferred.

Le vote est reporte.

The Chair: Mr Harnick moves that section 3.8 of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(10) Despite any other provision of this section, a payor who is not in arrears under a support order on the day this section comes into force and who is making the payments required under the support order shall not be required to make payments through a support deduction order described in subsection (5) unless at any time after this section comes into force he or she, without an explanation that is acceptable to the director, fails to make a payment under the support order when it is due."

Mr Harnick: The thrust of this amendment is similar to the amendment I brought earlier. This amendment deals with those individuals who are making payments under already existing orders when this act comes into force. These are individuals within that 24% or 25% who are making payments without the necessity of any government agency being involved. These are individuals who have a track record of paying and therefore the amendment is directed to them and exempts them from the system.

My rationale for this amendment is very much the same as my rationale for my previous amendment. We would not be clogging the system; we would be exempting those individuals among the 25% who pay, so that we can concentrate our efforts against the 75% who are in default. Garnishment is what this bill is directed at avoiding, but we still must find those individuals who, because of difficulties in the system, are avoiding payments of their obligations. They are avoiding payment because they have orders against them that indicate they have to pay a certain amount of money every month, and they cannot do it because they do not have enough money due to their earning capacity. The result is that they are in default. They pay what they can, but they are still in default. The agency must chase them.

There are also people who cannot make the payments and have gone underground because they are in default and in arrears. The agency still has to find those individuals. The fact that they have avoided or gotten rid of the garnishment aspect of this bill still forces the agency to find those individuals who are in default. There is no panacea to what this bill involves. We have to avoid clogging the system with those people who pay anyway so that we have the manpower, the staff and the expertise to find those who are avoiding their obligations.

1620

As I said earlier, one of the very grave difficulties is that there are a great many people in arrears among those 75% because they cannot afford the orders that have been made against them. They cannot afford to go back to court to have those orders varied. Even if they can afford to go back to court, it takes so long to get there that they just get deeper and deeper in debt and they have two choices: They either wait it out and end up having an astronomical amount of arrears against them on the day they finally get to the courtroom; or they they take the other route, the route that says: "I'd better go underground, because I'm never going to be able to pay this money off. I'm never going to be able to afford a lawyer. I'm going to wait for ever to get to the courtroom, and therefore I have no choice but to avoid my obligations and hide." It is going to be incumbent upon the government agency to find these people. If they have to find or clog their system and administer payments for those who pay anyway, it will be impossible to do so.

So I urge the government not to get involved in areas where it is not needed, particularly dealing with this section, where those individuals have a proven track record. They pay and will continue to pay despite this act. There is no reason to stigmatize them by including them and forcing them to have their pay deducted at the source when they would pay anyway.

The balance of everything I said dealing with the previous amendment still stands. I urge the government members to think independently, because this bill can be made better.

Mr Wessenger: The present section in the act, with respect to old support deduction orders and separation agreements, provides that support deduction is not automatic. It can apply only in two circumstances: first, when the enforcement program considers the support deduction to be advisable; and second, where the recipient requests support deduction and the program considers it practical.

One of the issues the enforcement program will consider, in determining whether support deductions should apply or are practical, is whether there is compliance. But there are special cases where it is important that we have the whole discretion of whether support deductions apply in the case of an old order. For example, the order may be in compliance, but only as a result of continual prodding by the program or the support recipient.

There are also concerns about support orders being used by payors' spouses as negotiating tools. We do not feel that is appropriate. In those circumstances where there is some attempt to use the payment as a negotiating tool, it would be very appropriate to put in the support deduction provisions.

Mr Elston: I rise again to support this amendment. I suspect it probably will have the same weight and effect as it had with respect to the last amendment we voted on, but none the less, I am going to try again.

I support the idea that if people are making payments and performing to the obligations they have undertaken by contract and commitment to people with whom they are no longer living, they should be allowed to do that. I can appreciate that, from the standpoint of the Attorney General's department, it makes its statistics look a whole lot better if it can have everybody included in its web and no matter what the situation, the people who are willingly making payments and otherwise can be included in the positive stats.

I wanted to raise one of the points that the parliamentary assistant had raised. I did not think he would bring it up, but the whole issue of "practical" and "advisable" and the discretion that is applied to the people who are going to administer this program really means that if they think it is going to be too tough to pursue somebody, they are not going to do it. For me that is just a wee bit of a problem, because they are trapping in their big web all of the people who are complying and in compliance, and those are the easy cases. In fact, those are the cases in our society which now are performing okay.

