The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Last Friday, the final report of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Review Commission, chaired by Graeme Kirby, was finally released to the public by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

This study was initially set up to take a look at one-tier government and other alternatives. However, two years and $300,000 later, Mr Kirby has come to the same conclusions as previous studies commissioned under the Liberal government: nothing new, nothing very different.

The report recommends more responsibilities be given to the regional government, as recommended by David Bartlett back in 1987. The report recommends the creation of regional wards, as concluded by Catherine Graham in 1990. The report recommends the long-supported call for direct election of regional councillors.

This report is simply a rehash of previous studies, a waste of time and taxpayers' money. The only real new recommendation is the call for a regional police force.

Although Mr Kirby is to be commended for his consultation efforts under sometimes very difficult circumstances, it is unfortunate that he was given such a restrictive mandate by his NDP masters. The time and money could have been more wisely spent on investigating substantive new issues like school board consolidation and the efficiency of hydro, fire and other services.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the minister with joint responsibilities for natural resources and native affairs.

On October 19, you announced that the 1992-93 interim hunting agreement had been signed between Ontario and the Algonquins of Golden Lake. Many third parties, such as the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, are appalled at the short notice given by you for receipt of comments on the draft agreement. They are wondering why a full public consultation process was not conducted.

The draft agreement set the date for the commencement of moose and deer hunting season outside the park at September 15. That's two weeks before the society received a request for comments. The date for the season to open inside the park was set for October 13, only five days after the deadline for receipt of public comments.

Minister, interested third parties were denied the opportunity to present their views before the first interim agreement was negotiated, and those same interested parties were once again denied the opportunity to provide constructive comments when the agreement was renewed. There was no point in commenting after most of the provisions had already been agreed upon during the closed-door sessions.

Minister, you and your government continue to make a mockery of the entire concept of public participation and consultation. The tree seedling growers, I feel, are in the same boat. Conservation officers and game wardens all seem to have a problem with your unpopular policies. Will you not listen to your partners in conservation?

YOUTH TASK GROUP

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Human Services of Scarborough and especially its committee, the Youth Task Group.

The Youth Task Group plays a vital role in identifying and responding to youth issues through information sharing, education and advocacy. The Youth Task Group has been very involved in program analysis and the development of services for youth in Scarborough.

It has been an instrumental force behind such endeavours as the Second Base Scarborough Youth Shelter, in response to the need for emergency shelter for youth in their own community; Scarborough Housing Help Centre which operates a housing registry, a home sharing program and provides educational resources to youth who have left their families and homes and need assistance in finding accommodation; Youthlink Scarborough which provides a counselling service for youth ages 12 to 18 and their families.

There are many participating agencies in this task group and I'd like to name a couple, including the Aisling Centre for Children and Families, the Catholic Children's Aid Society, Youthlink Scarborough, West Scarborough Community Centre, Tropicana Community Services, Scarborough General Hospital, the Ministry of Correctional Services, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and both boards of education, Metro separate and the Scarborough Board of Education.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank a number of individuals: Tina Cutler, Marie Muli, Shane Ayres, Doug Inglis and Sherry Griffiths, along with the current cochairs, Corina Clippingdale-Marshall and Joan Williams. They are continuing the fine tradition of community service begun by their predecessors and the community of Scarborough appreciates their efforts in this area.

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Residents of communities that have been promised ministry offices by the previous Ontario government and have had those commitments confirmed after a good deal of hesitation by the present provincial government are becoming increasingly concerned that these much anticipated developments will be put on hold, scaled down or cancelled by the Bob Rae administration as our economy heads into the ditch.

When David Peterson announced the move of the Ministry of Transportation to St Catharines, with 1,400 jobs, and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to Niagara Falls, with 400 jobs, residents of the Niagara Peninsula were confident they were seeing a major economic boost to the region and they were convinced that other parts of the province would benefit from the location of government departments in their communities.

Rumours persist that the 1,400 jobs in St Catharines and the 400 jobs in Niagara Falls may not exist when the axe stops swinging in the treasury office or that the moves will be delayed significantly when the Niagara region continues to have the highest rate of unemployment in the province.

I call upon the chair of treasury board to dispel these rumours by confirming the original numbers of jobs and the original timetables. If MTO employees, with their offices being in St Catharines, were to experience the extremely long delays caused by paving during the rush-hour last night, I am certain they would be in a much better position to carry out their responsibilities towards the public.

