The House met at 1330.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
RETAIL STORE HOURS
Mrs Caplan: I believe my constituents in Oriole must have a say in legislation and what is happening in their community. The previous Liberal government's Sunday shopping legislation allows municipalities to say if they want stores in their communities to open on Sunday.
On November 12, voters in the city of North York and the riding of Oriole responded to the following question on the ballot: "Are you in favour of North York city council requesting that Sunday shopping be permitted in North York?" More than 60% of the voters said yes to Sunday shopping.
The people of North York and the people in my riding of Oriole have complied with today's laws. They have spoken and participated. The municipal option means all municipalities are allowed to decide what is best for them. Under the NDP's proposed legislation, that democratic right would be taken away.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Ontario Border Communities Mayors' Task Force on Cross-Border and Sunday Shopping have asked this NDP government not to remove the municipal option. They have also said that this proposed legislation's message is misguided.
As the government proceeds with its legislation on Sunday shopping, it must listen to the people of Ontario. I hope it will listen to my constituency, the people of the riding of Oriole, and the people of the city of North York. It must allow the municipal option to remain in order for democracy to prevail.
LABOUR LEGISLATION
Mr Villeneuve: As my party's critic for Agriculture and Food, I find it necessary to express very serious concern about the recent NDP labour relations proposals.
First, there seems to have been no co-operation between the government, food producers and food processors of the province. The paper completely ignores the seasonal characteristics of the food industry and has decided that something called industrial/factory-type operations must be unionized. There is an admission that no one even knows what an industrial/factory-type operation is.
There is real cause for worry when labour, bureaucrats and union officials decide they will sit down and they will decide the definition of a family farm.
Even when we talk about relatively simple industry examples such as fruit and vegetable processing plants, this government fails to recognize that these are not Fords and GMs. These plants receive their raw products during the space of a few short weeks in the summer. If they cannot process at that time, they will likely be closed for the rest of the year.
If these plants are not open, what will happen to the farmers who have contracted with these plants? Have the Premier's bureaucrats forgotten about them? The government cannot legislate dates for harvesting a crop. If a strike happens to come along, the government cannot pass a new regulation postponing the ripening of a crop. Has anyone considered what will happen to marketing boards if, for example, milk cannot be delivered? These are important issues. Food and cars are not the same at all.
CARL HAMILTON
Mr Fletcher: It is my pleasure to pay tribute today to a political veteran at Guelph city hall. Alderman Carl Hamilton has served his community for 21 years with a level-headed, honest and hardworking approach to municipal politics. On election night last week the voters of Guelph thanked Carl by sending him back to city hall. That comes as no surprise when you look at Carl's list of accomplishments.
Carl has chaired Guelph General Hospital's financial campaign. He has served on the board of Wellington Family and Children's Services and also on the board of Stonehenge Therapeutic Community, a treatment centre for drug addicts. Carl has served on virtually every committee at one time or another during his city hall career. In addition to these civic duties, Carl has found time to practise law in Guelph for the last 24 years with the firm of Moon Heath.
Carl's political career goes back even further. He has the distinction of being the only person to serve as national secretary of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the NDP. Carl was also the national organizer for the CCF from 1955, at the age of 17, to 1957. He first met the Right Honourable Edward Schreyer while doing some work for the New Democrats in Winnipeg. At that time the future Governor General of Canada was about 10 years old.
Carl joins seven newcomers on city council; they are Walter Bilanski, John Carere, Frank Maine, Bill McAdams, Gloria Kovach, Jim Sinclair and Theresa Stafford. I welcome them all.
Part of Carl's campaign message was that his experience would promote co-operation between the new municipal councillors and the old. I know Carl is doing that right now. It is a benefit to have Carl as a colleague.
ABANDONED MINES
Mr Miclash: The previous Minister of Mines, the member for Lake Nipigon, announced a program called the abandoned mine hazards abatement program last May. The program pledged $10 million over three years to the rehabilitation of approximately 3,000 abandoned mine sites currently in existence throughout Ontario. According to a ministry official, about $2.5 million of this money is dedicated towards the actual rehabilitation of old, abandoned mine sites.
It does not take a genius to figure out that $2.5 million for 3,000 mines works out to about $833 per mine site. Ministry officials estimate it will cost $80 million to $100 million to deal with problems on crown and municipal lands alone. The $2.5 million becomes even more insignificant when one takes into consideration a recent 40% reduction in the program budget caused by the withdrawal of $1 million by the present Minister of Mines. This is a prime example of the government's approach towards the concerns of citizens of northern Ontario.
Should I tell my constituents in the Red Lake area and throughout my riding that abandoned mines such as the old Howey Bay mine site, some 20 metres from a school playground, as well as many others are problems that the government has now left for them to deal with? Was the whole program just a sham? How do the people of Red Lake get what the previous minister announced, the safe closure of existing abandoned mine sites? Can we get a commitment from the Minister of Mines that adequate financial resources will be allocated to deal with this very pressing problem?
1340
DRINKING AND DRIVING
Mr Harnick: Yesterday marked the beginning of the third annual province-wide red ribbon program, entitled Tie One on for Safety, designed to reduce impaired driving. This year, People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere and Mothers Against Drunk Driving will distribute over one million red ribbons to motorists across Ontario. The red ribbon is a symbol of support for safe, sober driving.
This program, in concert with other initiatives such as the Lifesaver Agreement between teenagers and their parents, is an effort to increase awareness of the fact that driving while impaired is socially unacceptable. Drunk driving kills. I have personally dealt with individuals who have suffered the life-shattering devastation that results from drunk driving accidents. I applaud the work of organizations such as PRIDE and MADD in their lifesaving public awareness programs.
Red ribbons will be distributed with the help of the Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, Shoppers Drug Mart, the Allstate Helping Hands Committee, the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, the OPP, the Bank of Montreal, local police forces and many more private organizations and volunteers.
This year, Willowdale native and Indy car driver Scott Goodyear will be the guest of honour at SkyDome for a reception designed to educate the public on the reasons why you should not drink and drive.
As the representative for Willowdale I would like to take this opportunity to wish the people of my riding and the people of Ontario safe and sober driving in the holiday season.
FREELTON LIONS VILLA
Mr Abel: It is with great pleasure that I inform the House of the near completion of the Freelton Lions Villa, a 29-unit, geared-to-income home for seniors. The units are self-contained and totally wheelchair-accessible. The project, spearheaded by Jerry Maloney and the Freelton Lions Club, received good community participation from the 500 citizens and various local groups in the area.
The Freelton Lions Villa was made possible by various fund-raising drives, donations and a $2.5 million grant from the Ontario Ministry of Housing. The community-driven project will be completed some time this January and is already 50% to 60% rented.
In this hustle and bustle, fast-paced world we live in, seniors always seem to have time: time to tell of the many changes that have taken place over the years; time to share with us the experiences of their long and full lives. Stories of their accomplishments and woes tell us of the great contributions they have made to society. With the efforts and hard work displayed by the citizens of Freelton, the seniors in the area will be able to retire in comfort and dignity.
I ask the members of the assembly to join with me in congratulating the citizens of Freelton and its local Lions club, not only for their dedication and efforts but for the fine example they set in providing affordable housing for our seniors.
ONTARIO ECONOMY
Mr Phillips: It was a year ago today that we heard the speech from the throne. The people of Ontario put their faith and their future in the hands of the NDP. The NDP members were fresh from their election victory. They said they had a clear vision for Ontario and they headed us down that road.
It is now obvious that the people of Ontario have been let down terribly. The government jumped behind the steering wheel and drove off in a new direction. It is clear the government had no idea where it was heading and now finds itself hopelessly lost in a fog of confusion.
To make matters even worse, the province's economic engine, which supports our quality of life, is sputtering very badly. Yesterday's budget announcement was the latest example. The Treasurer has chosen to delay the tough decisions that are required now and in so doing has pushed these problems into next year. We see an additional $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion in cuts required in next year's fiscal plan. We all know the Treasurer now has to go, hat in hand, to the very federal government he has been blaming, to help him out of this fiscal mess.
We all know that the key to solving our fiscal woes is truly to get the economy rolling. However, the economic renewal plans they have announced -- conveniently on the eve of the Ontario Federation of Labour convention -- are actually fostering bitter divisiveness rather than getting the economy rolling.
The people of the province are rapidly losing confidence in this government. The result is that we are going to see more pain and suffering for the people of Ontario rather than true solutions.
DEATH OF FORMER MEMBER FOR WELLINGTON-DUFFERIN
Mr Arnott: I rise today to honour the memory of a former member of this Legislature who passed away on Sunday, November 17. John Root served as a member of the Ontario Legislature for over 20 years, representing the riding of Wellington-Dufferin.
First elected to the Ontario Legislature in 1951, John Root was a cabinet minister under Premier Leslie Frost. He also served as chairman of the Ontario Water Resources Commission, which was the precursor of our present Ministry of the Environment. In 1977 he was honoured by Premier William Davis for 15 years of service to the commission.
Born on October 17, 1908, in the township of Erin in Wellington county, John Root grew up on the family farm and exemplified all his life those fine characteristics of a true son of rural Ontario, dedicated to the interests of the community and love of the land.
On a personal note, I would like to mention that immediately after my own election on September 6, 1990, John Root was the very first person to telephone me to offer his congratulations, and I was absolutely delighted. He was a good friend of my grandfather's, and I am very well acquainted with his son, George.
It is my firm belief that the good work done by John Root, and more recently by his successor, Jack Johnson, laid the foundation of our party's great strength in Wellington and certainly helped to pave the way for our electoral success last year.
I will remember John Root fondly and I know the members of the House will want to join me in extending sympathy to his wife, Lillie, to his children, Bennett, Evelyn, George, Robert and Clayton and his entire family on the loss of a husband, father and friend.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Mr Farnan: The Community Opportunities Development Association in Cambridge has made a significant impact in fighting the recession in our community. Originally founded in 1984 by the labour council, they are now an independent community-based charity serving more than 4,000 economically disadvantaged individuals and families yearly.
Through the Ministry of Labour, businesses and unions, CODA has helped more than 800 people affected by plant closures in Cambridge this year. In addition, through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, they have developed an innovative and effective approach in helping more than 120 social assistance recipients start small businesses. CODA also offers transportation, housing and children's programs to families in need.
CODA's reputation in the Cambridge community is based on delivering cost-effective, quality services by competent and dedicated professionals.
I applaud the foresight that results in developing and funding organizations such as CODA. I ask that our government not lose sight of the effectiveness of such programs during these times of fiscal restraint. We must remember that community-based agencies such as CODA are a vital component in moving the people of Ontario towards a strong economic recovery.
DEATH OF FORMER MEMBER FOR WELLINGTON-DUFFERIN
The Speaker: To the member for Wellington, the kind remarks which you made will be sent along to Mr Root's family along with the expressed sympathies of all the members of the assembly.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
The Speaker: Yesterday honourable members will remember that I ruled on a point of order that had been raised during question period by the honourable member for Carleton regarding the right of a minister to reply to a question that had not been asked. Following question period, the honourable House leader of the third party, the member for Parry Sound, asked me if I could look into this and report back to the House. At that time the honourable member for Renfrew North also contributed to the point and I did undertake to look at Hansard and I am now ready to report back.
Very briefly, I agree with the member for Renfrew North and I stand by my ruling of yesterday. Even though there might not have been an interrogatory part to the statement made by the leader of the third party yesterday, he had been recognized to ask a question and he had used up the time to make substantial remarks, and therefore it was perfectly in order for the honourable Treasurer to reply.
1350
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
SUPERVISED ACCESS
Hon Mr Hampton: This afternoon the minister responsible for women's issues and I are very pleased to announce a two-year supervised access pilot project. On the advice of a community-based board, the Ministry of the Attorney General will provide funding to community groups to establish 10 supervised access centres in various parts of the province.
The community groups will be invited to apply for funding of up to $100,000 per year to develop supervised access services which will meet the specific needs of their particular communities. These pilot projects will provide an opportunity to evaluate different methods of delivering supervised access services and the need for these services across Ontario.
Supervised access centres provide us with an imaginative means to evaluate community-based initiatives that will use non-adversarial approaches to facilitate access for non-custodial parents. Our intention is to recognize the financially and emotionally vulnerable position of women and children during access disputes. We believe that in some form supervised access centres will provide necessary protection while at the same time facilitating positive child-parent relationships.
I know that there are concerns in the community about access issues and that there is some controversy about the best way to deal with these issues. This project will address some of these concerns. The services which will be provided will assist separated families in carrying out access arrangements which have been ordered by the court or agreed to by the parties. Examples include situations where there are concerns about the safety and wellbeing of the child or where visits pose potential safety risks to the mother.
Supervised access visits may be appropriate in a number of situations: for example, situations involving a parent's alcoholism, drug abuse, physical abuse or emotional difficulties; situations where there are concerns about parenting skills; situations where a parent has been absent from a child's life for a long period of time, and situations involving a threat of possible abduction of the child.
In other situations, the parents may not require supervision of their visits, but the level of conflict and animosity between them may make exchanges of the child difficult for all the parties involved. In these situations, the parties may only need a neutral, secure site for the exchange of the child where the child can be dropped off and picked up without the need for parental contact.
Supervised access centres will offer separated families a safe, neutral and child-focused setting in which visits or exchanges of the child can take place. In most situations, parents will be using these services. However, where other family members, such as grandparents, are entitled to child access, they may also benefit from supervised access services.
We will be establishing a Supervised Access Funding Advisory Committee, made up of members from communities around the province, to consider requests for funding from community groups. I look forward to hearing from community groups across Ontario and to funding projects which will provide these important and valuable services to the people of Ontario.
RESPONSES
SUPERVISED ACCESS / VISITES SURVEILLÉES
Mr Sorbara: I am pleased to respond to the statement delivered by the Attorney General today and that he is finally getting on with some response, meagre as it is, to the very large question of access that parents who are separated from their spouses have a right to and desperately want to have with their children.
I note that in the statement the Attorney General is calling for 10 pilot projects to be identified through applications from community groups, and I suppose that is an acceptable way to go.
Je veux dire que nous sommes très contents que le Procureur général ait enfin fait quelque chose qui répond à la grande question de l'accès aux enfants des parents de la province qui se séparent après une période de mariage.
I want to tell the Attorney General that although he takes some pride in this announcement, as I guess he should, the fact that he is now, after almost a year and a half in government, announcing a pilot project completely ignores the fact that the previous Liberal government had undertaken a very substantial pilot project in supervised access in the community of Waterloo. It was very successful. The evaluation was done. There was a report coming out of that, a proposal which recommended a permanent extension of supervised access and it is shocking indeed that the Attorney General now, after a year and some months, is calling for yet another series of pilot projects.
The project that was undertaken in Waterloo, as I said to him, had been a success. All parties in the Legislature and anyone involved in the question of access in communities realized that we needed a publicly funded program of access. For the Attorney General now to call for a pilot project simply indicates one thing and one thing only to me, and that is that the Treasurer has said to him that there will not be ongoing funding for these pilot projects and that at most he can have $1 million to respond to the political pressure to get on with it in this year.
It is evident that the Attorney General somehow simply cannot get on with his agenda. When he took office last October 1, or shortly thereafter, he announced that the government would not proceed to proclaim Bill 124, which provided a legal basis upon which parents who were being denied access could have resort to the court. I understand why he did that. He was under a great deal of political pressure from a number of groups to do that. But at the same time, he undertook, I think in this House as well as outside this House, to respond with some other measure to parents, who look to us in these terribly difficult questions of access. He undertook to revisit the issue and come up with a piece of legislation which was better than the Liberal legislation. He undertook to get on with the question of supervised access. Now, a year later, we see the Attorney General can do little more than call for pilot projects.
The Attorney General has let the criminal court system fall into disrepair. He promised that he would end court backlogs in nine months -- and he made that promise a year ago -- and the courts are more backlogged than ever. The legal aid system in this province is in crisis. Funds have been cut back, tariffs have not been revised, and the Attorney General has nothing to say in response. His program of family support, which he said must urgently proceed while the bill was in committee, has now been postponed for yet another six months. The program has been cut by some $850,000, and the Attorney General has nothing to say in response.
The fact that he comes here today with a $1-million pilot project in supervised access will not be sufficient answer, I tell the Attorney General, for all those areas that are under his responsibility that should have been attended to, that urgently need attention and that he is not attending to in any way whatsoever.
1400
Mr Harnick: I welcome this announcement, because safe, secure access is a benefit to all parties in these stressful situations. However, when you read this statement, it is as though this government is inventing the concept of custody and supervised access and it is as though these things have never existed before. The fact is that they are plodding along, feeling their way in areas that cry out for decisive action, and a pilot project with a limited term of two years is not decisive action.
Everything this government does is done on a hit-or-miss basis. The support and custody orders enforcement bill, which we had before the standing committee on administration of justice for months, is still not up and running. In fact, before it even starts to run, $850,000 is being deducted from its budget. It is doomed to failure before it starts. I am prepared to bet that the program being announced today will not be up and running six months from now. It will be exactly like everything else the Attorney General does.
The court backlog is still there. One of the Attorney General's appointments to the provincial court bench has described the court system as a sausage factory. The Chief Justice of this province has said the justice system is a failure. On the track record of this government, I will bet members that this announcement will not come to fruition. Six months from now they will still be talking about it. They will still be looking for the money or will be cutting the funding by that time, at the rate the Treasurer is running the economy.
We take a look at SCOE, the court system and other areas that have been a failure. The small claims courts? Absolutely no action at all. Masters of the Ontario Court of Justice? Absolutely no action at all. Justices of the peace? Last week we saw 1,700 cases dismissed from provincial offences courts because the Attorney General cannot institute decisive action.
This announcement, I have no doubt, will be a failure because it will never be implemented; and if it is implemented, the scale at which it is implemented will doom it to failure before it even starts.
Mrs Cunningham: The announcement by the Attorney General today gives me this opportunity to give him advice. He is not unused to receiving it from me over a long period of time and he receives it, I think, with gracious good humour.
This is something we have certainly had a lot of experience with in the city of London, with the supervised access program at Merrymount Children's Centre. We have learned a lot over the years as to how to make that program work. At least in that community there are many families that have been well served. I stated to the minister during the hearings on Bill 17 that if in fact these kinds of programs had been a reality in Ontario, perhaps we would not have needed Bill 17 in the form it was presented in. Of course I am hoping, although I share the concerns of my colleague the member for Willowdale, that these centres will be a success.