The issue for me is, why should we expend the resources to chase people who are doing well? I have no problems at all with people in the Attorney General's department pursuing the people who are not living up to their contractual obligation, their court-endorsed obligation, their moral and their legal obligation, but I have a wee bit of a problem with the whole idea of putting the government in between the two parties that have split up when they are living up to all of their commitments. I just think it makes good public policy to leave government out of it if the performance of obligations is being carried out without fail.

It is an interesting read when you go through the material in this bill. For instance, when somebody applies not to be included under the support deduction orders, the government does not trust the courts to determine exactly what the circumstances are. They are told which situations to ignore that are being brought up in terms of relevancy to an application and under which circumstances they must issue the support deduction order.

I just think it is very bad to apply what we now know are scarce resources of the public sector to pursue the people who perform without fail their obligations to those they are required to support. It makes very little sense to me that we would spend money pursuing those people when we can make a decision that we will not spend money to pursue the situations that are more difficult to enforce.

That for me is where the test in this case really comes down to voting in favour of the amendment as proposed by the member for Willowdale, and where I think it would make some sensible addition to public policy rather than going on the way these people are. I can see the poor people from the AG's department shaking their heads and I understand they are disappointed in having to listen to this again, because we raised this in committee. I ask their indulgence just for a little bit longer. It will be over soon. It would likely be over sooner if we had the regulations I have always asked these people about, but they are not going to prejudge the legislation.

I like the idea that we have a chance to speak again in a more open forum to the people who drafted this and in whose interest it is that this bill be put together in good form, because if they do not carry it out, if they do not put this bill into place with the resources they have and make it spin perfectly like a top, then they are going to get all the problems that are written to people like me and to the member for Willowdale, the member for Peterborough and the member for Kingston and The Islands. All of us are going to have problems if they do not perform without error.

We have already talked in committee about the difficulties of resources. In fact, when we were dealing with the issues in front of us here, some of the presenters said that to a large extent there will still be considerable concern if resources are not put into this department in the Attorney General's area so that this department can hire all the people it needs to look after the business that it is given.

I think it would make some sense if we allowed those people who are performing okay to be out of the act and applied the resources of this government to those people who are not performing, that we would take a good step ahead. For those people it would seem to be an indication that perhaps the government of the day has some degree of goodwill towards the people who are fulfilling their obligations to the people they must support. It would make eminent sense. As it is now, everything is going to be caught in the web, and I think that probably is not particularly helpful.

Vote deferred.

Le vote est reporte.

1630

The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that subsections 3.9(2) and (3) of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) If the parties to a support order agree in the manner prescribed by the regulations or if the support obligation is stated in a support order to terminate on a set calendar date, the director shall cease enforcement of a support obligation that has terminated; however, if the support order has been assigned to an agency described in subsection 33(3) of the Family Law Act, 1986, the director shall not cease enforcement of the support obligation without the agency's consent.

"(3) If the parties to the support order do not agree or if the agency does not consent, the court that made the support order shall, on the motion of a party to the order or of the agency, decide if the support obligation has terminated."

Mr Wessenger: This amendment ensures that the Minister of Community and Social Services or other statutory assignee of a support order, such as a municipal corporation, a district welfare administration board or an Indian band, has a right to consent to the agreement of the parties that the support order has terminated. As originally drafted, the assignee's consent was not required and the assignee was required to rely solely on the terms of the assignment agreement.

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that subsections 3.9(10) and (11) of the act, as set out in section 4 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(10) The director is not a party to any proceeding to determine the entitlement of any person to support under a support order or to a motion to decide whether a support obligation has terminated."

Mr Wessenger: This basically deletes subsection (10) which stated that the parties to a support order are as the parties in the motions, and this could be interpreted so as to prevent the addition of the Minister of Community and Social Services or other statutory assignee of the supporter as a party to the motion.

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following as a section of the act.

"3.13. Where a support deduction order has been made in respect of a support order that has not been filed in or that has been withdrawn from the director's office, the person entitled to receive support shall inform the director in writing of,

"(a) the amount of money received on account of the support order other than through the support deduction order; and

"(b) any changes in the amount to be paid under the support order."