1340

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Many municipalities in my riding of Grey, and I'm sure all across the province, are very disturbed with the Minister of the Environment's arbitrary decision to force local councils to submit a fee for administrative costs of operating water and sewage facilities. As well, they will have to pay for the laboratory testing of the municipal water and waste. This policy was announced with absolutely no consultation with the municipalities involved.

The shifting of these costs will, in the majority of cases, mean increases of up to 20%. This is ridiculous. Most municipalities, especially small cities and towns, cannot afford the increase. How can they possibly comply when your government has just announced that it is giving municipalities only 2% this year and nothing the following year? I am astounded that now you have broken the promise, you show no shame in suddenly demanding an additional 5.7% of operating costs. Where do you expect this money to come from?

This government shows absolutely no respect for the people it purports to serve. Why couldn't the minister have discussed this with the municipalities instead of notifying them by letter that they must obey? AMO had its convention in Toronto in August. If there was such a pressing need to download even further on municipalities, and in turn our beleaguered ratepayers, why could she have not raised the issue then?

This government said it would be open and honest and that it would listen to the people. I'm afraid that this is just one more broken promise.

JACK BELL LEADERSHIP AWARD

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I am making a statement today on behalf of Margery Ward, the MPP for Don Mills.

The Ontario Science Centre, in her riding of Don Mills, has added another illustrious award to its record. Valerie Stief, executive director of community and educational programs at the centre, has been awarded the Jack Bell Leadership Award by the Science Teachers' Association of Ontario.

The prime consideration in selecting the recipient is the direct and substantial contribution to the large-scale improvement of science education at the elementary, secondary and post-secondary level in Ontario. The STAO noted that Valerie "exemplified the dedicated leader in science education."

The Ontario Science Centre offers educational programs to almost 250,000 students each year and operates a science school for selected outstanding students in their final year of high school. In addition to her work at the science centre, Valerie had certainly met the criteria for this award through her many committees, publications and workshops as well as her work with the STAO board of directors.

I ask all members to join in applauding the recognition of Valerie Stief, executive director of community and educational programs at the Ontario Science Centre.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Yesterday, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture issued a news release condemning the NDP stable funding legislation for farm organizations. The news release read, in part:

"The Ontario Federation of Agriculture will not support the recently tabled farm organizations act as it is presently written because of provisions that include fines of up to $2,000 for farmers who fail to comply.

"OFA president Roger George stated that, 'It is totally unacceptable to havelegislation that makes criminals of farmers,' that the provision calling for fines was never agreed to by farm leaders in negotiations with the government, and that, 'This bill is badly flawed and unacceptable.'"

The minister has admitted to bungling the introduction of this bill, but he has not indicated how he intends to fix it. He says he will withdraw the fine provisions; however, the fine provisions were the only things that made the legislation mandatory. It is almost a week since the bill's bungled introduction. The minister has still not indicated how the legislation will be made mandatory or if it will be mandatory. We have seen no amendments from the minister. We haven't seen any indication of when the minister intends to have second reading.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Food table today his amendments to Bill 105 and agree to send this badly flawed legislation out for public hearings so we can get input from the farmers of the province and try to eliminate the confusion and concern caused by the government?

TVONTARIO

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It gives me great pleasure to congratulate TVOntario on the exemplary steps it has taken under its new chair and chief executive officer, Peter Herrndorf, to correct the spending excesses and managerial errors that were identified in last year's special audit. This fall, the Provincial Auditor gave TVO a clean bill of health.

TVOntario also deserves praise for its ability to manage substantial provincial funding cuts of $5.3 million this year, with more to follow. We might expect these cuts to result in the loss of programming and employee morale, but not so. TVOntario's employees show renewed energy and excitement, while programming has not suffered. TVOntario is determined to make up the provincial funding shortfall by increasing revenue from other sources, such as viewer donations and corporate underwriting.

Indeed, TVOntario's new season rises to a level of excellence that Ontarians should be proud of. I have especially enjoyed the increased emphasis on current affairs. For instance, the new legislative program, Between the Lines, which is hosted by former Queen's Park reporter Steve Paikin, is outstanding. Based on the intelligence and creativity that Mr Paikin demonstrated in his coverage of the Ontario Legislature, I knew that his new program would be a great success.