The Attorney General knows I cannot stand the words "pilot projects." I wish somebody would stand up, having done his homework -- I know he has done his homework, so I do not know why he calls them pilot projects -- and say, "These will be ongoing programs, subject to review, subject to success, and if you don't run a program that meets the needs of the community, you won't get the money next time."
The Attorney General might just remember me when he uses the words "pilot projects." I just cannot stand it. I say it also in Education and in Health, because pilots have not been successful, and when I was an elected official, the bureaucrats used to make all the good stuff disappear.
I will say right now, in 28 seconds, that next time the Attorney General should put his emphasis on SCOE. Everybody in this House -- he should look at all the members nodding -- agrees that the long waiting lists are just not fair. We need resources that work in our SCOE offices. The minister should do a review and come up with a quick response to support the quality of family life. That is what this is supposed to be all about.
ORAL QUESTIONS
TAX REVENUES
Mrs McLeod: I have a question for the Treasurer. Yesterday he told this House he was serving up some tough fiscal medicine to deal with the government's mismanaged finances, but to this point the Treasurer has been all talk and no real action.
The Treasurer is now going cap in hand to ask Ottawa for more than $1.4 billion in extra federal transfer money. The federal government the Treasurer is approaching is the same federal government that has already severely limited its transfer payments to the province. It is the same federal government that is staring at its own $30.5-billion deficit.
Does the Treasurer really believe this Oliver Twist act, going to the federal Tories to ask for more gruel, is going to save his government's finances? What in the world makes the Treasurer think the federal government will come to the rescue?
Hon Mr Laughren: May I first of all congratulate the member for Fort William on her entry into the leadership race. As a fellow northerner, I wish her all the best and quite frankly I hope she wins.
Mr Harnick: It's called a mortal wounding.
Hon Mr Laughren: When other candidates ask me a question, I will say the same thing to them.
On a serious note, I wish to disabuse the member and others who seem to think that because there is a formula in place that says we are entitled to that money back, that is going cap in hand to Ottawa. Nothing could be further from the truth. That money is owed to us. Those are offsets that are put in place precisely to look after this kind of problem. It is not a question of whether Ottawa will give us that money back if we are nice. The fact is that they owe us that money in the form of offsets.
Mrs McLeod: All any of us on this side of the House are asking for from the government is some responsible and realistic financial planning. I wonder when the Treasurer is going to realize his government is not just a victim of a recession. They are part of the problem and they are going to have to be part of the solution.
In order to stay within his deficit target of $9.7 billion this year, the Treasurer is putting off up to $800 million of spending until next year. He admits this government's personal income tax revenues will be $2 billion less next year than he had originally predicted. According to my math, that will make next year's deficit approximately $11.7 billion. If the balance of his revenue projections are on target at this point, that is really just wishful thinking.
The Treasurer says he will need to make tough decisions next year just in order to keep his four-year fiasco on track. Some analysts say he has already built foolishness into a four-year plan. Where does he expect to find the extra $2.8 billion in government spending cuts just to keep within next year's budget?
Hon Mr Laughren: I take back those nice things I said in my opening.
Let me make clear exactly what has been put off until next year, because there seems to be a misunderstanding about what savings are in effect this year that will cause us problems next year in the form of extra expenditures. There are some.
First, from the statement made on October 2, the moneys from the wage protection fund that will not be paid this year will be paid next year. That is about $85 million.
Second, the $50 million in pay equity that will flow once amendments to the Pay Equity Act for proportional value, as I recall it, are through will be paid.
There is no question that those numbers do put the problem off, if we can put it that way, to next year, not in order to allow us to meet our deficit number but because that simply could not be done anyway, the way the legislative process moves through here.
As far as the capital expenditures go, those capital expenditures, while they may be delayed or put off until next year, will have to be accommodated within the existing capital budget for next year. It is not adding to the problem for next year. I think we should be clear about that. We are not simply putting off all our problems till next year. That is not the case.
1410
Mrs McLeod: That seems to result in some confusing understanding of next year's budget. Either they are permanent cuts that this Treasurer has announced or they are deferrals to next year and he is telling those people who expected those moneys that they are not going to be in next year's budget or he is going to make significant other cuts, which is all we are asking him to tell us about today. Where are the cuts going to be?
When the Treasurer first presented his budget last spring, he said he wanted to fight the recession, not the deficit. Since then, Ontario's unemployment has hit 9.6% and more than one million people in Ontario are on social assistance. The government has clearly lost its fight against the recession. Now we switch tack. The Treasurer says he needs to keep the government's deficit within the four-year budget plan. He has twice had to bring in spending restrictions to deal with the poor financial forecast. He has lost the war against the recession, he has lost the war against the deficit. Can the Treasurer tell us what battle he is fighting now or whether he has simply thrown in the towel and is counting on Ottawa to save his sinking financial ship?
Hon Mr Laughren: Let us try to put this in some kind of perspective. When we brought down the budget in April 1991, we forecast some numbers for this year and for the next three years. At this point in time, we are fighting very hard to make sure we stay within those forecasted numbers that were in the budget in 1991. How can the opposition members stand in their places and say our fiscal plan is in disarray when we are taking every action that is required to stay within those forecasted numbers? They make no sense whatsoever.
LONG-TERM CARE
Mrs McLeod: Since it seems to be virtually impossible to get any kind of specific answer from the Treasurer, I would like to direct a more specific question about his government's priorities for spending to one of the other ministers of the government. I would like to direct a question to a minister who is prepared to be responsible for long-term care. In the absence of the Minister of Health, I will direct the question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.
Today on the Legislature steps we have seen an example of what government indecision means to the people of Ontario. Today friends and families of nursing home residents were here to tell the government in the only way they knew how that they are in a crisis, that the government's financial solution is a Band-Aid at best and that the care in their facilities is in jeopardy. How does this government justify the delay in implementing its long-term care reforms? What is this government saying to the people on the Legislature steps and thousands across this province who want to be assured that their loved ones in nursing homes are receiving the level of care they need?
Hon Mrs Boyd: I say exactly what I said in the House when the consultation paper was delivered: We are responding to the requests that were made to us by the reference group that was set up, which met in September. They clearly said that because of the changes we wanted to make in the plan the previous government had put forward, primarily in the areas of co-payment but also in the area of how quickly and to what extent the change would occur, they wanted further consultation on that and they wanted us to undertake that consultation in the way we have.
Mrs McLeod: The reality is that the government's proposals for long-term care reform are essentially identical to the proposals of the Liberal government. The only thing that has changed is that there has been more than a full year's delay in implementing those proposals.
It is also a reality that the Liberal government committed $345 million to implement levels-of-care funding as of January 1, 1992. This money or any money to implement long-term care reforms seems to have simply disappeared from any of the Treasurer's budget plans. I would ask the minister whether she does not feel that it makes sense to invest in other alternatives to relieve the pressure on hospitals which are using expensive acute care beds to provide for chronic care and whether long-term care is not a social and economic priority for her government.
Hon Mrs Boyd: As we said in the announcement, $647 million has been allocated to this and much of that is new money. We changed the date in terms of the levels of care to January 1993, that is quite correct, because we were uncomfortable and distressed about the way in which the plan was formulated. We believe very strongly that we have not taken account of our multicultural communities. We have not taken account of the needs of the aboriginal people of this province in the previous plan. They have been very clear that they want to see a provision for them to participate in this, given their different formulations of family.
I just remind the member there are five major areas of difference in the consultation we are undertaking and the plans we are putting forward. Those are serious areas of difference and we believe the people of Ontario should have the opportunity to comment on them.
Mrs McLeod: The bottom-line reality is that this government is simply delaying implementing any long-term care reforms because it has not yet carried out any real planning for cost-effective delivery of services that people need.
There is a crisis. The crisis is not 20 years removed; the crisis is here, the crisis is now. The crisis is with hospitals that are running deficits and being forced to close beds, the crisis is with nursing homes that are not adequately funded to serve the seniors they care for and the crisis is with this government as it contemplates cutting programs like home care and ending the universality of our health care system.
I suggest to the minister this is not something the government can simply pass on to the federal government; it is something the government can act on. I ask if she would commit to returning to the commitments made by the Liberal government. Will this government implement levels-of-care funding in January 1992?
Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is simply imputing things to the government that are not clear at all from the document. In fact, quite the opposite is clear; we are not in any way cutting home care. In fact, the funding to home care has expanded under this government. We are switching money from the acute care beds in hospitals to this project, and the Minister of Health has been very clear about that. We see the delivery of health care in a different way.
As for universality, there is absolutely no suggestion in our plan that we are destroying universality, although the co-payment in the previous government's plan indeed endangered that.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. Yesterday I asked him for specifics on his announcement regarding $200 million worth of cuts in capital spending. He did not have an answer. He did not know exactly which projects were going to be cut or which ones were going to be deferred. Yesterday as well, he announced that $70 million worth of assets are to be sold, but other than giving an indication that it would be surplus property that is sold, he did not know which property was going to be sold.
I presume the Treasurer has now met with his colleagues and discussed his flash announcement from yesterday. Could the Treasurer now tell us what projects will be cut or deferred and from which ministries, and could he tell us what government property is going to be fire sold in the middle of the recession?
Hon Mr Laughren: I think I heard a question in the member's statement. I want to tell the leader of the third party that when we were looking at ways in which we could compensate for the income tax shortfall, I and my colleagues on treasury board said to our officials that, first, we were determined to find the $200 million in capital savings this year and, second, that we would find $70 million in the sale of assets such as surplus land and/or some money that is in the coffers of some of our crown corporations, and I used as the example the Ontario Energy Corp, where we get dividends from Suncor.
At this point, that is exactly what we are doing. We are determining exactly which projects will be on the list not to proceed with now in order to effect the $200 million in saving in capital.
Mr Harris: Basically what the Treasurer is saying is, he does not know, but he has asked his colleagues for $200 million. This government came into power as the great party of consultation, saying it was going to share information. Why will he not share with the Legislature the list of potential projects that are available to cut $200 million from? Why will he not share that with the public, with our partners the municipalities, hospitals and school boards and with the Legislature? Why will he not share the list of the assets from which he wants to find his $70 million?
He should truly consult with the people and share with us the information he has so that we can all participate and assist him in setting priorities as to the appropriate things that should be cut or deferred or sold, if any.
1420
Hon Mr Laughren: It is precisely because this government believes in consultation that we are not going through the exercise that other governments have gone through whenever they find themselves with a fiscal problem. Rather than simply saying we are cutting so much out of all programs without consulting with anybody, we --
Mr Harnick: That is what you just did.
Hon Mr Laughren: No, that is not true. If the member would just listen --
Mr Harnick: It is true. Give us the particulars.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I will wait for the supplementary.
Mr Harris: I did not expect much of an answer, Mr Speaker, so I do not mind his not giving an answer. The Treasurer has not selected what he thinks is appropriate, nor was he prepared to share the list with the Legislature last weekend, yesterday or today, so there is no consultation with anybody other than his own party.
The Treasurer spent a slash-and-burn weekend. Yesterday he would not acknowledge in the House he was cutting jobs; I understand outside the House he admitted jobs would be cut. He still will not tell us how many; however, he did admit that. But basically, I say to the Treasurer, this has all come about because he has lost control. He has no more idea today than he did last week about how he is going to control the deficit, either this year or next.
I want to talk about next year. Somebody has to pay ultimately. With all the deferrals he has made to next year, with all the existing commitments of program announcements, funding, salary settlements that have already been made, and if the economy is still as flat next year as it is this year -- gosh, one hopes that is not the case -- can the Treasurer tell me how he plans to account in his next budget for the $5-billion to $6-billion to $7-billion shortfall? Will there be $5 billion, $6 billion or $7 billion in new taxes next year, or is he going to run the deficit to $15 billion, $16 billion or $17 billion?
Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party rises in his place day after day with this big black cloud over his head. He and the third party are such nabobs of negativism that it is really hard to understand sometimes why --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Laughren: I was trying to answer this in my previous answer and I got drowned out by the heckling, so I will try again. I want to assure the leader of the third party that what we are doing this year is taking actions that do not fundamentally affect program delivery of essential services in this province. I think all members would agree with that, that we have not cut into the essential services in education, health care and social services. What we are doing is going through a process on the treasury board and examining all the major allocations of government to see where there can be reallocation and, quite frankly, where there can be reductions in programs for next year, because the leader of the third party is quite correct; there is a major problem for next year on expenditures and revenues and we are determined to manage that. I hope he will give us some credit that this year, despite revenue problems, despite expenditure problems, we are staying within our targets that we laid down in the budget, and that is what we intend to do.
Mr Harris: The Treasurer's colleagues laughed at me when I said $5 billion, $6 billion or $7 billion. I am sure they will laugh at him when he tells them that is the problem in cabinet and at caucus next week. He has not cut a cent this year; he has deferred some stuff till next year, so he does have that problem and he is making it worse by deferring it.
My second question is also of the Treasurer. I think most objective observers, of which I acknowledge I am not one -- I am biased -- will say that yesterday he paid lipservice to controlling government spending, but he did nothing, for example, to put an end to government waste. I have a copy of the report on the audited deputy ministers' expenditures. Let me read a couple of examples from that.
1. Some 27 management staff from the ministry had a one-day meeting in a hotel in downtown Toronto. It cost $1,700; food and beverages, $1,000. In addition, $300 was paid for room rental and $360 to rent audiovisual equipment. I guess the government does not have a projector in all our free rooms.
2. Some 15 staff from the ministry had lunch at a downtown Toronto restaurant that cost $950 for meals and beverages -- $63 a person.
3. Another 11 staff from the ministry had an executive committee business luncheon in a hotel that cost $650 -- $59 a person. I guess we do not have a single room available to accommodate 11 staff.
My question is really quite simple: If the Treasurer is so serious about controlling government spending, why did he not do anything yesterday about this type of extravagance that I have brought up time and again in this Legislature?
Hon Mr Laughren: We did indeed do something about this very problem yesterday in the Legislature when we announced further savings in the operating expenses of every ministry. While I read the comments by the auditor as well -- we do have to be careful about those kinds of expenditures -- it takes time to get out of the system deeply entrenched modes of behaviour that were encouraged and abetted by former governments for so many years.
Mr Harris: I appreciate very much what the Treasurer is saying. I agree there were some traditions built up over the last five or six years in this province that are despicable, wasting money, and anything I can do to help him get back to a commonsense expenditure of taxpayers' money, I am glad to do.
The report I referred to goes on to say that significant savings would be realized if meetings were simply held in the hundreds of boardrooms in government-owned facilities. For example, they say instead of $63 to dine at a downtown hotel, staff could have a nicely catered lunch for $14. I suggest to the Treasurer that if they bring their own lunch, as most employees have to do, or pay for their own, they could have these meetings for free. Why will the Treasurer not immediately place a ban on all meetings that are now being held in hotels when government-owned facilities are available?
Hon Mr Laughren: I think the Chair of Management Board has sent out directives already, and I believe possibly even the Premier has sent out directives as well, dealing with that very problem. I believe we must be very careful to weed out any excesses involving those kinds of meetings, so I am not really disagreeing with the leader of the third party. I think savings need to be effected in those areas, so I am not disagreeing with the leader.
Mr Harris: The meeting where he decided to do that was probably held at the Park Plaza, but anyway, if he says he is going to do it, we will see.
In the 48 hours since I raised an issue of government waste in the Ministry of Transportation, another civil servant has brought yet another example of wasteful spending to my attention. Not only did the 9,000 Ministry of Transportation employees and the staff receive that beautiful key chain tape measure, but they were also given nice little buttons stating: "I Was There." Here is a nice, fancy pin that all 9,000 have been given. These are to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the ministry.
I would like to ask the Treasurer whether he has the answer today to the question I raised two days ago about the cost of these shanghaied tapes that were given to 9,000 employees and whether he could immediately investigate the cost of a 75th anniversary celebration, including these buttons and pins and whistles, the cost of that program, and tell us why any of our tax dollars are being spent to celebrate a 75th anniversary of a ministry of this government.
Hon Mr Laughren: To answer the first part of the member's question first, I do not have an answer on the cost of the shanghaied tapes, as he refers to them. I will check into the whole question of the 75th anniversary of a particular ministry.
I remind the leader of the third party that at least we have come some way from the days when the Tories were in power and every lunch was at La Scala. At least we are not doing that any more.
1430
TAX INCREASES
Mrs McLeod: Just moments ago, when I asked the Treasurer about his proposals to manage his deficit for next year, he avoided answering any questions about specific expenditure cuts and certainly made no reference to taxation increases.
I have a copy of the Toronto Star which has just come out in which the Treasurer apparently has been indicating to people outside this House that taxes are essentially inevitable. I quote from the Toronto Star. The Treasurer is said to have said, "It would be very difficult to put together a package for next year that kept the deficit within our targeted figures without having a combination of expenditure reductions and some tax increases."
May I ask the Treasurer if that accurately reflects the statements he is making to the media and what he expects to see in his budget next year?
Hon Mr Laughren: I want to assure the member opposite she does not need to get information from me through the tabloids. She can ask me directly in this House and I will respond to her directly.
What I did say outside the House yesterday, and I would say it in here and I will repeat it again, is that as we prepare the budget for next year, given the very tight fiscal situation, I cannot imagine bringing down a budget that did not have a combination of expenditure reductions and some tax increases. I hastened to add when I talked to reporters that absolutely no decision whatsoever had been made on any tax increases for next year. We have not even started that process yet.
Mrs McLeod: The Treasurer and other members of this government are well aware of the frustration on this side of the House with our inability to get information in this Legislature. We are constantly having to look to the media and to statements made in other parts of the province to get the information we need to hold this government accountable in the interests of the people of this province. It is not surprising that we would have to go to the media to get the answer to the question I asked moments ago.
I asked the Treasurer how he planned to manage the deficit in next year's budget. He did not mention even the possibility of tax increases in his answers to those questions. He does not seem to be indicating now that there is any question about whether there will be taxes. He says taxes are inevitable. We are asking this minister to give us some idea whether that is factual and what kinds of tax increases this government is going to be looking at.