Mr Wessenger: The purpose of this basically is to alert the recipient to her or his obligations to keep the program advised of the recipient's own enforcement and collection activities. This is important because this will enable the program to monitor the status of the account for the purposes of enforcing the support deduction order and will help to protect the payor against overpayment.

Motion agreed to.

1640

Section/article 5:

The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that subsection 4(2) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) A support order that has been assigned to the Minister of Community and Social Services may not be withdrawn except by the minister or with the minister's consent so long as the order is under assignment or if there are arrears owing to the Ministry of Community and Social Services from a past assignment."

Mr Wessenger: As originally drafted, this subsection assumed that a support order which was or had been assigned to the Ministry of Community and Social Services could only have been filed by the Minister of Community and Social Services. In fact, a support order could have been filed by the recipient prior to any involvement by the Minister of Community and Social Services. In any event, it is not important for the purposes of this subsection to specify who filed the support order.

Accordingly, the subsection, as redrafted, deletes any reference to the person who filed the order. It provides simply that where the Minister of Community and Social Services has an interest in the support payments, either ongoing or arrears, the minister's consent must be obtained prior to withdrawal of the order from the director's office.

Mr Elston: I just want to bring everybody's attention back to the fact that these sections which are being brought forward now are a clear indication of what this bill is all about. It is an act to protect the government. The government wants to make sure it gets its money before the people who require the support get theirs. They want to be sure that assignments cannot be lost. They want to be sure that the Treasurer of Ontario is protected, while at the same time they run around and talk about this being an assault against poverty in Ontario. What they mean is that the poor Treasurer is afraid he will not get the money, money which should go to the women and children who really need it.

I wish those people who had drafted this, and the people who spun the story about what this support order enforcement amendment act is about, would have the courage to admit that they spent more time guaranteeing the protection of the Treasurer of Ontario, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the people who are parts of welfare boards in unorganized territories and other places, than they have spent worrying about how they are going to ensure that the hard-to-collect accounts are actually collected.

When will the people see through the New Democrats and what they are doing with this piece of legislation? This is a collection agency bill for the Treasurer, primarily. First and foremost, these sections display it without any disguise at all. If it had not been for a bit of a problem in drafting, the people would have seen none of this whatsoever. The people of the province, because there was no television in the committee, as I recall, would not have seen the exchanges that were made during the committee hearings, which talked about who should be paramount in whose eyes.

The movement of the amendment by me, for instance, to make sure that the assignments were not honoured until women and children at least got enough money to take them to the poverty line, was defeated by the government members. The New Democrat members refused to support an amendment that would have taken women's and children's support levels to the poverty line -- I want people in the province to understand that -- so that the Treasurer of Ontario could effect the collection on the assignment which was posted by the desperate people who would sign anything to make sure that they got some general welfare benefits or family benefits to maintain a room around their families, clothing on their feet.

I can tell you that we effected the introduction of this legislation in its original form to chase the hard-to-get-at situations, and I can tell you that there were difficulties associated with it. But what these people have done blindly now is call everybody in, and what they want to do by the series of amendments they are posting here is really remove the disguise which the spin doctors have been out around the communities trying to work on the public, that this is some kind of an assault on poverty. It is a protection of the poor Treasurer. It is a protection of the Treasury department's fiscal plan. It is a protection of almost everybody but the poor people who need the money. When will the people see through this? I surely hope they will now see through it as we read through amendment after amendment that deals with the paramountcy of assignments that have been made in favour of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Treasurer. "The Treasurer," this bill says, "needs the money first."

Mr Wessenger: I would just like to reiterate what the Attorney General said last week. From the experience of collections under SCOE, only 10% of all dollars collected went to the Treasurer. The other 90% went to recipients, so I would assume it is a good guideline to the future that the new moneys will be collected in the same proportion and will certainly benefit the children with the additional child support paid.

Mr Bisson: I understand what the honourable member across the House is saying but I would just make the point, and he probably is well aware, that last year in Ontario, of all of the money that was re-collected on the part of the government with regard to these benefits, only 10% went to the Treasurer of Ontario. The remaining 90% went back to the recipients in the province in benefits. I think it is somewhat misleading, when discussing this, not to point that out. All this section says is that we have to make sure in the end that money ends up going where it should, to the recipients.