I am confident that the emphasis on innovation and entrepreneurship under Mr Herrndorf's leadership will ensure TVOntario's continuing success as Ontario's public educational broadcaster.

CITY OF LONDON

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to congratulate the city of London, where my home riding of London South is located. In a survey conducted by the Financial Times, London was rated as the best-managed city in Canada.

On measures of the cost of delivering municipal services such as policing, fire protection, roads, waste, transit and municipal government, London surpassed 12 other major Canadian cities. The mayor has said that this will make London, which is already a good place for business to invest in, even better.

We can take pride in this confirmation of what most Londoners already feel. I would also add that a city is much more than the best-balanced books and the most well-maintained fixtures. A city is also about people.

A good measure of any place is how the least well-off are faring balanced against how high the average income might be. As city councillor Joe Swan says, the social side of London could stand substantial improvement. We must not forget the low-income people and the working poor and how much there is still to be done in providing affordable housing.

I know London is a good place for capital investment. I laud London as the best-managed city in Canada, but I also look forward to it being an even better place for all people.

APPRECIATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It's my privilege to thank the Minister of Energy for helping me out with a problem I had in my area which I brought to his attention last week.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I haven't heard a point of privilege of that nature before, but I think it's quite in order. I thank the honourable member for bringing it to my attention.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LONG-TERM CARE

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health: I'd like to take time today to add to my comments of last week on the next steps in our fundamental restructuring of Ontario's long-term care system. The framework for this restructuring is a product of one of the most comprehensive and democratic consultation processes ever undertaken by the government.

My colleagues the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Citizenship and I are glad that we took the time to consider the thousands of comments and suggestions we received in the consultation. They helped us redefine certain aspects of our policy to better meet the needs of consumers of the long-term care health and social services system.

For example, the consultation told us that our long-term care redirection was too narrowly focused. It was stressed over and over again that we needed to create a system that provides a continuum of services for Ontario citizens: a continuum that begins by promoting good health and offering the support services needed in communities, then addresses the greater requirements of residents in long-term care facilities and in institutions and, finally, is sensitive to the needs of the terminally ill and their families. And if we are to do it right, we also need greater integration of long-term care health and social services throughout the system.

In the report to be released in January we will provide more details on the consultation and the resulting policy decisions, to be followed by an implementation framework in the spring.

Aboriginal organizations are continuing to consult with their members, and I await the results to be presented to my ministry in the next few weeks. The future planning and management of aboriginal services will be guided by the recommendations of these consultations and ongoing discussions with aboriginal organizations.

In the new year, I also expect to receive the report of the chronic care role study, which will allow us to address the very important role these hospitals will play in our long-term care system.

1350

Last Thursday I announced that district health councils would be asked to restructure their long-term care planning capacities to ensure the inclusion of representatives of municipalities, social service planning and delivery sectors and consumers. My colleagues and I believe that our new system should place the emphasis where it belongs: on community-based services that will be locally planned and delivered.

By changing the composition of their long-term care subcommittees, district health councils will be able to assume the lead role in planning for long-term care and the reconfiguration of local services in their communities.

Rather than continue with separate case management programs to determine eligibility and purchase service from community agencies, we will, over time and in an orderly way, integrate the functions of case management and service delivery. We will bring together existing agencies such as home care, placement coordination services and a range of service delivery agencies to create comprehensive multiservice agencies.

What this means, quite simply, is that for the first time in Ontario, people will be able to have access to a full range of long-term care services through a single agency, a single access point.

Local planning will ensure that these agencies are designed in such a way as to be sensitive to local need. The model for Kingston may be quite different from the one that is developed by and for Sault Ste Marie, for example.

This will mark a major departure from the way we have been doing business, a change that was strongly recommended by consumer and provider groups during our consultation.

As an interim measure, I am pleased to announce today that the province will be providing $133.5 million of the $647.6-million redirection budget for the expansion of integrated homemaker services in 17 home care program areas that do not yet have them. This service will be available to consumers whether or not they need professional health services. As a result, homemaker services will soon be more available across the province, a major step in redressing the serious inequities in service distribution that currently exist.

Those parts of the province that will soon receive new funding to establish integrated homemaker services are Durham, Elgin, Haldimand-Norfolk, Halton, Hamilton-Wentworth, Hastings, Kent, Kingston, Lambton, Niagara, northwestern Ontario, Peel, Simcoe, Sudbury, Timiskaming, Wellington-Dufferin, York and the remainder of Metropolitan Toronto.