Hon Mr Laughren: That is bordering on the nonsensical. I said outside the Legislature, and I said it in here, that next year as we make preparations for the budget I cannot imagine not having some kind of adjustments in taxes upwards. But I said as clearly as I could that absolutely no discussions have been held, no decisions have been made on potential tax increases for next year; none at all. I do not know how specific I can be to the member. She stands in her place and says she is not getting information from us. I am giving her as direct an answer as it is possible to give.
NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION
Mr Harris: I also have a question for the Treasurer. He keeps giving this good show about trying to control pointless government spending, but his record is telling a very different story.
I want to draw his attention to his government's decision to start norOntair Dash-8 government-owned air service between Thunder Bay and Kenora. Right now there are five flights a day between Thunder Bay and Kenora, three of them provided by Bearskin Air, a private sector airline, and two by norOntair in a smaller aircraft. The average flight is half full. In total they carry about 35 people a day.
When the government airline, norOntair, has a mandate to provide service where the private sector cannot, can the Treasurer explain to me why he now feels it is necessary to bring on two Dash-8 aircraft accommodating 70 passengers a day when less than half that number are flying on half-full aircraft, effectively throwing Bearskin Air out of business? Can he explain to me why that is a government priority?
Hon Mr Laughren: It is with a great sense of confidence that I refer the question to the Minister of Northern Development.
Hon Miss Martel: I am pleased to respond to the question by the leader of the third party. Let me tell him he should check the entire route and he will find that not only are we moving the Dash-8s through Kenora, as requested by that community in many letters and a very intense lobby to me for increased and better service, but we are moving those two Dash-8s through a number of other communities where he may also have noticed a need to increase the capacity. We will be flying those planes not only through Kenora, but right on to North Bay and Ottawa to allow northern communities and northern municipal leaders to actually go to Ottawa to lobby the federal government rather than having to go to Toronto and back over.
When the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and I began to look at this, I told them I was not interested in having a flight we would have to subsidize, but I needed them to find a way to be sure that this would pay for itself. The increase in the number of routes and the number of communities we will be into makes us feel certain that in the first year we will break even and in the second year we will make a profit.
On that basis I determined we should allow these flights to have adequate and efficient service not only for Kenora but for other northern communities.
Mr Harris: Here is what the Minister of Northern Development said last December: "I believe Kenora receives adequate scheduled air service from Bearskin and norOntair and we reject that a Dash-8 aircraft is necessary to service that." That is exactly what she said.
Four other private sector airlines tried to run a Dash-8. All cancelled, including Air Ontario, because they could not make it pay. The minister justifies that by saying, in addition to potentially throwing 25 employees out of work at Bearskin, she is also going to throw out the employees of Canadian Partner, which is going belly up now serving North Bay to Ottawa. She is going to run them out of business too.
The minister's mandate is to provide service to communities that do not have airline service: Ignace, Armstrong, Ear Falls, Nakina, Parry Sound. None of them has airline service now. Why is she taking government money, throwing more private sector employees out of work by bringing in government aircraft on the routes that are already serviced, and she still will not service communities that have no air service at all?
Hon Miss Martel: The member referred to the letter in December. It was certainly true that in December when the community asked me for this I told them no, I did not think we could run it at that time. The one thing not in the letter, of course, is that they thought we had an extra Dash-8 we were releasing to Air Ontario so we could put it into service.
I listened to the community, which is a little bit different than the third party usually does for people. They came back to me, they lobbied intensely and asked me to review the situation. I reviewed the situation with ONTC and we determined that by putting the Dash-8 not only into Kenora but into a number of other northern communities that needed additional service we could break even this year and make money next year.
Let me say one other thing about the allegations being made by Bearskin Air and Canadian Partner. Bearskin has alleged they will lose 25 people; Canadian Partner has alleged they will lose 40 pilots by our putting two planes into North Bay and Ottawa. I find it very hard to believe that either Canadian Partner or Bearskin Air will lose a total of 65 people because of these changes.
We have been meeting with Bearskin Air. We have asked them to put on the table where they think they are going to lose 25 employees. They have been unable to give us any evidence at all that there will be 25 employees lost. We have told --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the minister please take her seat.
1440
HOME GARMENT WORKERS
Mr Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Recently, a coalition of workers' advocacy groups in my riding of Fort York released a report on the appalling conditions facing home workers in Toronto's garment industry. It is estimated there are about 2,000 to 3,000 of these home workers in Toronto. Most of them are women and many do not speak English.
These workers have very little protection under the existing Employment Standards Act. They are not subject to the limitations on the hours of work. They are not entitled to statutory holidays or overtime pay. Home workers are entitled to the minimum wage under the Employment Standards Act; however, this provision is violated repeatedly by the employers. Some workers make $3 an hour, some $2 an hour and some $1 an hour.
What steps has the Minister of Labour taken to ensure that existing employment standards are better enforced, and what is he doing to improve the legislation to offer better protection to home workers?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I thank the member for the question. I also thank him for his concern and work with the home workers, and the coalition and its work as well. We are concerned about the health of these workers and their wellbeing and the jobs they have. The Ministry of Labour is in the process of taking a look at the Employment Standards Act. One of the specific areas we are looking at is the protection for home workers and other workers in Ontario.
INVESTIGATION INTO POLICE SHOOTING
Mr Curling: My question is to the Solicitor General. On Monday I asked the Solicitor General to revoke a secret protocol that severely hampers the ability of Ontario's special investigations unit to conduct an independent investigation into police shootings. Instead of answering the question, he said he could not interfere with the workings of the SIU. I presume he is saying he agrees with the secret protocol. What he is also saying is that it is okay for police to investigate police. I would like to ask the Solicitor General today, does he approve of the secret protocol between the SIU and Ontario's police chiefs?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I am not aware of any secret protocol between those groups. Mr Osler, through the review of the Police Services Act under the previous government, established the SIU, which is unique not only here in Canada but in all of North America. It is in its infancy; it has not been in operation very long. From time to time, I am sure it will be reviewed. As a matter of fact, my information is that Mr Osler himself has indicated he is initiating a review with respect to the unit and its functioning.
Mr Curling: This minister does not know one thing that goes on in his ministry. I am very shocked to know he has said there is no secret protocol. Let me bring the minister up to date. Right inside his ministry, on April 16, 1991 -- this year -- his deputy and the assistant deputy and the members of his legal branch participated in developing a secret protocol. In fact, his own legal branch drafted the protocol which now so severely limits the action of the SIU. These officials report directly to the minister. The minister cannot hide from that responsibility. Mr Osler said the ministry asked that this be reviewed, and the minister is saying today there is no secret protocol. Will the minister today revoke that secret protocol so the SIU can continue its investigations?
Hon Mr Pilkey: The member is sincere, but of course he is misinformed. I would like to indicate that the protocol he suggests I am not aware of, I am in fact quite aware of. I am quite aware of how it started. I am quite aware of the participants in that protocol and the contents thereof. I indicate as evidence to the member opposite the fact that it is not a secret protocol. Obviously it is not. He knows about it. He is reading something in front of him and sharing it with the entire House. If that is a secret document, that is a strange way to have a secret.
GARBAGE DISPOSAL
Mr Cousens: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Last week in a referendum in Kirkland Lake, close to 70% of the people in that municipality endorsed the suggestion of there being a full environmental assessment for the Adams mine site to accept greater Toronto area garbage. This indicates that the citizens of Kirkland Lake view this as an economic opportunity and not as the establishment of a huge garbage dump. In fact, they see the Adams mine site becoming a highly developed waste management system. Is the minister going to listen to the people of Kirkland Lake and at least consider this opportunity for economic development?
Hon Miss Martel: I have met with the mayor of Kirkland Lake on several occasions. We have discussed this at all our meetings. I have made it very clear to him that any proposal with respect to moving garbage from the GTA to Kirkland Lake or anywhere else in northern Ontario would not be entertained by myself, by the Minister of the Environment or by this government.
Mr Cousens: It is a matter of record that the people of Kirkland Lake very much want to look at this as an option. The fact is that the government has already spent millions of dollars on economic diversification plans for northern Ontario, something like $250 million for Elliot Lake out of Ontario Hydro's funds and another $260 million for Kapuskasing, and yet her colleague the Minister of the Environment states unequivocally in Bill 143 that transportation of waste outside the greater Toronto area will not be considered as an option under the environmental assessment process. Will the Minister of Northern Development stand up for the people of Kirkland Lake and allow them the opportunity to be proactive in their own economic development?
Hon Miss Martel: We all have different ideas on development. I can tell the member that I was very pleased to meet with the mayor and a number of his council members, along with his economic development officer, about three weeks ago to review a document that our ministry has funded which looks at economic development opportunities in the region, many of them in relation to mining activities. We have made an undertaking with him that we will have the mine staff deal directly with the economic development officer as soon as possible to determine which of the proposals we can meet and fund. But I make it very clear to this member, as I have to the mayor on several occasions both in Toronto and within the community, that I will not entertain this proposal.
The other thing I want to say is that I find it very interesting that when I do listen to the people, as I did in Kenora, I get dumped all over by these clowns on the other side, and I find that very strange.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. I ask the honourable member if she would withdraw that.
Hon Miss Martel: I do withdraw the remark "clowns."
LANDFILL SITE
Mr Wiseman: I rise on behalf of the member for Halton North, who is ill today. He very much would like to know the status of the negotiations --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Interjections.
1450
The Speaker: The member for Durham West, to whom is your question directed?
Mr Wiseman: It is to the Minister of the Environment. I would like to continue. This question is on behalf of my colleague the member for Halton North, who is too ill to ask it today. As he has indicated on many occasions in this House, he has a deep interest in what happens to the Acton quarry and would like an update from the Minister of the Environment as to the status of the negotiations on the Acton quarry.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mrs Grier: I am very glad to have an opportunity to put on the record the status of the proposal by Reclamations Systems Inc that a waste management site be developed in the Acton quarry. I know the member for Halton North is vitally interested in this issue. As people who have read the daily papers will realize, today the government review of the environmental assessment has been completed and released for public comment. It is customary that the period of public comment be 30 days, but given the requests for a longer review period from the residents of that area and from the municipalities in Halton, I have instructed that there be a 60-day period for that public comment. When that comment has been received, then the project can be reviewed by my ministry.
ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
Mr McClelland: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, in response to my question, the minister took offence at my characterization of Bill 143. With Bill 143, what she has done is to declare war on the fundamental rights of people in Ontario. How can the minister, of all people, in good conscience justify Bill 143, which overrides every single piece of legislation designed to ensure the protection of the environment, including the Environmental Assessment Act, the Planning Act, the Municipal Act and the Environmental Protection Act?
These acts are not legal impediments, as she once characterized them. The people of Mississauga, Vaughan and the rest of Ontario see them as legal rights and environmental protection measures. Can the minister ensure that her actions will not cause permanent harm to the environment, when she has chosen to bypass every check and balance and approvals process that is presently in place?
Hon Mrs Grier: I object to the member's characterization of the actions I have taken in issuing minister's orders to the regional municipality of Peel and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Under section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act, I have the power and the responsibility to issue those orders. They have been used by my predecessors on lo these many occasions in the past.
Interjection: You mean Jim Bradley used them?
The Speaker: Order.
Hon Mrs Grier: For example, let me assure the House that my predecessor in office used section 29 of the Environmental Protection Act to order waste from Orangeville into Keele Valley and I do not remember calls for an environmental assessment process in that case. The situation we are faced with and which Bill 143 is designed to address --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the minister complete her response.
Hon Mrs Grier: The issue that section of Bill 143 is designed to address, as the member well knows, is the immediate crisis we face in the time between the running out of capacity of those sites and the coming on stream of the new long-term sites which are being sought. It is our intention to have that gap be as brief as possible, but for that period it would be irresponsible of me not to plan for the contingency that there would in fact be that gap. That is the kind of decisive action this government is prepared to take.
Mr McClelland: For the minister to compare the issuing of orders to a piece of legislation that wipes out people's rights is absolutely absurd. This is the same minister who said she supported an environmental bill of rights and said she would see to immediate passage of it upon her election. Is it not true that had her environmental bill of rights been in place, the bill would have had to be added to the list of bills that she is ready to wipe out in order to get Bill 143 in?
Hon Mrs Grier: I know the member and all the members of his caucus will be delighted to learn that the preparation of a draft environmental bill of rights is well under way and is proceeding with a broad consensus from a broad range of stakeholders who see the need for this kind of legislation. There is no question in my mind that we will have an environmental bill of rights before this House and that the rights of the people of this province to protect their environment will be protected. That does not change the situation that there are emergencies which occur, and any Minister of the Environment will require to have, as have all previous ministers of the Environment, the power to make orders to protect the health and safety of the people of this province in the event of an emergency.
The Speaker: New question, the member for Mississauga South.
Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of Education. Is he here? He was here a minute ago.
The Speaker: The minister is not in the chamber. Is there some other person to whom you wish to address your question?
Mrs Marland: It is very difficult to have question period with so many cabinet ministers absent. We had the same situation yesterday.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr Villeneuve: In the absence of the Minister of Labour, I will go to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier. The Minister of Labour announced that the city of Cornwall and area workers had requested an older and displaced worker centre over two years ago. The Minister of Labour, I think, has left the impression that sooner or later Cornwall will get this help centre. I would like the Treasurer to confirm at this point that indeed the Cornwall area will be getting the help centre, which would be initiated to help workers between the ages of 35 and 50 years who do not have employment.
Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member for S-D-G & East Grenville knows me and the Minister of Labour well enough to know that I would not make a statement on his behalf, but I will speak to him about it.
Mr Villeneuve: I was not aware that the Minister of Labour had been asked to leave early, and apparently he was. He was scheduled to be here all afternoon. However, would the Treasurer please look into a situation where the city of Cornwall has been promised this help centre for more senior unemployed workers, so that it will not go to another city for political reasons.
Hon Mr Laughren: I can certainly assure the member that it would not go to another city for political reasons, at the very least, but I will talk to the Minister of Labour about the very important matter the member has raised.
BREWING INDUSTRY
Mr Mills: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
Mr Stockwell: He is going to read it.
Mr Mills: I am not going to read it; it is from the heart.
The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.
Mr Mills: In my riding, and likewise in all the other ridings, a lot of small restaurants and pub-type places are having a hard time making ends meet. The final nail in their coffin is the fact that now Brewers' Retail is charging them to deliver beer. I am just wondering what the minister can do about that. This is enough to put them right in the hole.
1500
Hon Ms Churley: I would just like to point out, for those who do not know, that the Brewers' Retail is privately owned and that the government cannot control its policy. However, I do have a comment to make on the question.
I was very concerned about the new costs associated with delivery. I asked to meet with Brewers' Retail. We did meet. I asked if they would consider at least postponing the new charges for delivery and happily they agreed to do that at my request. Since then, they have met at least once with the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association to discuss perhaps other options of dealing with this situation.
Mr Mills: There are beer stores closing down all over the place. I am just wondering what we are going to do with the folks who are faced with this situation: when the beer store closes and they are left without any place to buy their beer. What is the minister going to do about this?
Hon Ms Churley: As I said, the ministry does regulate and control the sale of beer. We cannot stop the breweries from closing down beer stores. However, I have asked the LCBO, in four areas where there is no beer store left in the community, to provide a large assortment of beer in the LCBO stores, and that is happening. I think three of the four LCBO stores in those communities have a large variety of beer for consumers now.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Mr Offer: I have a question for the Treasurer. In the last three weeks, we have watched the Treasurer rail on about the need to cut back programs, freeze expenditures and control expenses in order to keep Ontario competitive.
As the Treasurer is aware, the Workers' Compensation Board is now examining two policy proposals: eligibility and workplace stress. Both these initiatives are deemed to be very expensive by employer groups, and yet the WCB has said unequivocally that it will not do any financial impact studies on these two proposals. If that is not enough, the Minister of Labour has now said that he will not be involved in any way in this process and that all decisions must rest with the WCB.
I ask the Treasurer this question specifically because the proper financial management of this huge enterprise is of vital importance to Ontario's economy. Does he not agree that a proper financial analysis of these two new WCB initiatives is essential? If so, will he, as the chief financial officer for Ontario, ensure today through his ministry and undertake that these impact studies will take place?
Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the question from the Labour critic of the Liberal Party. I am aware of the studies that are going on, and I believe there are public hearings being held across the province on these matters. It is my understanding that we wanted to allow those hearings to take place before any parties moved to get themselves involved in an economic impact study. Let's at least allow that process to take place before anything else is done.
Mr Offer: I am quite troubled that the Treasurer was not able to say today that he would at least undertake to provide a financial assessment and an impact analysis of two policy proposals which will affect business and Ontario's economy and its ability to be competitive.
Members will be aware that the WCB has just released its third-quarter financial report. The astounding part of this report is that the WCB's unfunded liability has increased in one year almost $1 billion to $9.9 billion, which the WCB chairman has stated might result in significant rate increases. It is unacceptable that such increases come about because new programs that were not properly costed or analysed were implemented.
The Treasurer's answer to this question is absolutely vital to the backbone of our economy, the men and women who make up Ontario's business community. Will he ensure today that financial impact analyses are carried out on all new WCB program initiatives such as these two new proposals, and will he guarantee that these two crucial fiscal proposals will come before this chamber for full debate before they are implemented?
Hon Mr Laughren: I know that all members in the assembly share my concern about the WCB. I have been here enough years to recall the debates that went on among all three parties dealing with the problems that have bedevilled all of us. I am concerned as well about any major new assessments by the WCB.
The WCB, as members know, is facing a very substantial unfunded liability and is concerned with its assessments on the employer community as well. I assure the Labour critic for the Liberal Party that we will indeed look very carefully at the recommendations that come out of those hearings that are being held. As well, I will talk to the Minister of Labour about to what extent that will lead to an economic impact study.
The Speaker: The member for St George-St David.
Mr Scott: This is rather difficult to explain, but earlier in the day there was an exchange between my colleague the member for Fort William and the Treasurer about the extent to which he was prepared to predict that expanded taxes would occur in the budget. That is an important question, but much more important is that there should be no new taxes.
I want to resolve the problem this way: I will offer to pay each member of the government $200 --
The Speaker: Would the member for St George-St David please take his seat.
NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION
Mr McClelland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A while ago, I placed a question in supplementary form to the Minister of the Environment. Her answer had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the supplementary question I put to her. She did not even begin to touch on a response in any meaningful way. Accordingly, pursuant to section 33(a) of the standing orders, I invite the minister to debate with me tomorrow evening that particular response that was not forthcoming today.