Mr Elston: On that point, just so that people know what they are talking about here, the statistics are really very good. In fact, the Attorney General's department has been very good in using the statistical data it possesses. We do not have the same sort of basis of material, but they have a lot of data which they pop out on the floor every once in a while so it makes their case look better.

It may be that it is 10%-90%, I do not know whether that is true. I have never seen that stuff, but anyway it is probably true. They are telling us it is. But I will tell members what is more the problem than anything else: There is a whole series of collections which are not now made which ought to be made, while this bill proposes to go after the people who are making their payments directly now without fail.

What is important to understand is that these people in the bureaucracy have a test now which says if it is not practical, they can decide that they will not even chase the people who need to be chased. These people are not performing the type of task which the spin doctors, who run around to the press, are trying to tell the people they are performing. This is not a war on poverty, this is more a concern about assignments to the Treasurer; this is more about a concern about assignments to welfare boards; this is more a concern about the institutions than it is about the people. That is my only point. The point is clearly made by this whole string of amendments.

What is clearer in statistical terms is the failure of these people to be able to collect now, and I admit there was a backlog with respect to collecting the outstanding accounts of people who have failed to live up to their obligations. Far from including all the people who are currently paying directly to their spouses, honouring their contractual obligations or the court-enforced obligations or whatever, their moral obligations, we should be putting more assets and resources towards collecting from those people who cannot be easily collected from. That is where we should be putting our efforts.

We should be making sure that those people who are receiving welfare are not left below the poverty line if there is money due to them from their supporting spouse. That was an amendment which I added. Right now, the paramountcy of the assignments is guaranteed by these things because the minister will not release until they get their money. Only then will they release their assignment. This is a paramountcy issue and it is the paramountcy of institutions over people. That is what I want to outline for the people of Ontario. This is not a war on poverty that affects the people who have come through terrible human tragedies of splitting families. This whole series of amendments do nothing more than guarantee that the minister, he or she, will have the last say in where that money goes. He or she is going to be obliged to take the money away from the men and women who need it. That is clearly at the heart of this series of amendments. That is what this is designed to do.

I cannot tell members how disappointed I was when we were in committee and there was a refusal by the government members to support my motion, which would have allowed the assignment to be honoured only after the people entitled to receive the money from SCOE were at least at the poverty line. That was refused and I do not know why. Why is it a sin to let people receive money so that they can at least get to the poverty line?

1650

We know what the sin is. It is a transgression against the Treasury of the province, which is probably now seen by the New Democratic Party to be more important than the men and women and children who require the dollars to have a roof over their heads. I am sorry, but I am going to have to make this speech probably another one or two times, just so I can make myself feel as if I am able to get the message across.

Where is the paramountcy of the people? I know this government will not let men and women who are living up to their contactual and moral obligations do that without interfering. I accept that now. There are going to vote against the amendments that have been proposed in that regard. There are going to include everybody. Why can they not admit that they also have refused to allow the money to go to the people who need it to take them up to the poverty line?

Why will the member for Simcoe Centre not admit, when he is putting this amendment, that this guarantees the paramountcy of the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Treasury and Economics over those women and children who require the support and, indeed, in some cases men who are supporting families who need the support? Why will he not do that? Because it does not fit with what the spin doctors have told the press about this being an assault against poverty and families. That is why he will not do it.

These amendments explain quite clearly the paramountcy of institution over person. That is the saddest of commentaries on the resolve and will of a group of people who ran and were elected on the Agenda for People.

Mr Harnick: I would just like to indicate that the parliamentary assistant and the member from Cochrane South both give the impression that 90% of the money is collected and goes out to those who are the payees and that 10% only goes to the Treasurer. What they neglect to say publicly is that only 75% of the money that is supposed to be collected is not collected at all, or it is collected in lesser amounts that it is supposed to be collected in. They neglect to make mention of that.

To take this one step further: Of all of the money that is in fact collected, the 10% that goes to the Treasurer would amount, I suspect, based on the numbers that the parliamentary assistant has thrown around and that the Attorney General has thrown around, to many, many millions of dollars.

I agree with the member for Bruce that if those many, many millions of dollars went to those who needed the money, those who are supposed to be supported by support payments, many of those people would be above the poverty line rather than below the poverty line. That is part of the camouflage that is involved in the way this bill has been enacted. I think the bill itself, because of this, is doomed to failure.