The Speaker: I trust the member for Brampton North will file the necessary document with the table.
Hon Mrs Grier: I regret to inform the member for Brampton North that I will be in Vancouver tomorrow evening at 6. I would be happy to have a late show on Monday if that will accommodate his concerns.
The Speaker: As is the custom, the matter can be dealt with by mutual agreement, and I am sure the two parties involved can determine how best to handle this.
PETITIONS
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr Morin: I have a petition signed by 150 people which reads as follows:
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"Whereas gasoline prices are significantly higher in the Ottawa area than those in southern Ontario;
"Whereas such a price disparity discriminates against Ottawa-area consumers;
"Whereas the government of Ontario has eliminated provincial licence fees for northern residents to compensate for a similar gas price disparity between southern and northern Ontario."
"The Legislative Assembly of Ontario should urge the Ontario government to correct this injustice to Ottawa-area motorists."
ELECTROLYTIC EPILATION
Mr Morin: I have a second petition. It is from a group of 101 citizens and has to do with the withdrawal of medically prescribed electrolysis from OHIP coverage, which they feel is unfair.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
Mr Poirier: I have a petition which concerns the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas, we are clergy and members of many different faiths in Ontario; and
"Whereas, we believe in the fundamental right of all Canadians, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to have freedom of conscience and religion; and
"Whereas, our country and the province of Ontario are bound by this charter; and
"Whereas, there are many faiths in Canada, both old and new, and these faiths, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are free to practise on an equal basis without discrimination; and
"Whereas, it is not the mandate of government to determine religious nature or interfere in God-given, spiritual matters; and
"Whereas, the Church of Scientology has been recognized to solemnize marriages in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Yukon, is recognized around the world as a bona fide religious body and is long deserving of being registered to solemnize marriages in the province of Ontario;
"We, the undersigned clergy and members, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:
"To instruct the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to end their discriminatory practices and license ministers from the Church of Scientology to solemnize marriages in Ontario."
This petition is signed by 24 members of clergies and different religions across Ontario. I have signed the petition and I submit it to the Legislative Assembly.
1510
ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
Mr Offer: I have a petition. I will not read it all but will just indicate that it is signed by a number of very concerned residents surrounding the Britannia landfill site. They express their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier and urge the minister to keep promises and to keep those agreements made by the city and the residents of Mississauga and to make certain that the legislation makes certain that all the bylaws will be abided by. I have signed this petition.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr Chiarelli: I have several petitions addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and signed by residents of Ottawa-Carleton:
"Whereas gasoline prices are significantly higher in the Ottawa area than those in southern Ontario;
"Whereas such a price disparity discriminates against Ottawa-area consumers;
"Whereas the government of Ontario has eliminated vehicle licence fees for northern residents to compensate for a similar gas price disparity between southern and northern Ontario;
"The Legislative Assembly of Ontario should urge the Ontario government to correct this injustice to Ottawa-area motorists."
I have signed all these petitions and I agree with them. I urge the members to take the advice of these residents of Ottawa-Carleton that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should urge the government to correct this injustice to Ottawa-area motorists.
ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
Mr Offer: I have a petition signed by a number of residents around the Britannia landfill site who urge the Minister of the Environment and the Premier to keep their promise that any expansion of any existing site would not take place without a full environmental assessment hearing. I have signed my name.
I have another petition, again signed by a number of residents. I think it connotes the great concern held by a number of people around the Britannia landfill site. Again, they wish to express their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of the province, asking them to keep promises they have made with respect to agreements around the city of Mississauga and the residents of Mississauga, and to make certain all present bylaws are abided by.
The Speaker: Another petition? The member for Mississauga North.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I do not believe this is out of order. Again it has been given to me by residents in my riding who happen to live around the Britannia landfill site. I will be reading these petitions in. They are each signed by at least 20 residents who are expressing their concern over the actions of the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of Ontario with respect to Bill 143 which will result in the expansion of the Britannia landfill site taking place without any opportunity for them to have any impact on the decision or to share their thoughts.
I have a further petition, again from residents around the Britannia landfill site, part of a residents' association, expressing their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of Ontario with respect to their actions which will result in the expansion of the Britannia landfill site without their being able to have any input into or any part in a consultative process in an area that will affect the place where they live.
I have a further petition. I believe this is crucially important. I think it really does signify the very great concern people around the Britannia landfill site have with respect to its expansion without being able to have any input into the process. They are expressing their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of the province and urging them to keep their promise.
The Speaker: I am not ruling the member out of order, but realizing that all his petitions are the same, I would like to check for a moment to see if there are any other members who have petitions to present today, since we do have a time limit. Are there any other members in the chamber who have a petition to present?
Mr Offer: Certainly if there are any other members who have petitions I will yield the floor for them to introduce their petitions, because I believe they are probably as important as the petitions I have before me, signed by so many people in the area who feel quite aggrieved by the actions of the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of Ontario who stated earlier that there would be no expansion of any existing site without a full environmental assessment hearing.
Indeed there are actions by the minister to extend the Britannia landfill site without any hearing, without any opportunity for them to share with the minister their thoughts, their concerns and their opinions about what this means to them, to their children and to the place they live.
This petition is signed by a number of residents wishing to express their concerns to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of the province, asking them to keep the promise and make certain that the agreements made with the city and the residents of Mississauga are abided by.
I have a further petition again signed by a number of residents around the Britannia landfill site. They have instructed me and I wholeheartedly agree that this is one opportunity they can use to show they are a very unified, co-ordinated group of caring people who see that a landfill site which has been slated to close -- plans have been made for its closure -- which will reach capacity probably in the next few months will now be potentially expanded for many years.
This contravenes an agreement made by the city of Mississauga and the region of Peel and certainly contravenes a promise made by the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of the province when in the last election they stood at the foot of the landfill site and said: "Vote for us. If you do, there will never be a new site or any site expanded without a full environmental assessment hearing." What has happened is that the Britannia landfill site is indeed being expanded without any --
Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe the member is making a speech and not reading a petition.
The Speaker: The member raises a point of order. The member for Mississauga North will know it is customary to simply read the petition verbatim into the record or to make a synopsis if it is a long petition, and to indicate perhaps if the member is affixing his or her signature.
1520
Mr Offer: I hope the member for Durham Centre who has objected to the residents in my riding having an opportunity through petition to have those petitions entered will take part in the debate on Bill 143 and certainly try to explain to his residents why it is --
Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The issue was not my objection to the residents but the way in which the member has flouted the standing orders.
The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga North, I would draw his attention to standing order 35(b) to indicate that it is helpful if the member would simply summarize the contents of the petition and indicate whether he wishes to affix his signature to that petition.
Mr Offer: It is always my pleasure to be as brief as possible, even when we are dealing with a matter which is so very important to the residents around the Britannia landfill site.
I have a petition, Mr Speaker, in keeping with your order, signed by a number of residents around the Britannia landfill site expressing their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of the province and requesting them to keep the promises made and to make certain the agreements made to the city and to the residents will be kept.
Interjection.
Mr Offer: A member of the government asked how many signatures, I think somewhat imputing that the people around the Britannia landfill site did not sign these petitions. May I invite the member to come to that area. It would be nice for the member to have the Minister of the Environment along.
The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. I ask the member to abide by the standing orders and simply summarize the petition, indicate, if he wishes to, the number of people who have signed it, which is not obligatory, and indicate whether he wishes to affix his signature.
Mr Offer: Mr Speaker, I will in fact do so, but I hope you understand that when someone starts to say that these petitions are not in fact signed by caring and concerned residents, I feel somewhat moved to respond to some outburst by government members.
I have a petition signed by a number of concerned residents around the Britannia landfill site, again wishing to express their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of the province, urging them to keep the promises made during the election that there would be no expansion of any existing site without a full environmental assessment hearing. Bill 143 does in fact fly in the face of that promise made. I affix my signature.
In the brief time left for petitions, I have a further petition again signed by residents surrounding the Britannia landfill site, expressing their concern to the Minister of the Environment and the Premier of the province, urging them to keep the promises they made in the last election that there would be no expansion of any existing site without environmental assessment hearings. As I am sure all members now know, that is not being kept as a promise in Bill 143.
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 18th report.
The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT, 1991
Mr Farnan moved, on behalf of Mr Mammoliti, second reading of Bill Pr62, An Act respecting the City of North York.
Motion agreed to.
Third reading also agreed to on motion.
ARMENIAN COMMUNITY CENTRE OF CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1991
Mr Farnan moved, on behalf of Mr Mammoliti, second reading of Bill Pr68, An Act respecting the Armenian Community Centre of Cambridge.
Motion agreed to.
Third reading also agreed to on motion.
House in committee of the whole.
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION ACT (MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS STATUTES), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ENREGISTREMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE DANS LE CADRE DE LOIS RELEVANT DU MINISTÈRE DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DU COMMERCE
Consideration of Bill 126, An Act authorizing the Filing of Information in an Electronic Format under Statutes administered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations
/Projet de loi 126, Loi autorisant le dépôt de renseignements au moyen d'un support électronique dans le cadre de lois dont l'application est confiée au ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce.
Mr Tilson: I have delivered to the clerk one proposed amendment I wish to speak on very briefly. I also have several questions and comments I wish to put forward to the minister.
The Chair: To which section is your amendment?
Mr Tilson: I am moving that the bill be amended by adding a section which would follow section 5.
The Chair: Mr Tilson moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"5.1 No database used for the storage of information in an electronic format shall be managed by any person or association other than the ministry."
Mr Cousens: Mr Chairman, I hope we can just deal with the amendment but there will be other sections that pertain to this bill. We can deal with them as we go along, unless you are going to insist we go section by section. I would rather we just deal with the whole bill and then come back and deal with other parts.
1530
The Chair: The practice normally is to go section by section unless the House decides to do it somewhat differently.
Mr Cousens: I will ask for permission.
The Chair: So we will proceed in the normal way. Shall sections 1 to 4, inclusive, carry?
Mr Cousens: No. I just wonder if this bill is going to affect any of the registration act or the Polaris project as you look at the event of a conflict between this act and any other act. What implications does it have for the registration system in Ontario?
Hon Ms Churley: I understand, from consultation with the third party, that there is one amendment that is to be moved, which he has moved, and I am happy to respond to that amendment or at the end of the process. The member for Markham has brought in another issue here and I would like the Chair's ruling on that.
The Chair: The amendment has not been moved yet.
Hon Ms Churley: Okay.
The Chair: We are just preparing the debate, in reality.
Hon Ms Churley: Yes. I am happy to allow the member from the third party to make his comments, and after the amendment is moved I will make some comments at the end of that, but I understood that was the process.
Mr Cousens: Since the Chair has insisted that we go through the bill seriatim by section --
The Chair: I would prefer that, yes.
Mr Cousens: -- I had other questions on other sections. Obviously the amendment does not stand. Is that not true? If the amendment is not on the floor, then I have asked another question of the minister pertaining to another part of the bill.
The Chair: Correct. Do you wish to bring in your amendment now?
Mr Tilson: Mr Chair, as I understand it, you were asking if there was anything to deal with sections 1 to 5, and I think the member for Markham and I have several questions on that issue. We only have one amendment, but we might have some questions on sections 1 to 5.
Mr Cousens: Numbers 3, 4 and 5; pass 1 and 2 if you want.
The Chair: I wish you could inform the table which section you want to debate, or if you have any amendment. Is there any amendment to section 1? Shall section 1 carry?
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2:
The Chair: Are there any amendments to section 2?
Mr Cousens: Just a question: Could the minister tell me just what controls are in place to protect information under the --
Mr Hope: I thought you said 3, 4 and 5, Don.
Mr Cousens: There happen to be other ones. Since I am getting a difficult time from the government, and from the Chair, it makes one want to ask other questions, and that is exactly where it comes from.
I want to know what protection there is for data that are going into these systems to be protected from outsiders getting hold of that information, clause 2(b), where it says you are transmitting "information directly to an electronic database maintained for that purpose." Can the minister give us assurance that this information is not going to be in the hands of non-government people?
Hon Ms Churley: Yes, I can give the member an assurance on that. This may help in terms of some of the other questions he wants to ask, which were dealt with rather extensively in committee. Bill 126 is enabling legislation. I hope the member for Markham can hear my answer, because I think it will clarify some of his other questions. I can absolutely assure him it has no connection with Polaris. It deals only with the filing of information, which already takes place. The only thing we are doing here is creating another option for the filing of that information which we receive anyway now in paper form. It has nothing to do with the management of the information whatsoever. Yes, I can assure the member that there is absolutely nothing to fear.
Mr Tilson: I think the purpose of the question is that on the very face of the name of the bill, and as the minister clarified in the resources development committee, the bill says it is An Act authorizing the Filing of Information in an Electronic Format under Statutes -- that is plural -- administered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister indicated that it would deal with all statutes administered by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. That includes the Registry Act; it includes all other acts. In fact, she went on to say that it included as many as 50 pieces of legislation. It certainly does involve the Registry Act if it involves all pieces of legislation that are administered by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
I think the question is quite clear. This party has been quite certain that we support the principle of what the government is trying to put forward to make the system run smoother. What gives us great concern is the loss of our freedoms. That is the purpose of the question from the member for Markham as to how the minister can assure us that this bill does not go to Teranet, as do all the other pieces of legislation administered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In short, is the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations going to exist any more or is it all going to be operated by Teranet?
Hon Ms Churley: As I said, this question was dealt with extensively in committee. I assured the members at that committee, and I just did again. For some reason, there is some trouble in the third party understanding what this bill is all about. I have to take some responsibility for that, I guess, because I have been trying to indicate -- I will say again -- that all this bill does is that it does not change the management of this information; it does not change any of the things they have fears about. This system is a filing of information that already exists within the ministry. The management of that information will remain the same. Nothing changes there, and there is nothing in this bill that would indicate there is any connection to Teranet or anything to do with that at all. It just gives people more freedom. It gives people another choice of how to file that information. That is all we are talking about here.
Mr Tilson: I am going to ask a question I put the minister on notice of in an open letter I wrote to her some time ago. I cannot recall the date; it was several weeks ago. What provisions can she put in this bill, or indeed are there some provisions in this bill I have not noticed, that will protect individual privacy?
We have spent a great deal of time in questions in the House and outside the House and in committee and in correspondence to the minister's office asking for that information, referring specifically to Polaris and how it is being operated by an unknown private company called Teranet. We do not even know who the shareholders are. It is that issue the member for Markham is concerned about, as am I.
How does the minister intend to assure the people of this province that their privacy will be protected with a bill such as this when we have seen what this government has done with the land registry system? We have seen what they have done with that. They have essentially given it away to an unknown private company, which is held by unknown individuals, on an unknown contract that is going to go on for ever and be kept secret for ever.
Hon Ms Churley: The information that is being collected through this other means of collection -- paper versus computer, or both; people will have the choice -- is already public information. Again I say there is absolutely no difference. That information is publicly there right now. It is protected information. In the same way we protect that information now through various means, as to the information that comes through on another system when people make that choice, there is nothing changed in the system. I say again that the information that already flows through this system is already public information. There is no difference here.
On the member's reference to Teranet, which I think is really unfortunate, continuing to bring it into this particular bill, I know he has a great deal of interest in it and that we are going to meet and talk about it. I am hoping I can provide him with further information about that to satisfy some of his concerns.
1540
I too share the member's concerns about privacy, and I share concerns about protecting people's privacy. I want to clarify for the member that even within Teranet, although it is not connected to this bill in any way, the land registry system within Teranet, as part of the master agreement, will remain for ever within government control. The fee structure and all of that, even within Teranet, will remain within government control. So some of their fears about Teranet, I would say all of their fears about Teranet, are in fact unfounded. I will be happy to provide them with more information about that later, but again I say there nothing is changed in this bill in the management of the system, and the privacy of information will be protected the same after this bill is passed as it is being now within the public domain.
Mr Cousens: Part of the question we would like to understand is, what is public and what is private? Therefore, if something is public and is public information, we would like to know that is going to go through systems such that paper documents or any other documents are easy, are available, are accessible and that the whole system is public. What is public and what is private within her ministry? Is there any way in which we in opposition or the public at large can know what information is going to be protected and preserved and have security rings around it and what information is not?
Hon Ms Churley: Privacy is protected by each act that designates the collection of information, so out of all the acts, the privacy is protected individually by each of those. I should point out to the member again that this bill we are hoping to get through this afternoon, as per our agreement, is actually a very simple one and is enabling legislation. As the member knows, today there is just one of the acts that is ready to go into this and this legislation is enabling, and each of the other acts, when they are ready to come forward, will have to go through a process before they are included in this second option of registration.
Mr Tilson: The minister has indicated that each individual bill will protect individual privacy, depending on which area. How does Bill 126 protect the privacy of individuals in Ontario?
Hon Ms Churley: As I have already said, Bill 126 is enabling legislation that allows dealing with the filing of information, not the management of the information, so the ownership and control and security of the information does not change. Every act under my jurisdiction already sets out what can do what with this information. This would add no new protection. Getting back to the member's amendment, there is no difference right now. If he is asking specifically what kind of information comes in and how it is public information under the existing bill -- is that what he is asking me?
Mr Cousens: No. Part of what we are asking --
The Chair: Order, please. The question was asked by Mr Tilson. Would you like to elaborate on the question that was raised by the minister?
Mr Tilson: The question has to do with individuals' protection of their privacy, and yes, it does refer back to the land registry act, the Registry Act of the province, because that is one of the statutes that is administered by her ministry and that is one of the bills this is referred to. That is the connection to Teranet, which has taken over the administration of the land registry system according to the contract the minister will not produce. That is our fear, that our individual privacy is being lost as a result of action, and this is even more. We do not know what they are going to do with this information. There is nothing in the contract.
If the Ministry of Consumer and Commerical Relations were administering and controlling this information, then there would be no problem. We would support the minister 100%. But it is not. It is being handed out to unknown individuals, probably not even from this country.
Hon Ms Churley: The personal property security that is coming on stream right now is public information. There are no changes in the information that will be filed right now. All kinds of information come into the ministry that for obvious reasons are filed and then made known to the public. There is no change in that.
I reiterate once again that the allegations the member is making and the connections he is making with Teranet taking over the land registry system just are not so. They are not true. The government retains control over that. But as I said with regard to each of the other acts that will come on over time, there will be different means of protecting the information, depending on what is already in the act and what kind of information that involves and whom it concerns.
For instance, there is no big secret deal with Teranet. There is a master deal. Certain issues, as the member knows, are protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: the third-party information that I believe the member has filed to get. Otherwise there is no big secret deal and there is nothing at all about this bill that is connected and there is nothing about this bill that changes the way we do anything at all. It is another way of filing the information we already get.
Mr Cousens: These rank as the worst answers I have ever heard from any minister. I do not think she knows what she is talking about.
Hon Ms Churley: You do not know what you are talking about.
Mr Cousens: Then I want to ask the minister a question and she can answer it, because she has not come close to answering the questions we are trying to get to. I think the minister is insulting us. I asked her, what is protected? How is the information protected in the files, in the computer system she is bringing forward in this bill? How is that information protected so that someone who is not authorized to get to it cannot get to it?
Hon Ms Churley: With all due respect, it is the member for Markham who does not understand what he is talking about here. This information he is talking about is public information. People can come and get that information. It is as simple as that. It is not secret information.
Mr Cousens: There is no private information affected by this bill at all. Is that what the minister is saying? Will she put that on the record?
Hon Ms Churley: That is right. I will put that on the record: There is no private information in this act.
Mr Tilson: Who is going to manage the information that is being collected? Teranet? Are the banks going to receive it? The minister told us in committee that the large banks and the large law firms would be the only people who would have equipment that would provide this service. The minister is not going to provide the equipment. The little man will have no equipment. They are going to have to go to the banks or the large law firms, which are going to charge outrageous fees to use this equipment.
The minister is not going to provide it. She is going to make it more expensive for people to use it. In other words, the managing of this information, in the same way Teranet is managing the land registry system, is going to be by private sources. The minister is delegating that away. It is a disservice to the people of this province.
The question does get to the amendment. How is this going to be managed? Can the minister assure us today, and if so refer us to the question, that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is not only going to be managing this information but all the other information that is going to be accumulated by the sections or bills that are referred to in Bill 126, all of the bills that are managed by the entire Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations? That is how widespread this bill is. The minister gives the impression it is a Mickey Mouse type of bill. It covers her entire ministry. That is how serious it is.
Again, the question to the minister is, who is going to manage this information once it is accumulated?
1550
Hon Ms Churley: The personal property security registration will manage the system as it manages it now. It is as simple as that. There is no change in the management. I think it somehow has not become clear, but there are 49 branch offices the ordinary person can now use and will be able to continue to use. That also does not change. No, I am not referring to this as a Mickey Mouse bill. I notice the member has one amendment today, which I was hoping we could talk about. The member for Markham made a statement that I gave a dumb answer and did not understand the implications of what I am talking about. That is not so. In fact, this is a very simple issue.
This is not all tied up in complicated computer issues. It is a matter that I would say any layperson could understand. It is simply another method of transferring information, one-way information, to the computer, a filing system. It is not two ways. People cannot get into it except to file information that they are already filing to us anyway. It does not change the ownership of the information we collect.
Mr Cousens: Who will be able to get into these files? Will I or any other person be able to dial into these files?
Hon Ms Churley: There is the question of who will get into the files and file the data. Those will be the people who are authorized to do so, with checks and balances put in, who will be able to file their information one way. As of now, this will not change. Anybody can pay $6. That will not change after the information is filed in this way. People can pay $6 and they are entitled to do a search.
Mr Cousens: Can I? Just to ask the question again, can I then get into the files and personally use a computer modem to dial up and get information from those files?
Hon Ms Churley: That is not what I said. It is one-way information.
Mr Cousens: How public is that information? That is what I am trying to find out.
Mrs Caplan: If you pay your $6, they'll give you the information.
Mr Cousens: Then the other aspect to the question is, can the minister give us examples of the files that are going to be on that from the different statutes? Can she give us a number of them? Can she just list them off so that we know exactly what she is are talking about?
Hon Ms Churley: This is the Personal Property Security Act. That is all at this point. That is the only act in this enabling legislation at this time. That is the only one at this point. Because this is enabling legislation, the others will come on stream when they are ready to do so. I want to assure the members this is a good bill. This is keeping up with technology. It is going to help people on the street. It is going to help save money. It just eliminates one step in a process that is already in place.
I have to say that members are being unnecessarily histrionic about a simple bill. It is plain housekeeping and I think members know that. It has no connection to Teranet. I suggest we get on with it, pass this housekeeping bill and deal with the amendment today. They have put forth only one amendment, which I would really love to get into discussing and move on with this bill.
Mr Cousens: The minister refers to one bill being affected by this act. Can the minister, by regulation, add other particular parts of her ministry to be regulated by this act in any way?
Hon Ms Churley: No, not by regulation. Hopefully the member for Markham has read the bill. It will show that it has to go through cabinet.
Mr Cousens: All right then; it is by Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Mr Tilson: There is a difference.
Mr Cousens: All right. Will the minister have to come back to the Legislature and pass another bill in order to put any other acts under this bill?
Hon Ms Churley: It may in some statutes. Basically it will be passed by cabinet regulation. In most cases it will not have to come back here.
Mr Cousens: I asked an earlier question: What are the other bills that could then be impacted by such a regulation?
Hon Ms Churley: The ministry has, I think, anywhere from 52 to 58 bills. The honourable members all know about the Bread Sales Act and the Upholstered and Stuffed Articles Act, do they not?
Mr Tilson: How about the Registry Act?
Hon Ms Churley: There is the Registry Act, yes.
Mrs Caplan: The stuffed shirt act.
Hon Ms Churley: The stuffed shirt act, that is right.
The Chair: Order, please. The member for Markham has the floor.
Mr Cousens: Bingo. We just had bingo. I got a straight line from this bill to other bills which allow this ministry to take the legislation we are giving here to the Registry Act and other acts. This minister -- maybe the ministry -- has not even considered all the implications. What I am concerned about is the security of data and information, security that protects the rights of all people in this province.
I am concerned that it is such an important matter that it has not been fully considered. All I have now found is that there is a direct line from Bill 126, the bill we are discussing here today, right through to some of the most personal data that people have in Ontario. That will now be available through sources. This minister has not even been able to explain whether they are going to have any kind of security around them, security that will protect the people of Ontario. It is on the record. We now know what has happened from this minister. Let's go ahead with the amendment.
Hon Ms Churley: Just for the record, I want to be very clear: There is no problem with this. Any of my acts could use this capability. Hopefully that will happen down the road, but there is a misunderstanding. Again, let's get back to the thesis of what this is all about. Any of these acts will be -- I think it will be a good thing for Ontario -- able to file electronically what they already file. It is really as simple as that, including, yes, land registry. It has nothing to do with Teranet, but possibly down the road, we hope, a lot -- I think it is going to take years for some of the acts to get on stream, and some will never get on stream, but I think keeping up to date with technology is a very good move.
I have heard the honourable member say many times that he encourages this move, that it is important for this government to move ahead and keep up with technology. It makes us more efficient and that is exactly what we are doing here.
Mrs Caplan: Perhaps I could be helpful to the minister and advise her that it is not a good idea to tease the bears. As she has been making some of her comments, I think she may have inadvertently provoked a little response from the other side. Perhaps if I could ask a question that she could respond to simply, it might be helpful to my colleagues.
It is my understanding that in any piece of legislation which could be affected by the statute before us all of the information is going to be public information that is presently available and is protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The ministry is obligated to comply with the protection of personal privacy. Therefore, this legislation or any other pieces that are affected by this statute before us today would protect personal privacy of information that is collected, as required under that legislation. Anything else is considered public information, which is available from the ministry on the payment of a fee. Is that correct? Yes or no.
Hon Ms Churley: I thank the member for the advice. We all tend to provoke each other from time to time. It gets kind of difficult not to in this House. I have already actually answered that question. Each different act sets out the protection of the information it collects. They all are covered by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, yes, each and every one of them.
1600
Mr Tilson: It is interesting that the member for Oriole has jumped into the debate, because of course it was her government that set up the whole system we are concerned with, and of course it was the present government that signed it.
The member for Oriole completely misunderstands what our party is trying to put forward. The question is, who is going to manage the system? We know who is going to manage the land registry system. It is going to be Teranet. Who is going to manage all the bills of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, whether it is the Bread Sales Act, the Condominium Act, all of these other acts the minister is referring to. Who specifically is going to manage these acts?
Is the minister going to be out of a job? I say that with tongue in cheek of course, but it is a great concern, because I believe that if it is not Teranet, it is going to be a company like Teranet.
What guarantee can the minister give us that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is going to manage all of this information it is going to accumulate under this legislation and that it is not going to delegate it to Teranet, which is going to make millions? I am quite sincere. I would like to know how and I am sure we would all like to know how to get shares in Teranet, because whoever has those shares is going to make millions because of the minister's actions.
Hon Ms Churley: My ministry, by statute, will continue to manage the system. That is the proof the member needs. By statute we have to do that. We will continue to manage the system. In fact, I have to point out that Teranet is part of government. Again, I remind the member that the whole land registry and fee structure in terms of Teranet is completely controlled by government and will be, to use one of the member's favourite terms, for ever.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Section 4:
Mr Cousens: The only question I have is, will this be Ministry of Government Services computers or will it be other computers that are leased and owned by other people?
Hon Ms Churley: It will be the Ministry of Government Services mainframe computers that will be used in this system.
Mr Cousens: No other computers will be used except government of Ontario computers?
Hon Ms Churley: No, not at this time.
Mr Cousens: Is the minister prepared to accept a friendly amendment that would say that in this bill, that would in some way allow us to have it in there when talking about these information systems, "and all computers will be exclusively Ontario government computers?"
Hon Ms Churley: I am not prepared to accept that amendment today. It has not been part of our legislation for 15 years. It is something I think we could consider, but I do not see any need for it at this time. I really do not. I would need to discuss it and, at this point, I see no need to include that in this particular bill.
Mr Cousens: We will stop hassling the minister. We will go away and let her deal with the bill if she will have that amendment in there. She would satisfy my concern that the data, when under the control of the Ontario civil service in whom I have a great deal of respect and trust, would be under a security system that would permit us to know there is no outside data centre dealing with the data. It is dealing with the data that pertains to the people of our province. Once the minister has that all in big files, she can bring out the information she wants. What a marvellous opportunity to do things that may not necessarily be in the best interests of the province or the people she is dealing with.
Hon Ms Churley: It will always be in the control of my ministry and this government, as I have already stated. I would like to thank the member for his thought and his concern about this, but I can assure him it will remain within this government's control.
Mr Cousens: I find it surprising that, on the one hand, the minister is willing to say, "There will be no outside computer centre involved in this ever." Then when I ask for a friendly amendment to change this act to ensure we are protected, she is not willing to do so. I find that extremely difficult to handle.
If this minister is not prepared to make the decision without checking with someone else, we could defer the whole discussion to another day, but I can assure members that I have great problems. On the one hand, the minister says, "Yes, it's going to be this way," and when I ask for it to be in the law of the land she is not prepared to do it. Either she does it, or if she is not going to to do it, there is a chance someone else is going to have control of our information, or the minister needs more time to come back to the House at another day for us to look at it. I would be willing to go with the latter and not force the minister into making a snap decision.
Hon Ms Churley: As I stated before, by statute my ministry and this government has control. There is absolutely nothing to worry about. I want to reassure the member of that. I understand his concern, but there is no way what he is suggesting or what he fears might happen, could happen.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
The Chair: Mr Tilson moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"5.1 No database used for the storage of information in an electronic format shall be managed by any person or association other than the ministry."
Mr Tilson: During the hearings with respect to the resources I put forward a number of amendments and I really was not even given a chance to debate those amendments in the committee. This is the main issue our party is concerned with, and that is the loss of freedoms of individuals in Ontario as a result of actions taken by this ministry, as illustrated by delegating the managerial aspects of the land registry system to which Bill 126 certainly applies to a company called Teranet Inc. The government of course will not tell us the terms of that contract which is to go on for ever and from which it has been indicated it will never be released.
The minister said, "You can make your application under the freedom of information act," and we all know what is going to happen. This is a private company, and very cleverly by the ministry, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act does not apply to those companies. We discovered in the standing committee on resources development that there is not one agreement, but a series of agreements. I suspect, for example, there is an agreement with the surveyors of this province which again -- I know you are looking at me, Mr Chairman, as if to say this does not apply to Bill 126, but I say it does, because it applies to all statutes administered by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
Clearly, for example, it is my understanding that there is a contract with the surveyors of this province, which will not be produced because it is a private contract, which will result in all the lands of this province being fed into computers -- the computers under Bill 126 perhaps -- which will result in all surveys now produced by surveyors being made irrelevant because of the new system that is being proposed under Polaris. That will keep the surveying industry busy for the next eight years and will give it millions of dollars, all at the expense of the taxpayer.
It is bills like this, the consolidation of the whole system, that lead to our fears about all the information, whether it be the Personal Property Security Act, which is the emphasis that is being put forward by this minister, because that appears to be the only one to date, but it is going to apply to all bills. I do not know how many bills the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations administers. We were told in committee that it was 50, and now I understand it is 58. Who knows? Certainly Bill 126 applies to all those bills.
1610
Our concern is the protection that will be given to individual privacy. This minister is not going to give us any. She simply says, "Trust me." She will not accept the friendly amendment. It is a very innocent amendment proposed by the member for Markham which has been rejected by the minister. Why can government computers not control this information? Why can it not be managed by government computers? Why will it go out to other sources over which the government will have no control?
If the minister were to produce the contracts -- and it has now become contracts; it is not one contract but a series of contracts -- we would know more about it. We would like to know, for example, the deal that has been worked out with the surveyors. Maybe there is a deal with the lawyers they have been dealing with. They will not tell us because it is secret; it is private. They cannot tell us. It is going to be kept secret for ever. Teranet is big time, but I can assure members there are going to be a lot of other people who will benefit at the expense of the taxpayers of this province.
They did not even do a feasibility study on Teranet or Polaris. They do not even know whether the system is going to work. They have no idea whether it is going to work. There is no feasibility study I know of that was done with respect to Polaris. I was told in committee there was no feasibility study done with respect to the personal property security system under Bill 126. We do not know whether these are going to work. We do not know who is going to manage them, and that is the intent of this amendment. We do not know who the authorized users are going to be.
The problem is a complete and utter disregard for the protection of individual privacy in Ontario by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. They have given us no assurance, none, other than the minister standing up and saying, "Trust me." That simply will not do for our party.
The bill is going to pass. The Liberals are going to support it. They set the whole deal up. Those people only signed the thing. I question whether they read it.
My concern, and one which this amendment seeks to address, is that this information is gathered by the government for legitimate statutory reasons. There is no question that we believe that. But it is not done as a commodity that is going to be sold for the benefit of the private sector -- and that is what they cannot guarantee will not happen -- at who knows what cost to the people of this province. The member for Oriole says six bucks. Fat chance. It is going to cost a lot more than six bucks, and they know it.
The whole issue they are talking about, which is under the personal property security system, the only people who are going to be able to operate it are the banks and the large law firms. They are the only ones who can afford the equipment. The government is not even providing the equipment. The little guy in the street is going to have to go to these people and pay their outrageous rates, which the government has no jurisdiction over, to use their equipment. The New Democrats, who are supposed to be the defenders of the little guy, are the defenders of the big banks, the defenders of the big law firms and the defenders of Teranet.
The protection of individual privacy is considered to be a primary duty of the government by the people who willingly offer up this information. People willingly do that. If it were not so, there would be a lot fewer people who would be willing to comply with the government statute in this regard.
The regard in which the people of Ontario hold the institution of government is directly related to how well that government serves them. The minister is not going to serve them. She is going to give it to somebody else, as she has done with the land registry system. If it is to be the role of government to sell off the individual privacy of its citizens, it is not unexpected that this regard, which the minister claims to hold so dearly, will be reduced to zero. The minister should think about it when she puts forward this bill.
I will not be quite as strong in my language as the reverend member for Markham, but I suggest the minister think of the implications that have been raised. We have indicated that we support in principle what she is trying to do. We are concerned that she is giving away the individual privacy and the secrets of the people of this province.
Hon Ms Churley: The member has now moved his amendment, which I will respond to. I already have another answer, because it keeps coming back to the same thing. The member for Oriole has given me some kind advice and has told me I should try not to provoke. I will try not to do that, but I have to submit to the member that he does not understand the difference between Teranet and this bill. That is what continues to get in his way, and once he has become clear on that, I do not think it will be a problem for him.
I want to point out to the member that I found his amendment interesting. I did look at it, and I think if it were needed I would be very glad to support it. But it is not needed and I will remind him again of the reason. Bill 126 is enabling legislation that deals only with the filing of information, and that is where the member runs into problems. This is not a management situation; it is not the management of this information. There is nothing about the ownership, control, security or use of the information changes involved in this bill. There is nothing to do with Teranet involved in this bill. Every act under my jurisdiction already sets out who can do what with this information, so this amendment would add no new protection. It would basically be redundant. That protection is already there.
In closing, I would like to thank the members for their questions and kind, and at times not-so-kind, responses to my answers. I think it is important that members got involved and gave me some advice on this bill, but I point out again that there is no threat to the privacy of Ontarians in Bill 126. There is absolutely no threat. The kind of fearmongering that went on this afternoon to deal with this bill is histrionic nonsense at best. I am sorry to say that the bill put to members today has nothing to do with Polaris and nothing to do with the privacy of information. Let me say again: It is a simple matter of filing information.
The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments on the amendment?
Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
Section 6:
Mr Cousens: What other acts could this bill be applied to?
Hon Ms Churley: I would like to rephrase the question. Potential, I think, is the issue here.
Mr Cousens: I am prepared to make it easy for the minister --
The Chair: Order, please. Would you take your seat, Minister, please.
I ask you again to present your question.
1620
Mr Cousens: To make it easier, if the minister would commit to give me a written list of all acts that are potentially covered by regulation changes made by the Lieutenant Governor, then under section 6, I would be satisfied to know all those under present legislation within the Ontario government that could be invoked through the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Then she would not have to read them into the record and we will save the time of the House.
Hon Ms Churley: I would be happy to give the member the information. I should tell him there are 58 acts. He wanted to know and I am going to tell him what they are. They all potentially could come into the system.