Mr Wessenger: I would just like to make a short response. This bill is basically a bill of the Ministry of the Attorney General. This bill is not a bill dealing with the question of social assistance programs, which are dealt with by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I am certain that the member for Bruce is addressing the wrong vehicle to make the point. If he is really interested in this issue, he should bring a resolution to the House suggesting that the House consider changes to our social assistance program.

Generally, our social assistance is based on providing equality of payments to people having the same needs. There is a certain exception made in that social assistance program, and that is an incentive program to encourage people to get back into the workforce. I think if we are going to provide some sort of exception with respect to support deduction, we have to come up with some justification for it along the same principles as with respect to the incentive to get people back into the workforce.

I am just saying this whole question of social assistance payments is not a matter that relates to the Ministry of the Attorney General. What we are concerned about is a matter of having an effective process of collecting child support. We are not reforming the social assistance program.

Mr Bisson: The figures that the member across the floor stated just previously in regard to the 75% get at exactly what this bill is intended to do. The whole idea of the bill is to make sure that those people, the 75% who are in default, not paying the support payments, indeed do so. That the responsibility does not fall back on to the province is a big part of what this bill is speaking to.

We talk about figures and we talk about 10% and 75% and whatever percentage we want to use. Obviously those numbers can be utilized to support each other's statement, but let's keep in mind exactly what this bill is all about. The reality is -- as all of the members of the Legislature know; we deal with it in our constituency offices on a weekly basis -- there are many, many women and some men who are in need of support who are not receiving support because the other spouse decided he or she did not want to pay any. The whole idea of the legislation is to make sure that those who have the responsibility in the end take it and that the responsibility does not fall on the shoulders of the people of this province.

Mr Harnick: I am disappointed that the member for Cochrane South was not here when I introduced my amendments. I am quite sure when he reads those amendments before tomorrow's vote, he will support those amendments because those amendments support what he just said. Those amendments indicate that we should not waste our time chasing the 25% of individuals who are paying. Those amendments say, let's dedicate our efforts to the 75% of people who are in arrears or in default altogether. I hope the member for Cochrane South will read those amendments, will discuss them with his colleagues and persuade them to do what I know he will do tomorrow, and that is to vote in favour of those amendments so that this bill can be made better.

The other thing I point out to the member for Cochrane South is that the only reason those 25% are being left in the system is to improve the numbers that the government will have at the end of the day to show that the bill is working. In fact, those numbers only camouflage the failure of this bill, and that is exactly what they are going to do. So I urge the member for Cochrane South, who I know is a wise gentleman who will consider the amendments, to talk to his colleagues about them. He will realize that the only reason that those 25% are left in the system is to improve the numbers when the government has to report about how its support bill is doing a year, two years or three years from now; but leaving those 25% in the system only makes it impossible and overburdening to try to collect the money from the 75% in arrears or in default altogether.

Mr Elston: The reply of the parliamentary assistant about this not being an appropriate place for us to deal with social assistance is of course bound to get me back on my feet, because he has made it the business of this bill by introducing the paramountcy of the assignments issue into the discussion. All I have said, and I wish to place it again on the record, is that he can put the assignments in the bill and say they must be honoured, and the minister can in fact decide that there can be no decision taken by the people at all until he or she gives his or her permission.

But surely he can also say that the director of the organization responsible for doing the collection for the government should not remit any money to the Treasurer until he or she -- in this case she -- is satisfied that the people are at least receiving money to the poverty line.

Now the parliamentary assistant says I should be making representations to the social assistance amendment act. There is none. There is nothing in front of this House that allows me to speak at all about the issue of poverty except this bill, which has been highlighted by the New Democrats as an attack on poverty.

1700

How in the world he can say, "Don't talk to me about poverty, don't talk to me about social assistance, don't talk to me about assignments from Comsoc, don't talk to me about assignments that will help the Treasurer; you should talk about it to the Minister of Community and Social Services when she brings something into the House," is beyond me. We are here now dealing with assignments, we are here dealing with the issue of the obligation of the director to make payments under those assignments, signed by desperate people so that they can have a home to live in, food to eat, clothing to provide themselves and their children.

I do not know a better time to talk about the obligation of this New Democratic government than right now for it to live up to its commitments to make sure that people come first. The assignment amendments which we are now discussing guarantee that the Treasurer comes first, guarantee that the Minister of Community and Social Services comes first, guarantee that the institutions come first and that people come a long way second.