Amusement Devices Act; Assignments and Preferences Act; Athletics Control Act; Bailiffs Act; Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act; Boundaries Act; Bread Sales Act; Business Corporations Act; Business Practices Act; Cemeteries Act; Certification of Titles Act; Change of Name Act; Collection Agencies Act; Condominium Act; Consumer Protection Act.
Consumer Protection Bureau Act; Consumer Reporting Act; Corporation Securities Registration Act; Corporations Act; Corporations Information Act; Debt Collectors Act; Discriminatory Business Practices Act; Elevating Devices Act; Energy Act; Extra-Provincial Corporations Act.
Factors Act; Funeral Directors and Establishments Act; Gasoline Handling Act; Land Registration Reform Act; Land Titles Act; Limited Partnerships Act; Liquor Control Act; Liquor Licence Act; Marriage Act; Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Act; Motor Vehicle Dealers Act; Motor Vehicle Repair Act; Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act; Operating Engineers Act.
Paperback and Periodical Distributors Act; Partnerships Act; Partnerships Registration Act; Personal Property Security Act; Petroleum Products Price Freeze Act; Prearranged Funeral Services Act; Prepaid Services Act; Racing Commission Act; Real Estate and Business Brokers Act; Registry Act; Residential Complex Sales Representation Act.
Theatres Act; Travel Industry Act; Unclaimed Articles Act; Upholstered and Stuffed Articles Act; Vital Statistics Act, and the Wine Content Act.
Mr Cousens: Could the minister indicate to me, before it is done, whether there will be a cost-benefit analysis made on any act on which this is going to be done, and also what kind of cost-benefit analysis was done on the bill she is doing right now as it pertains to the existing act?
Hon Ms Churley: We actually did not do a feasibility study on this; we did on Teranet. I meant to correct that earlier. Obviously, we did. There is a saving to the consumer on this. We will not be doing a cost study on this, because there actually is a saving. It cuts out a step.
Mr Cousens: What is the extra cost of computers just to institute this one bill?
Hon Ms Churley: There is no cost whatsoever to us.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
On motion by Ms Churley, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION ACT (MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS STATUTES), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ENREGISTREMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE DANS LE CADRE DE LOIS RELEVANT DU MINISTÈRE DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DU COMMERCE
Ms Churley moved third reading of Bill 126, An Act authorizing the Filing of Information in an Electronic Format under Statutes administered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations
/ Projet de loi 126, Loi autorisant le dépôt de renseignements au moyen d'un support électronique dans le cadre des lois dont l'application est confiée au ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce.
Motion agreed to.
ARBITRATION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ARBITRAGE
Mr Hampton moved third reading of Bill 42, An Act to revise the Arbitrations Act
/ Projet de loi 42, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur l'arbitrage.
Hon Mr Hampton: This afternoon I invite the House to approve third reading of the Arbitrations Act, 1991. The new act will benefit parties to disputes who are seeking alternative means of resolving them, as well as the arbitrators who look to the act to know just how far they can go in controlling the arbitration process.
The House will recall that this act is essentially the product of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, although Ontario's drafters prepared the Uniform Arbitration Act for the conference. Alberta has passed the uniform act and I expect a couple of other provinces to pass it within the next year. In passing the act Ontario is, therefore, helping to establish a national standard for arbitration.
I appreciate the co-operation of the opposition parties in passing the statute and in assisting my parliamentary assistant in making some technical improvements to it earlier. I invite them now to join me in taking the final step, the passage of third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to.
1630
COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT (PAYMENTS TO SUPERNUMERARY JUDGES), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES (RÉMUNÉRATION DES JUGES SURNUMÉRAIRES)
Mr Hampton moved third reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984 in respect of Payments to Supernumerary Judges
/ Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1984 sur les tribunaux judiciaires en ce qui concerne la rémunération des juges surnuméraires.
Hon Mr Hampton: I am pleased to move third reading of this bill, which eliminates an unnecessary expenditure in the administration of justice. The judges of our Court of Appeal and Ontario Court (General Division) are aware that the $3,000 annual stipend from the province is anachronistic, as the services of judges for which it is paid are no longer performed. Judges do not sit on boards and commissions, as that would be incompatible with judicial independence and impartiality. Persona designata jurisdiction is gone. It was abolished by the House in 1984.
However, this bill accepts the principle that the government should not unilaterally remove the $3,000 annual stipend from all judges while they are serving full-time. Therefore, it cuts the payment off only if the judge chooses to become a supernumerary judge, which means the judge will be working part-time and receiving a full salary from the federal government. In those circumstances, the bill eliminates the stipend from the province. Judges remain free to retire and go on pension or to continue on full-time status until their mandatory retirement at age 75, in which case they retain the $3,000 payment from the province. As my parliamentary assistant said on second reading, we intend to proclaim this bill in force in January of the new year.
Motion agreed to.
JOHN GRAVES SIMCOE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION REPEAL ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 ABROGEANT LA LOI INTITULÉE JOHN GRAVES SIMCOE MEMORIAL FOUNDATION ACT
Mrs Haslam moved third reading of Bill 73, An Act to repeal The John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation Act, 1965
/ Projet de loi 73, Loi portant abrogation de la loi intitulée The John Graves Simcoe Memorial Foundation Act, 1965.
Hon Mrs Haslam: By repealing the act, the John Graves Simcoe Association will be free to amalgamate with the Ontario Historical Society. The result will be one large organization that will be able to conserve more effectively all aspects of Ontario's diverse heritage.
Mrs Marland: I am happy to stand in this House today as the spokesperson for Culture and Communications and support the bill of the current and former ministers. Essentially this bill is a housekeeping bill, but I think we all take pride in the recollections each of us has of the associations this bill brings to mind. I know that yesterday we had a number of speakers who made those recollections back into the history of our province and the involvement of Lord Simcoe, so I will not take the time of the House today to repeat what has already been said. I simply say to the current minister that we are glad she has finally been able to get this bill into the House, and this is third reading; I am quite sure the minister herself can hardly believe it at this point also.
Hon Mrs Haslam: I just want to thank the member for Mississauga South. Members have no idea how happy my ministry will be that after three years we have finally been able to bring this to fruition.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Wessenger: I would appreciate the unanimous consent of the House to consider Bills 43 through 64 as one, that is, orders 3 through 24, for the purposes of debate and also with respect to subsequent voting on third reading.
Agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Bills 43 to 64, inclusive, will be dealt with together.
REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT, 1991, AND COMPANION LEGISLATION / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES ET LES PROJETS DE LOI QUI L'ACCOMPAGNENT
Mr Wessenger moved third reading of Bill 43, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and its companion legislation, Bills 44-64
/ Projet de loi 43, Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées et les projets de loi, 44 à 64, qui l'accompanent.
Mr Wessenger: It has taken many years, but I believe we have finally found consensus that this legislation is ready for passage. We are turning a corner down a better road in the managing of our health care system. The process the bills have undergone at the standing committee has been very useful. Presentations and debate that occurred there have enlightened and guided me and, I am confident, other members of the House and have effected key amendments to the legislation.
The public hearings that were held in Toronto, London, Ottawa, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste Marie gave the chance to members of the public, members of regulated professions and unregulated practitioners to speak directly to legislators about the bills. Their appeals were passionate: "Change this; do not change that," they said. We took suggestions for amendments. We examined them and we have made changes.
Some of the amendments made address sexual abuse, aboriginal concerns, the diagnosis control act, the harm clause. I believe the legislation we are set to pass today best serves the public interest and that this legislation is faithful to these principles: that the public must be protected from unqualified, incompetent and unfit health care providers to the greatest extent possible; that there must be mechanisms in place to encourage the provision of high-quality care; that the public should have the freedom of choosing the health care provider it wants within a range of safe health care options, and that there should be the scope for evolution in the roles played by the individual professions and the flexibility in how individual professionals can be utilized so that the health care system operates with maximum efficiency.
1640
I have just pointed out that one of the things this legislation will set out to do is to protect the public. One of the things the public needs protection from with respect to health care providers is sexual abuse. Next week the task force on sexual abuse of patients will present its final report and recommendations to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
I do not believe, however, that sexual abuse of patients by health professionals is an issue that only the practice of medicine need address. All health professionals must respond to this issue. I hope they will; we intend to. We in government do not intend to wait and see what health professions will initiate with respect to combating sexual abuse. With the amendments to this legislation, we are taking a first step towards achieving this government's commitment to zero tolerance, to eliminating sexual abuse from the health care setting.
The Regulated Health Professions Act now requires that each college have a patient relations program and a patient relations committee to advise the college council on the program in place within one year of proclamation. This program must contain measures for both preventing and dealing with sexual abuse. There must be educational requirements for members of the profession, guidelines for conduct with patients, staff training and public information.
Each college's patient relations program will be monitored by the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council. The council will report annually to the minister and its reports will be tabled in the Legislature.
An interministerial working group will soon be established to consult with all interested professional and public interest groups and legal experts on the recommendations of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario task force report on sexual abuse of patients. The working group will identify what further amendments to the legislation may be necessary, but to get things rolling now, I am requesting all of the governing bodies that exist under current legislation to develop immediately a sexual abuse plan.
The minister is requesting that the plans be submitted to her by February 29. These plans would be compatible with the Regulated Health Professions Act so that they can form a fundamental part of future patient relations programs.
I also wish to report that exceptional efforts of our aboriginal organizations and the Ministry of Health and Ontario native affairs secretariat executive staff resulted in amendments that create exemptions from Bill 43 for aboriginal healers and aboriginal midwives. The amendments are consistent with the government's Statement of Political Relationship.
The amendments came in response to concerns raised by several aboriginal organizations regarding the possible negative impact of the legislation on aboriginal healers and midwives. For various reasons, concerns about the potential impact of the bills on aboriginal peoples came to be expressed only very late in the legislative process. The Midwifery Act was a catalyst, but the concerns related more generally to the impact on traditional healing. What the exemptions do is allow our aboriginal healers and aboriginal midwives to continue to offer traditional healing and midwifery services to aboriginal persons and members of aboriginal communities.
I am looking forward to the work that will continue to be done with aboriginal organizations in the development of an aboriginal health policy. It is my hope that this work will contribute to encouraging the revitalization of traditional aboriginal health care.
As the committee process got under way, most of the public controversy surrounding Bill 43 related to the diagnosis/controlled act and the so-called harm clause. The controversy was fuelled by an understandable anxiety about the new regulatory model that restricts who may perform potentially hazardous activities rather than creating broad fields of exclusive practice, as is the case in the current model.
There were also differing opinions about the role of government in regulating who may provide health services, and there were varying levels of comfort with the ability of individuals to make wise choices in health care. We believe the amendments accommodate the differing views.
A harm clause has been added that prohibits unregulated practitioners from treating or advising on health in circumstances in which it is reasonably foreseeable that serious physical harm may result. The harm clause does not apply to counselling about social, emotional, spiritual or educational matters. We believe the harm clause provides an added measure of public protection and that it in no way will impede or restrict responsible practitioners.
The health professions acts were also amended to increase public representation on councils to just under half. This will give the public a louder and clearer voice than it has ever had in how the health care system operates. I am pleased to report that the majority of professions are satisfied with the revised composition for their councils.
Among the new choices being offered consumers with this legislation is a choice on how childbirth is conducted. Those who want to be cared for by midwives during pregnancy, labour and delivery will have that option. The inclusion of midwives in this legislative package represents a change in a policy direction set by the Ontario Legislature a little more than a century ago.
It was in 1865 that midwives lost the exemption from the Medicine Act that had made it possible for them to practise midwifery without a licence to practise medicine. The Midwifery Act included in this legislative package gives legal recognition to midwives.
I am delighted to report historical developments within the psychology profession that will bring practitioners with MA degrees under the regulatory umbrella. This will provide the public with the benefits of regulation that currently exist only for psychologists prepared at the PhD level. MAs will use the title of "psychology associate."
I acknowledge that not every issue was resolved to the full satisfaction of all those concerned, but the legislation contains the mechanism for continued evolution, the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have worked on the legislation for many years: the professional associations, the governing bodies, the public interest groups, the individual members of the public, members of the Legislature present and past, and Ministry of Health staff who have given of their time and taken the lead in driving this legislation.
I would also like to thank the members of the standing committee for the hard work they put in. I particularly appreciate the non-partisan approach taken by all members of the committee. They were presented with a huge task in just catching up on so many years of debate.
I would like to thank the Chair of the committee, because I think her assistance steered us through very difficult times. Her guiding hand and knowledge of the legislation played greatly in the committee's difficult task of putting the finishing touches to this very complex legislative package.
Mr Conway: I also want to thank my friend the member for York North for allowing me to participate very briefly this afternoon. It was not my intention -- in fact, I am to be at another place -- but I just happened to open the afternoon mail and there was what I would describe as a blistering letter from the chairman, professional affairs, section of ophthalmology, a certain B. J. MacInnis, MD, from Carling Avenue in Ottawa.
I find it interesting that I should get this letter, because I remember when I attended the hearings of the standing committee on social development -- and I must say I have not had the pleasure of being there over the course of the months and years of debate. I am not ordinarily a member of that committee, but I do agree with the previous speaker. On the basis of my very limited experience with the committee in this endeavour, I thought a lot of very good work was done. It certainly is not easy.
I can well remember that when I was an undergraduate in university, one of my very good friends was the son of the then Minister of Health, Dick Potter. What Dick Potter endured 20 years ago in the last round of health disciplines legislation was almost unbearable, and what the Legislature went through in the period of 1972-73 was -- I see one member in the lower gallery who will well remember some of those border clashes, the fury of which had to be seen to be believed.
I must say to all members associated with this endeavour that I think they are to be congratulated for the very smooth fashion in which this multi-year project has been completed.
I was there, quite frankly, because I had been approached by a number of optometrists in my community in rural eastern Ontario about this subject. I see some people under the gallery who -- I do not want to put anybody on the spot, but I well remember when I was in the midst of my observations, I overheard someone saying, "Conway's going to hear from the ophthalmologists," and Conway has. Boy, it is quite the letter. It really is quite the letter.
I can tell members I have responded, because I am going to want to see my friends from the ophthalmology section of the Ontario Medical Association. When I get a letter like this, I am going to tell you, Mr Speaker, I am really anxious to engage in the debate. I have not had a lecture like this on parliamentary procedure, to say nothing of health disciplines, in a long time.
My point in this connection today is, as it was a few weeks ago, that in rural Ontario we have very few ophthalmologists. I represent a large rural county. In my constituency I think we have one ophthalmologist, a very fine, good fellow. His wife narrowly missed being elected to Beachburg village council last week. They are very good people.
The fact of the matter is that in places like Killaloe, Barry's Bay, Eganville, Cobden and Beachburg, it is the optometrist who provides the bulk of the eye care, and specialists, whether they are in this area or in so many others, are generally found in Ottawa, Kingston or Peterborough in my part of rural central Ontario.
1650
The point I want to make today is the one I made just a few weeks ago in the committee. It is simply that a good number of people, many of them older people living in my constituency, have come to see me and have expressed a real concern about what they interpret as a restriction on the traditional scope of practice that has been allowed to optometrists is going to mean to people in my area. It is going to mean, they believe, that they may not now be able to drive from Madawaska into Barry's Bay, which is 15 miles, to see the optometrist, but rather they are going to have to drive those 15 miles to be told: "No, we can't deal with this. You're going to have to keep going for another 120 miles to Ottawa."
Mr Owens: That's not true.
Mr Conway: My friend opposite says it is not true. It may not be true. I defer to his not inconsiderable wisdom and judgement in this matter. He sat through all of this. I did not. Surely my job as a responsible and representative member of those people I speak for in my constituency is to convey their concern. I think their concern is legitimate. It may not be borne out -- it would not be the first time -- but they very much believe this. In the committee I simply wanted, as I do here today, to express that concern.
The optometrists clearly have an interest. I gather their participation with our friends underneath the gallery, with my friend the parliamentary assistant and, I dare say, with the now Chair of the standing committee on social development, the former Minister of Health, has been a lively and spirited one over several years. I will not even tell members what I hear about their relationship with the sainted Alan Schwartz, someone I know perhaps better than most people in this Legislature and someone for whom I have a very high regard.
I know all about vested interest. I know all about the turf wars of health disciplines legislation. I am simply saying that a number of people I represent and certainly a number of very good, reputable optometrists genuinely believe that this legislation does not provide what it suggests in terms of care and scope of practice.
The member for Scarborough Centre shakes his head very negatively. He may be right. But when I hear good people telling me what they have been telling me on this subject, I have an obligation, it seems to me, to report that. I am going to read the letter. I cannot resist.
Mr O'Connor: You can't filibuster without it.
Mr Conway: I am not filibustering at all. I am going to read the letter and conclude my comments, quite frankly. This is from our friends of the ophthalmology section at the Ontario Medical Association:
"Dear Mr Conway:
"It is unconscionable that as a politician you would display uninformed, biased and harmful behaviour such as the rhetoric you spouted before the committee on social development about optometry." The members should smile. I do not think they should be at all unwilling to smile. They might even want to laugh or cheer.
"You did not even have the decency to seek counsel of those that have been involved in this process for nine years.
"Your ability to parachute into the committee as a member is a deplorable abuse of process." How about that? I have misbehaved on more than a few occasions. I want to say to my friend Dr MacInnis that I really appreciate the lecture. He says:
"Enclosed is a case history of a constituent of yours treated by myself for a misdiagnosis and delay by a local optometrist."
Gee whiz. If I canvassed the annals of the royal college, I wonder if I would find any cases involving malpractice by an ophthalmologist. I am sure there are none. I see faces grimace in the government gallery underneath the press gallery.
"This is the harm that we speak of. Just imagine what harm they can do now that you propose they can use lasers."
I do not remember specifically proposing that they use lasers, although in the Byzantine world of health disciplines it is like certain kinds of theological debates. You have to be long-schooled in the intricacies of these matters before you can even enter the room, much less open your mouth.
I say in conclusion that I cannot wait. I hope Paul Rhodes and those people at the Ontario Medical Association -- I am insulted. I am embarrassed that they did not seek me out to explain their side of the story. I apologize profusely that without their consent I would have opened my mouth to convey the concerns of those older people who came to see me to say they were worried. I apologize to those poor, overworked, underpaid ophthalmologists that I had such effrontery.
I want to say quite seriously that I am quite anxious. I cannot wait for the meeting that I intend to organize and arrange between the ophthalmology section of the OMA and yours truly to pursue this further.
Just so there is no confusion, I do not for one moment withdraw anything I said and I apologize for even less. If there is anybody around this place who had anything to do with this little bit of enthusiasm -- I am sure no one did -- I hope they have the guts to come out from the bulrushes.
I repeat, rural residents in Renfrew county use optometrists as their front-line eye care providers. Many of those people and many of those very good optometrists believe this legislation is going to restrict their scope of practice in a way that is not going to be helpful.
I say to the parliamentary assistant that I was there when much of this was going on. There were a variety of amendments and I appreciate the work that was done to try to sort out this ongoing negotiation at the 11th hour. But what I heard I heard, and I repeat it now. I will look very carefully over the coming weeks, months and years to see just what develops.
My good friend the very hardworking member of the committee representing the government, the member for Scarborough Centre, may in fact be right, but no ophthalmologist is going to scare me off from conveying to this Legislature or any of its committees what I have heard from people I know to be good, credible and concerned. I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to make that point on third reading.
1700
Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to join today in what should be termed a historic debate. The Regulated Health Professions Act and the process of developing those acts and getting them through committee started with our government some nine or 10 years ago. It has been a very long process.
As a new member and as the recently appointed Health critic for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, I was very pleased to have the opportunity to work with the government and members of the opposition in trying to fine-tune these acts that have been worked over for the past nine years in terms of trying to come to a consensus on many of these acts that the people of Ontario can live with, that the professions can live with and that would best serve the public interest and protect the public from harm, from unscrupulous practitioners. We have all read stories in the newspapers and seen stories on TV where some unscrupulous quacks out there were practising various forms of medicine and health care. The intent of this act, of course, is to protect the public good, to protect the public from harm, and I think we have done that.
Although in my remarks this afternoon I do not intend to filibuster, Mr Speaker, you will be relieved to know, I intend to spend just a few minutes raising some concerns that I think are still out there.
The member for Renfrew North just did an excellent job, as he did in committee, I must say, of supporting our contention. He and his colleagues in the Liberal Party who spoke at the committee made it very clear that we did feel that in the area of optometry the government really did not do a good job on that particular piece of legislation. I commend the member for once again bringing those concerns forward and I will talk a little bit about them also this afternoon.
I guess it is a good way to spend the summer is what I should say. It is fun being on the road with some seven NDP members, and myself very often representing the Ontario PC Party, and two or three Liberal members. It is quite an experience to spend some four weeks in committee with them during the summer. I came to appreciate their point of view on a number of issues, mainly because I was outgunned and outnumbered on most occasions, but I enjoyed going through the clause-by-clause and the committee hearings with them.
I guess we heard from and received submissions from some 400 groups and individuals, and it was a very time-consuming but well worth while exercise. I, along with some of my colleagues in my caucus, introduced some 50 amendments during the clause-by-clause process. I think that might give the public some idea of the scope of these 24 acts and the complexity of the acts.
I would like to begin by commending and congratulating the Chair, the former Health minister for the Liberals, who really did a very good job of putting us back on course when we decided to get off course. She is the fastest reader I have ever met in terms of flipping through parts of bills we had consensus on, and she certainly allowed for a great deal of time on those parts of the bills where we had concerns to express and amendments to introduce. I commend the member for that.
We will start with Bill 43. I am not going to comment on all the bills but just briefly on some of them. On the omnibus bill, Bill 43, I think there is still some concern out there about the diagnosis clause. I note that the parliamentary assistant briefly touched upon that. Subsection 26(2) of Bill 43, the Regulated Health Professions Act, makes it a criminal offence for anyone except a medical doctor and a psychologist and a few other regulated professionals to communicate a diagnosis identifying a disease or a disorder to their patients or clients.
We share the concern about a number of unregulated health care professionals -- religious pastors, health care counsellors, mental health counsellors -- who have in the past provided, and hopefully will be able to continue to provide, much-needed services to people who come into their offices or meet them on the street or very often meet them in very informal settings to seek their advice.
The intent of the legislation, the government kept reminding us and kept assuring us, was to make sure that those legitimate unregulated professionals could continue to do what they have been doing so well. Very often they are volunteers, as I said, or they are religious or pastors, but there is still a concern out in that community that in the way the act is worded, a disgruntled client may still be able to get back at them for some advice they may have passed along to that client or patient.
I would really hate to be the first unregulated practitioner who gets hauled through court. I think it could be a very expensive process and a very difficult process, because although the act does contain a harm clause, and we did support that in the long run, the intent of that is to ensure that, as we say, the quacks who have been out practising are shut down and the public is protected from any physical harm.
Although it contains a harm clause in one section, there is the diagnosis section. We introduced an amendment, I and my colleagues, which we did not get any support for, but the unregulated practitioners wanted to ensure that when we were talking about diagnosis in section 26 of Bill 43 we were talking about a medical diagnosis. We brought forward an amendment that inserted the word "medical" in front of the word "diagnosis," and the intent was to ensure that anyone reading the piece of legislation, anyone picking the legislation up for the first time, would know that the intent of the legislation was to limit those people who could convey a medical diagnosis. It was to limit that conveyance to very few groups -- as I say, psychologists and of course physicians, MDs, and a few other groups -- that receive the ability to communicate a diagnosis identifying a disease or disorder.
There is that concern still out there. What I am saying now to the unregulated professionals and to other health care professionals who very often came to our committee -- I had every reason to believe they had been communicating medical diagnoses to their patients, and many of them will be prevented from doing so when the act comes into law -- is that if they run into problems in the future -- we did our best with the government in trying to convince the government that there is still some more work that could have been done and perhaps it should have adopted our amendment -- there is an advisory council or advisory committee that is set up under this bill.
The minister is not sure she will take these matters very seriously in the future. I take the minister at her word, as I do the parliamentary assistant. If people do run into problems in their professions and threats of lawsuits, I hope that when the advisory committee is up and running, it will be able to deal very quickly with those complaints from people, with complaints from professionals and unregulated health care practitioners to ensure that people who may be innocent, people who were well intended, practitioners, do not get dragged through court and have their good names blemished because of disgruntled clients.
The Minister of Health continues to tell us that the courts will be fair to unregulated practitioners. We saw in the background information provided to members by the government and by bureaucrats that really the government is of the strong opinion that the courts will take into consideration how our whole health care system operates and that they will be fair to unregulated practitioners.
I found it a little strange that a minister of the crown would really come out and say she expects the courts will be fair to unregulated practitioners. She was not dealing with a specific case and it was perhaps kind of outside her jurisdiction to comment on how the courts will treat this in the future, because there are certainly a lot of people who have come forward and they are still worried that they may get dragged through court.
Of course, on this same clause, the ability to communicate a diagnosis, we introduced several amendments to the various bills. We thought that audiologists and speech-language pathologists and chiropodists and occupational therapists and physiotherapists, for instance, should be allowed to communicate a diagnosis to their clients within their scope of practice.
For the public out there, as the parliamentary assistant briefly touched upon, what we are dealing with in these acts is a new model of health care. The good part is that it clearly defines, for the most part, what each profession can do and, by lack of reference, what it cannot do. That will be very helpful, I think, to a number of professions.
We felt that speech-language pathologists and audiologists and chiropodists are experts in their particular fields of health care, as it were. It still burns us a bit to think that a speech-language pathologist or an audiologist, who is highly trained in communication disorders, may not be able to communicate his final conclusions directly to his patients but may have to refer that patient to a general practitioner, for instance. The speech-language pathologist, for example, would have to phone or write a note to the GP or another person in the health care field who is able, under law, to communicate a diagnosis.
1710
We feel it is a little unfair that a middleman or middle person would be introduced. The government disagrees with us and will continue to disagree with us. I expect the parliamentary assistant will say something when he gets his two-minute rebuttal. We felt these professions should have the diagnostic controlled act. The government continues to be of the opinion that no, those people really do not do diagnosis; they simply do assessments and they can communicate the results of those assessments. We continue to disagree with that. We hope that if there are problems in the future, the advisory committee will look at those quickly and seriously and ensure that people's good reputations and practices are not ruined.
I want to talk for a minute about an issue that came to our attention at the committee. I guess all members of the Legislature were probably approached by nurses, speech-language pathologists and a number of pharmacists, health care professionals who had attained the accreditation of PhD at a recognized post-secondary university. There is still concern out there. Although I read just this morning in a health care bulletin put out by the minister's office that there is some vague promise that this matter will be dealt with through regulations after the act is passed -- I will get back to that in a minute -- the concern is that people with PhDs are not and will not be allowed to use the term "doctor" in a medical setting.
It seems to me, and it was the opinion of my colleagues, that when undergraduate degrees -- really, a dentist, chiropractor or optometrist has an undergraduate degree in the hierarchy of academia. When those professions are allowed to use the term "doctor", why are people who have attained the highest degree possible in academia, a PhD, not allowed to use the term "doctor" in reference to themselves and their colleagues in a health care setting?
On behalf of my colleagues in caucus, I introduced an amendment that would have allowed health care professionals who had attained a PhD to use the term "doctor" in a health care setting. I still believe it is not within the purview of the government to tell PhDs they are no longer doctors. They receive a doctorate in whatever profession their degree is in. We strongly believe that if other groups that have essentially undergraduate degrees are able to use the term "doctor" and all that means in society -- the term "doctor" connotes to a number of people someone who is clearly a professional in his field, someone they can trust; and the intent of this legislation is to ensure that you can trust doctors in whatever practice they are in -- PhDs should be allowed to use the term. It really was not the right of the Ministry of Health, the bureaucrats there and the Minister of Health, to take that designation away from academia.
That issue is still out there. There is always hope in the future. When my party comes to government -- in about four years, I expect -- it is an issue we may be able to correct very quickly, as are a number of the other points. I have a very good memory and I intend to keep the notes I made up late last night. When we get to power, we are going to redress some of the wrongs contained in this bill.
I should say, because I have been negative for about five minutes, that we are going to support the legislation. We are realists in my party, unlike the members across the floor. I introduced some 50 amendments on behalf of my colleagues, some of which were accepted, most of which were not. We thought they were pretty commonsense amendments that were very helpful. We will support the legislation because, overall, we are pleased with it. Overall, we think it is the proper type of regulatory framework that the professions needed and that it does, in the final analysis, give adequate protection to the public.
No piece of legislation is perfect. I agree with the parliamentary assistant, who said that in committee many times. The minister has said that. It is true that no piece of legislation is perfect. This one could have been a little more correct, though, had some of our amendments been accepted. None the less, we will support it. It has been a long time coming, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. We are realists in the sense that we know those guys are going to be in office for another three or four years. To not support it and to try to delay the legislation over that period of time I do not think serves the public interest. So we certainly will support it.
I want to talk for a minute also about the ministerial powers contained in the act. A number of the older, established professions like the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Ontario Dental Association brought to our attention some concerns about the overwhelming powers contained in this act, new powers the minister acquires. Again, I introduced amendments to Bill 43 designed to restrict the ministerial powers contained in the government's proposal. We believe the ministerial powers granted under the legislation have the potential to erode the principle of self-government or self-regulation by the various colleges or professions.
As it now stands, the government has the power "to require a council" -- this refers to a council of one of the professional colleges that are supposed to have self-regulatory power over each profession -- "to do anything that, in the opinion of the minister, is necessary or advisable to carry out the intent of this act, the health profession acts or the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act." These are pretty sweeping powers. The minister can actually direct councils -- there are safeguards in the act, but they are very limited -- to do essentially anything.
I always had a problem, and still do, with the concept of self-regulation, which we support, but at the same time this little clause written into the act gives the minister essentially sweeping powers, so that if a particular profession is not doing exactly what the government of the day wants that profession to be doing, within a time frame, the minister can sweep in and do what he or she likes.
It seems to me that you either believe in self-regulation, which I guess socialists have a hard time with, and trust the professions to be self-regulating and to look after their affairs in the public good or you do not. This act says: "We don't really trust you in the long run. We'll give you a chance with some time periods of 60 or 90 days" -- whatever it is in the acts; I forget at the moment -- "to do things that we think you should be doing. But if you don't do them, in the long run we're going to do them anyway."
It is a very strange concept. It is not precedent-setting; there is tons of legislation around this place and in Ontario that gives the government the final kick at the can. But in terms of the new scopes of practice and the controlled acts that are being set up, the new system will not work unless the government really does have a great deal of confidence in the principle of self-regulation. The day a minister starts fooling around with the activities of these supposedly self-regulating colleges is the day I think the system will start to fall apart, where professions will say, "You really don't trust us to look after our own affairs." Goodness help us if the colleges give up. We will be in real trouble.
We believe the ministerial powers are excessive. We introduced an amendment to strike out this clause totally. Of course that amendment did not fly. We were disappointed the government did not support that particular amendment.
Sexual abuse: The parliamentary assistant, in his remarks, spent a fair bit of time discussing the whole issue of sexual abuse. What the government ended up doing was really in response to pressure from my party. My party, through my colleague the member for Parry Sound, has made it absolutely clear that I and my caucus colleagues are committed to the principle of zero tolerance in terms of sexual abuse of their patients by health care professionals.
My colleague has introduced a private member's bill. Long before we got into the discussions on the regulated health acts, he had introduced a private member's bill to really bring forward and advance the cause of zero tolerance. We are firmly on the record and committed and I expect the member will continue with his private member's bill.
1720
With that pressure, and with the pressure from Marilou McPhedran and the preliminary report from the Task Force on Sexual Abuse of Patients that was set up by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and with pressure from me and my caucus colleagues and from a number of groups, the government finally decided to do something about sexual abuse, which it had not given any thought to prior to the introduction of the draft legislation.
We ended up with the government voting as a block, as the NDP always does in committee. It is a pretty interesting exercise if the members of the public ever get to watch the NDP in committee, because when they are not quite sure how to vote they call a 10-minute recess. They run down the hall. They find out how they are supposed to vote and then they come back in and all six or seven of them vote as a block. It does not matter what the witness said to them in committee. It is irrelevant. They have already made up their minds. The bureaucrats have helped cook up the idea in the back rooms. The Premier's office has a heavy hand, we know, at all committees.
In the area of sexual abuse, we had introduced an amendment that would have really looked after victims of sexual abuse, because there was a great deal of evidence presented to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario task force that some health care professionals, and in particular medical doctors, in very rare cases perhaps profited from sexually abusing their patients. There was one case brought to our attention where the patient had complained that she had been sexually abused by her doctor over a 25-year period. Of course every time that doctor saw that patient he billed OHIP. He got money for seeing that patient and sexually abusing that patient, as it turned out.
Our amendment would have said that doctors and all other health care professionals should in no way ever profit from sexually abusing their patients, and if convicted of sexual abuse be required to pay into a fund, which we called a survivors compensation fund, any moneys they would have received during the period they were sexually abusing the patient. This is upon conviction. It is consistent with what my colleague the member for Parry Sound has brought forward in his private member's bill.
What we ended up with, with the government, was a patient relations program and a patient relations committee. The good news is that the government does recognize there is a need there for prevention. But our problem continues to be with the program as now set up under this legislation by the government, which by the way is very vague. It is all going to be done in regulations, but the government members tell us the intent is prevention and maybe they will do something to help victims.
Our party said there was a real problem out there. We are committed to zero tolerance, and in order to have real teeth you must have a compensation fund to deal with and compensate victims of sexual abuse. We know through experience now that this issue has come to the forefront in our society. Victims of sexual abuse do not want to go back to the medical profession to get counselling because they are very often, obviously, suspicious of doctors -- they have had a bad experience -- or back to another health care professional who may be covered under OHIP.
They have been going to other people, other professions that are not currently in our OHIP scheme of things. They have been paying out of pocket. The compensation fund would have given these people some redress, some money to pay the bills that we know they are incurring because they are seeking counselling from other professions that are not covered under OHIP and hence they are paying out of pocket.
Bill 46 was the Chiropractic Act. I know my colleague the member for Mississauga South will want to say a little bit and perhaps recognize our distinguished guests who are here today from the Ontario Chiropractic Association, so I will not get into it except to say that I think the chiropractors are generally pleased with the way their particular piece of legislation turned out.
I know there is still some concern out there about some new powers that were given to massage therapists. We introduced amendments to ensure that chiropractors could continue to do what they have already been doing all the way along. In no way would we hinder their current practice. Their current scope of practice, as defined in the legislation, would ensure that they can continue the great work they do.
We had a lot of patients of chiropractors appear before our committee telling us of the very great things their chiropractors had done for them, and my colleague the member for Burlington South, as members will remember in some of the humorous points in the committee, very often had different appendages that had been looked after by chiropractors and always made a point of telling us what a great job his chiropractors had done. My party has, I think, always supported chiropractors. We think they are an essential part of the health care team in Ontario, and as I say, my colleague the member for Mississauga South will perhaps say a few more words about that.
Second, my colleague the member for Mississauga South will also, I think, touch upon some of the concerns in the dentistry profession. There were four bills dealing with teeth, as it were: Bill 47, the Dental Hygiene Act; Bill 48, the Dental Technology Act; Bill 49, the Dentistry Act, and Bill 50, the Denturism Act. All I will do is remind the public and remind dentists and remind people that we are very concerned about the end product that we now have before us in terms of legislation, and that on behalf of my colleagues and with the backing and consensus of my colleagues, I introduced an amendment in the committee that would have prevented denturists from performing partial dentures.
As the act now stands before us today, the government has given the okay to denturists who, prior to this legislation, could only fit full dentures. If there was a tooth still left in either upper or lower jaw, the patient, prior to this legislation, was always required to see a dentist to have bridgework or partial dentures done. We believe the dentists proved sufficient harm could result if an other than fully qualified practitioner fitted partial dentures.
The denturists, I imagine, are not too happy with us and these remarks, but they do not have the medical knowledge and training that a dentist receives as part of his schooling to do a complete diagnosis of the mouth. What we are still concerned about and afraid of is that, say in my community of Collingwood where I have some denturists, after this new legislation is in place, if people begin to go to their denturist for primary dental care, we do not feel that the denturist is fully qualified to really give primary dental care.