These people, when their spin doctors are out there trying to make a good case about this being an attack on poverty, are really having a hard time convincing the people of this province, because the parliamentary assistant has to stand in his place today, substituting for the Attorney General who could not be here, and move these amendments that guarantee the primacy of institutions over people, when they ran on a thing called An Agenda for People.

The people this is going to affect best are the people who are employed in making decisions about whether or not they should pursue the people who are not yet paying under their contractual or court-ordered obligations, because those people have a way out. They have a flexibility not to pursue the people. They have the flexibility of saying to the people who are in need of assistance and who are unable to pay for the rooms they rent and the food they would like to buy: "I'm sorry, but the assignment comes first. I'm obligated because the assignment comes first. I have no flexibility in that."

Those people have the flexibility. Why does the government not give them a little bit more flexibility and let them say to the Treasurer, "Mr Treasurer, you can wait until the women and children who need the support at least have enough money to take them to the poverty line"?

Why can the government not say that in this bill? Well, it can say that in this bill. It is no degree of satisfaction or comfort to the people who need help for the parliamentary assistant to tell the member for Bruce to go sit down and talk to the Minister of Community and Social Services because he does not want to talk about social assistance. He can talk about it under this bill because he made it part of this bill. It is in this bill, and he has an obligation to fulfil the mandate that was given to this New Democratic government by putting people ahead of the institutions that he seems to be so jealously guarding at the moment.

The Chair: Would you wish to respond?

Mr Wessenger: Yes. I would be very happy to debate with the member for Bruce some time, on another occasion, the whole question of our social assistance program, but really what we are here to deal with is this whole question of having an effective collection process for ensuring that support payments are made.

I think my friend the member for Willowdale has perhaps misinterpreted or maybe sees the program in a different concept than certainly I see it. The whole purpose of this support deduction is to bring 50% to 60% in compliance, because there is little work required in the case of payors who are in compliance. Where the great deal of work is involved is in those cases that are not in compliance. Bringing in the support deduction will enable the resources of the branch to be used in pursuing those difficult cases where they need to be pursued, so we can have a much more effective enforcement process, being able to use the resources on those cases that most need them, those cases in default.

Motion agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

L'article 5, modifie, est adopte.

Sections 6 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 6 a 10, inclusivement, sont adoptes.

Section/article 11:

The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that section 12.2 of the act, as set out in section 11 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"A person who knowingly contravenes subsection 3.3(8), (17), (25), (26) or (27), section 3.12 or subsection 3.10(4) or (5) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000."

Mr Wessenger: This is to correct printing errors. The changes are from section 12.2. Originally, it was subsection 3.3(9), and it is now subsection 3.3(8). The other was section 3.8; it should have been section 3.12. This corrects those errors.

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

L'article 11, modifie, est adopte.

Section/article 12:

The Chair: Mr Wessenger moved that section 13.2 of the act, as set out in section 12 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clauses:

"(i) prescribing the method of service on the crown of notices of support deduction orders in place of the method prescribed in subsection 3.3(5);

"(j) providing that a support deduction order is not effective against the crown unless a statement of particulars in the prescribed form is served with the notice of the order;

"(k) providing that a notice of a support deduction order served on the crown shall be deemed to have been served, not on the day described in subsection 3.3(6), but on the day that is the number of days specified in the regulation after the actual date of service, but the regulation shall not specify more than 30 days as the number of days."

Mr Harnick: I have a brief comment dealing with clause (k), which seems to me to provide the crown with more time than an employer would have, an employer being given only five days under subsection 3.3(6). It seems to me this is just another area of confusion when one has to deal with the crown in order to implement a support deduction order. It goes to the whole area of limitation periods and the confusion with having to figure out what the limitation periods are for individuals and the special limitation periods for the crown. I do not think that is right, but that is the way it is written. Those are my comments.

Mr Wessenger: I just might point out that these are identical to provisions contained in the Proceedings Against the Crown Act with respect to garnishment, so we are bringing these provisions to be in line with the law with respect to garnishment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

L'article 12, modifie, est adopte.

Sections 13 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 13 a 20, inclusivement, sont adoptes.

On motion by Mr Wessenger, the committee of the whole reported progress.

À la suite d'une motion presentee par M. Wessenger, l'etude du projet de loi en comite plenier de la Chambre est ajournee.

The House adjourned at 1713.