We believe people, as was the practice up until the passing of this legislation, should go to their dentist to have a complete oral examination. We had evidence, for instance, of the necessity of having a complete oral examination. We had a slide shown to us one day by a dentist who specialized in the early detection of AIDS. He showed a slide of a patient who was not aware that he had AIDS until he went to his dentist. The dentist was able to recognize a very small scarring in the oral cavity and recommended that this person see a specialist.
The worry would be that if I go in off the street to my denturist, perhaps I am not receiving the complete oral examination. Things like the early detection of AIDS -- we are finding it is very common that dentists are the ones finding this and referring people to specialists and to testing. Denturists may miss that because they are not as fully qualified as dentists.
None the less, the government sided with denturists on this one, as did the review committee that did the study leading up to the formation of the draft legislation, and I guess we begged to continue to disagree with the government on this one. But my colleague the member for Mississauga South, if there is anything more to be said, will elaborate on that, because she has personal experience with the dental profession. In other words, she is married to a dentist and a very good one at that.
1730
In regard to the Medicine Act, Bill 55, the area that still concerns us was brought to my attention again a couple of nights ago in a meeting with some members of the OMA. It was an informal setting, a cocktail party. Some members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons were still very disappointed that the Medicine Act reduced the number of faculty representatives from five to three.
There are five major medical schools in Ontario and, prior to this legislation, each one of those medical schools had one representative on the College of Physicians and Surgeons council. After some jiggering with numbers, the government arbitrarily decided that three representatives were enough to represent the institutes of higher education in this province.
There is a fight going on now between the medical schools as to who will sit on the college council. It is important when we talk about educating the public, and it is so very important now with the new health care models the province is moving towards, that people be fully educated about health care and preventive medicine. I could not see and still do not see the reason for taking two of those educators who help develop the College of Physicians and Surgeons programs for educating the public off the composition of the college.
I think it is detrimental to the profession and I never did really understand the rationale behind it, nor did I get a complete response from the minister or the parliamentary assistant with regard to that issue. It seemed to me the number three was thought up and they would go to three rather than the current five.
We share the disappointment of the medical community that the NDP again in this case voted against the Conservative amendment, which would have maintained the five members representing the medical schools on the college council.
In the Nursing Act, Bill 57, we recommended that the phrase "promotion of health" be included in the nurses' scope of practice in accordance with the profession's intervention strategy. Nurses do more than provide the bedside care they are so well liked for in hospital settings. There are of course a number of public health nurses whose major role is to educate the public.
We were pleased that the amendment inserting "promotion of health" as part of their scope of practice carried. None the less, we have some other concerns with the Nursing Act that we were not able to convince the government to change its mind on.
The first concern was that nurses now under the new legislation will have to take orders from midwives and chiropodists, foot doctors. The government sold this legislation all the way along as a new movement in providing health care services that would no longer make just medical doctors, College of Physicians and Surgeons members, the prima donnas in the health care system.
The idea of this legislation was to recognize that the public wanted and is using alternative forms of medicine and clearly is voting with its feet and using chiropractors -- a bad example, because they are now well received -- but a number of other health care professionals in terms of seeking the remedies they require.
We felt that with nurses now having to take orders from midwives and chiropodists, adding two more to the list of people that nurses have to take orders from, which included dentists and MDs, the government, contrary to its own public pronouncements, was reinforcing the old hierarchy in health care that we have been trying to get rid of.
I leave that point there but I still do not understand. I asked the minister on October 28 in this Legislature during question period why she would not change this part of the legislation which nurses find to be very demeaning. They now have to take orders from another couple of health care professionals.
The other thing we very much want referred to the advisory council that did not get solved at committee was the whole issue of the fact that registered nursing assistants really should have their own separate college. All other provinces recognize the need for registered nursing assistants and recognize that they should be a self-regulating profession. Currently, and under this act, they continue to be under the control, as they tell us, of the college of registered nurses and would like their own college.
I am pleased that the government made some strong statements that this matter would be referred at the earliest possible convenience to the advisory council. I hope that is done because the Ontario Association of Registered Nursing Assistants surveyed its membership, and twice over the past eight years has conducted a similar survey. Of those who responded, 19% were in favour of establishing their own college and allowing them to get on with what they do so well from under the umbrella of registered nurses and the registered nurses college.
We remain concerned under Bill 59 that dispensing is not defined in the Opticianry Act. We proposed an amendment defining "dispensing" that appropriately identified and controlled the limited risk involved in the dispensing of eyeglasses and eyewear. Our amendment also recognized the role of the optician in this process. We believe that without a definition of dispensing in the act, there is no certainty as to what the government intends to be controlled, and therefore to be limited to the profession of opticians, and what is permitted by their unregulated assistants.
We were extremely disappointed that there is no definition of dispensing in the legislation and again I ask the minister -- perhaps the parliamentary assistant could respond to this, but I would ask the minister through the parliamentary assistant -- to also refer this matter to the advisory committee when it is up and running, because there is a great deal of confusion. I ran into it again this morning with some phone calls on what dispensing means exactly and who can do what in terms of the practice of opticianry.
Bill 60 is the Optometry Act. Mr Speaker, you brought to my attention, as the Health critic for the party, a number of concerns of optometrists in your own riding of S-D-G & East Grenville. I brought those concerns to the committee in a very forceful way and through the amendment process tried to get some of these things changed so that optometrists would be more comfortable with their scope of practice.
I want to read what the outcome is because I know I am taking up people's time. A fax just this morning to my colleague the member for Waterloo North, who of course represents that area of the province where the school of optometry at the University of Waterloo is located, states:
"The school of optometry, University of Waterloo, is unclear as to the nature of the upcoming process to determine prescribed disease and we would hope that this process is carried out such that" -- and here is the crux -- "graduates wishing to remain in Ontario will have a scope of practice enabling them to provide at least the same level of care as that generally found in other provinces; and, secondly, that by giving responsibility to the College of Optometrists to make this determination, professional self-government will continue to assure a proper level of public protection."
They write on the bottom that "the profession of optometry requires assurance from the minister that the process for defining regulations will ensure that optometry continues to hold equality as a self-governing health profession."
This is pretty strong language, and there is quite a concern there. Of course, we introduced an amendment that would have seen diseases that optometrists could properly diagnose and communicate and those diseases would be prescribed in the regulations.
In committee we had a lengthy debate on whether our amendment meant anything different from the government's amendment, and the government's amendment was missing a couple of words at the end. It said "diseases as prescribed" and ours said "diseases as prescribed in the regulations." Those three words, "in the regulations," caused quite a bit of commotion.
1740
As I was saying earlier when I began my remarks, when we talked about the amendment, we brought forward the term "medical diagnosis" to help clarify any confusion. I would say it is important -- and the government should listen to this -- when we bring in legislation that regular people are able to read that legislation and not have to consult a lawyer as to what it means. Our amendment simply clarified that the diseases to be prescribed would be prescribed through regulation. There would be a consultation between optometrists, ophthalmologists, the ministry and the public as to what diseases optometrists should be able to identify and treat and when they should refer patients to ophthalmologists. There is confusion out there, and I hope the minister will clarify that confusion in the upcoming days and weeks since these acts will probably be passed into law tomorrow.
Finally, members will be relieved to know, we have Bill 63, the Psychology Act. I have skipped a whole pile of bills. I think I have only touched on about six and there were 24, so that should be a relief.
On behalf of my caucus, I want to say we are very pleased that the Ontario Board of Examiners in Psychology, the Ontario Psychological Association and the Ontario Association of Consultants, Counsellors, Psychometrists and Psychotherapists were able to come to an agreement on the extension of regulation to additional groups of providers qualified at a level other than a doctoral level of training.
I say hello to the group in the gallery, which I guess we are not allowed to do, but I just did. Sorry about that, Mr Speaker. No disrespect intended.
I really have to give some credit to the former Liberal Minister of Health, the Chair of our committee, the member for Oriole, in terms of advising me personally on how to deal with this issue. I think she provided some personal advice to the government.
By being persistent, by ensuring that psychologists did not get exactly what they wanted upfront from all members of the committee, I think we were able to advance the cause and help to close the rift that had developed between psychologists, those with a PhD, and psychometrists, etc, people who had studied psychometry but had gone to the master level. We had this rift that had developed over the years. Thankfully, as a result of some level heads around the committee and certainly level heads in both the MAs, the master level people, and the PhDs, they have come to an agreement under the new legislation that enables the master level practitioners to be part of the College of Psychologists of Ontario. Hopefully there will be a harmonious relationship there.
I think all three parties recognize that in many areas of the province, master level psychologists, associate psychologists, were practising, doing a very good job and serving definite community needs. We in no way wanted to inhibit their ability to continue that good work. I commend the government and all parties for coming to an agreement on that.
I have taken far more time than I intended. I want to thank the members of the NDP and the Liberal Party whom I had the pleasure of working with over the summer for the agreements we were able to come to. As I said, I have taken the opportunity to put on the record some of my concerns and concerns of my caucus colleagues. It is a historic day. We are pleased to be able to support the legislation in general.
I remind all groups that continue to have concerns that the real battle is not what we debate today; it is in the regulations. This legislation, probably like no other legislation, puts a lot of faith in the bureaucracy. It has a lot of holes in it that are to be filled by regulation. I detest bureaucrats cooking up regulations and those regulations simply going through cabinet. I do not think all cabinet ministers would totally understand this legislation, not because they would not be capable of doing so, but it does take a few months to get a handle on it. None the less, that is the way it is.
The advisory council that is set up under this legislation has a great deal of work ahead of it. As Health critic, on behalf of my colleagues, when the committee is up and running, I personally will be monitoring its activities. I will be checking the Ontario Gazette to see the regulations that are being made under this act. I encourage members of health care professions to be sure to give their MPP or myself a call if they run into problems down the road.
Mr Conway: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This will just take a moment. I want to correct the record and I want to thank my colleague the member for Mississauga South. In my remarks some moments ago I thought I said the "overworked, underpaid ophthalmologist," but I may have said something other than that, so I want to be absolutely clear that the record should show that I meant to say the "overworked, underpaid ophthalmologist."
The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member's point of order is quite in order. He is correcting his own record.
Mr Owens: I would just like to congratulate the number of groups that we have here. We have had some historic decisions made. We have representation today from the midwives, from the psychologists, from the chiropractors and from the speech-language pathologists. I think the kind of work we were able to accomplish on this legislation is landmark and, contrary to some of the comments made by the member of the third party, that we not only maintain the status quo but we also enhance the scopes of practice of many specialities.
I would like to comment on a couple of things that the member for Simcoe West said. First of all, his comments with respect to the RNAs: If the member for Simcoe West recalls, if his memory stretches that far back, we did tell him on the last day of committee that the RNAs had in fact been referred to the interim advisory council and that we agreed it is an issue around whether or not the colleges should be separated.
The last issue that I would like to address is the issue of sexual abuse and the member's comments with respect to the third party being the discoverers of sexual abuse in this province. I take offence to that. This is a member of a party that was in power for 42 years, and sexual abuse did not begin within the last number of years. This is a member of a former government that allowed the practitioners to do their own thing without the kinds of interventions we are talking about.
The issues of the patient relations committee being vague, they were left vague for many reasons, and the primary reason is that Marilou McPhedran's report is not out yet. We want to leave time for her to comment and to make appropriate recommendations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I thank the honourable member. Further questions and/or comments?
Mrs Marland: The member for Simcoe West referred to the fact that I was going to introduce someone during my comments. Since I am quite respectful of the fact that many of the people who are here today viewing this process probably wonder how we ever got even this far in terms of the amount of time it takes for us to achieve the final debate on very significant legislation, which obviously this is, I am sure that all the representatives of all the health care professions hope not to have to come down and take time away from their practice of providing health care in this province next week to hear us deliberate these bills further.
In any case, I want to identify the representatives of the Ontario Chiropractic Association, since the member for Simcoe West said that I might. One of them is Peter Waite, who is the executive director, one is Dr Lloyd Taylor, who is the immediate past president, I think, and who is known to most of the people in this House, and also David Chapman-Smith, who is the counsel to that association.
Rather facetiously, I had to cross the floor to speak to these members who now sit in the government gallery, whereas it seems a very short time ago they sat in the opposition members' gallery. As members will notice, I still did go over and welcome them warmly, which I do most sincerely. I know what a lot of work for all the representatives of all the professions the hearings have involved, and I congratulate also the chairman of this committee.
1750
Mr J. Wilson: Since the only member who really said anything in addition to accolades was the member for Scarborough Centre, I would say to him that, yes, my memory does stretch back that far. I would remind the member that I am the one who at committee pressed this issue of registered nursing assistants having their own college.
The idea had not come forward to the government, but it is so very interesting when you are on committee with these folks how, if you have a good idea, after their 10-minute recess of phoning the minister or the Premier's office and finding out what to do, they are so quick to come back and grab your idea. They get the typewriter out and they get a new amendment in and it suddenly becomes their idea. Well, a number of the good amendments brought forward were not totally their idea. All members of the Legislature worked very hard in advising their critics and advising the members of the standing committee on social development on what was best for the legislation.
Sexual abuse: A good point was raised by the member for Scarborough Centre. It has been going on for years, but I would say in defence of my colleagues in the past, I suppose, that we certainly were not aware of the issue as we are today. Today is the time to do something about it, and as I said in my remarks, we are not pleased. We do not think the government went far enough in addressing this very serious issue. The government has paid lipservice to the issue in terms of the program it is setting up. We will be continuing to press them on this issue, as I know that when the final report of the sexual abuse task force is presented next week there will be a great deal more pressure on the government to actually put some teeth in this legislation so we can deal with this very serious problem in society.
Mrs Caplan: I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity today to rise in the House and debate third reading of a historic package of legislation. I think most members of the House are aware of the opportunity I have had to participate in the framing of the legislation, and I spoke on second reading quite extensively.
I would note that here today in the visitors' galleries are representatives of most of the professions that are covered in this package of legislation. I would like to take an opportunity, as the chairman of the committee that held public hearings and studied the package of legislation in depth, to congratulate them all on their presentations before the committee and their participation in that process.
I also want to compliment all the committee members from all of the caucuses. I think the committee hearings were productive. I think there were some significant changes brought forward. I also want to compliment the members of the committee because the issues contained in this package of legislation are very complex and relate to extensive issues of health policy. I think it is important for the public of Ontario to know that it is my opinion that the members of the committee were very well informed when they made their judgements and their decisions on the important and often complex issues contained in this package of legislation.
As I think everyone has heard over the last few minutes, this package of legislation is about how the professions are going to govern themselves and how they will regulate themselves. The framework is one which I think replaces an outmoded and outdated approach. This new package sustains both self-governing and self-regulation as a model. It encourages greater public accountability by all the professions and I believe that is in the public interest.
I know there are many outstanding concerns and I would like to be on the record as saying I do not think the package of legislation is perfect. I said on second reading that I hoped the committee process would improve what was presented in this House. I think it has. Many of the outstanding issues that have been raised by those people on behalf of organizations, and members of the public, consumer associations and others, I think, presented cases which the advisory committee to be established under this legislation will find appealing and attractive. I predict that we will see amendments to this legislation, and changes by regulation as well, in very short order.
I do not intend to speak at length. For those who are here today to view third reading, hopefully the legislation will be completed tomorrow here in the Legislature. It is a significant package and I know many members of the House wanted to have at least a few minutes to have their say about how they feel about this. I think that is appropriate. This began 10 years ago. It has been a full decade since the HPLR, the Health Professions Legislation Review, was established. I am hopeful this will finally be proclaimed within the very near future. My prediction is that it could be up and functioning as early as next fall if the government proceeds as expeditiously as it should.
I want to compliment as well the ministry staff, who served the committee well, certainly served me well in my former life, and who have served the new government and the new minister and the parliamentary assistant who carried this legislation ably through the committee very, very well. My compliments to the ministry staff for their hard work and their dedication to serving the public interest as well.
I believe it was a very productive use of my time. I believe, on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, that they have been well served. This package of legislation will, I think, better protect the public. I was particularly pleased that the government saw fit to reinsert the harm clause. They knew how strongly I felt about that, and I think it was done in a way which will allow for choice, going to unregulated professionals, while at the same time protecting the public from physical harm and holding accountable those who deliver health services to the public. I think the government made a wise decision in accepting the amendment to reinstate the harm clause.
I am not going to get into any of the specific details of the legislation. I think this is just the beginning of a package of living legislation that will be seen as a significant reform in health policy, a significant reform in a legislative package that will serve the public interest well. I am pleased and proud to have had an opportunity to serve my constituents and the people of Oriole in the development of this legislation over the years that I have been here in this Legislature.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I wish to thank the honourable member for Oriole for her comments. Questions and/or comments on the member's participation?
Mr Beer: In the short few minutes that are left, I would like to rise and pay tribute to our colleague the member for Oriole, the Chair of the committee and the former Minister of Health.
I think everyone can recognize that, as I believe the parliamentary assistant mentioned earlier, there were many hands in this legislation that go back to the previous Conservative government, the Liberal government and now the New Democrats. In terms of the way this legislation came forward, I think the member for Oriole was minister at a particular time when all of the various parts were coming together, and I think we all recognize, in a non-partisan way, that her role in developing that legislation was very, very important.
I think some of the groups that felt very strongly about particular changes were aided and indeed persuaded by the arguments of the former minister in terms of where the public interest lay and how we could both protect the various individual professions and ensure that the public interest was protected.
While the member for Oriole is here and we are here, I think it is only fitting to pay tribute to all the time and work she put in. This is not to say there were not many others who were very closely involved, but I think to have had her as the Chair of the committee was particularly helpful.
It was noted on a couple of occasions that some of the further changes that came about were a result, quite frankly, of our discussions as members of the committee with her and of her discussions with people from the different professions. Out of that, as she says, has come something which, while not perfect, certainly has moved us a great deal farther down the road in having a health professions act that more adequately and more strongly protects the public interest and also provides much greater access to different health professions. So I would just like to state at this time that we do owe a debt to the former minister, the member for Oriole, and thank her very much for all her work.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Thank you. Further questions and/or comments on the member for Oriole's participation? Seeing none, the honourable member for Oriole will have two minutes in reply.
Mrs Caplan: I would like to move adjournment of the debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): A motion to adjourn the debate is not necessary. It is my understanding that if we have unanimous agreement, we can continue for a short period of time beyond 6 of the clock to finish. Agreed?
Some hon members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): No? Therefore, it now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 of the clock.
The House adjourned at 1801.