This means that an elderly woman in Hamilton, for example, could now have someone come to her home and help her with bathing and dressing, or a husband in Timiskaming who is caring for his ailing wife in their home could get some assistance with homemaking and meal preparation.

Both the elderly woman and the couple will now be able to receive this type of help, whether or not they need professional health care service, and all will be able to live with dignity and independence in their homes and communities. In the past they may have had no choice but to give up independent living and move into an institution.

To our government, effecting a shift from institution to community also means relocating employment. Agencies receiving this new funding will be required to work with the hospital training and adjustment panel to facilitate the hiring of laid-off hospital workers.

As I mentioned earlier, the redirection of long-term care services will address the need for a continuum of services, from wellness and health promotion to palliative care.

I am also pleased to announce today that the government is adopting a palliative care policy for Ontario. During the consultation, we heard from the families of the terminally ill that they need a greater range of support services to care for their loved ones in their own homes.

To meet their needs, the government will provide $4.82 million on an annual basis starting in 1993-94 for palliative volunteer visiting programs, for the education of more than 1,000 community-based service providers and for the establishment of 14 pain and symptom control teams. These teams, located across Ontario, will provide consultation and backup to persons delivering palliative care services in the community. This initiative will be funded separately from the $647.6-million redirection budget.

I cannot stress how important it is for us to get the restructuring of long-term care right. The government, together with its partners in this endeavour, will be laying the foundation of a system that will serve us for decades to come.

We are determined to transform the long-term care system so that it is more effective, more efficient and better equipped to meet the challenges of the future for seniors, their care givers, adults with physical disabilities and those who need health and support services at home.

I want to say that because of the profoundly collaborative nature of the policy development process, I feel there is great wisdom and creativity in the new directions we are proposing for long-term care. These initiatives are essential to improve long-term care now. They are also essential to prepare our long-term care system to meet the increasing demands of the future.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I'm pleased to be able to respond to the minister's statement today. I would have to say that we are always happy to hear that something may be happening as far as long-term care goes. We really have been waiting now since this government took over to get this long-term care on the road, because it is so needed out there. Seniors everywhere need to know that they are going to be able to be served, they need to know that there is coordination out there and stability and that they have nothing to fear.

I would certainly like to echo the remarks my colleague the member for Halton Centre made last week that we are committed to long-term care reform. The minister knows that. In fact, I think all sides of this House are committed to the concept of long-term care reform and those that were established, of course, and started by the third party, as well as ours, and now, hopefully, we're going to see some action. It is good to see that we have another piece of the puzzle in the long-term care taking shape.

I have to mention that the extension of the integrated homemaker program to the rest of the province is certainly very commendable and one that is needed. But we really need the funding now. We need that funding to be there to establish that, we need the funding to flow and we need it to start to flow. Hopefully, that is going to be seen, because sometimes this doesn't always happen.

After two years of consultations we really would like to see something now, rather than having to wait until 1996 or 1997. I know many seniors call our office, and I'm sure many other members' offices, when their time for service is cut back and they really need the hours of service. I hope this will really be an expansion and the service will be there.

The palliative care announcement is very welcome and certainly one that the senior consumers' alliance and other groups were very adamant about. But again, it raises another series of questions. This is to be a new thrust, and so education comes to mind in something as important as this. The education of the providers is very important. I know you have mentioned that $4.8 million is coming out of the home care program to go towards this.

Hon Ms Lankin: In addition.

Mrs Fawcett: In addition to, yes, but then is some of that money going to be earmarked for education, or how will the places that really need this be able to afford to send people away?

It only comes to mind that I was speaking to our administrator of the home for the aged. So often in the past, with their budgets set, an opportunity for education would come up and then it is not possible because they can't afford to go over.

I was certainly glad to see the minister recognize the need for local -- and I stress the word "local" -- comprehensive multiservice agencies. However, the establishment of these agencies on top of agencies you announced last week really begs the question of coordination and efficiency, and should the 14 regional long-term care offices continue to exist only to administer the finances that are to be spent to facilitate the decisions of the district health councils? We would like to know exactly what finances will be spent between now and 1996.

The concept of long-term care, as I said before, has been one that all governments agree on. However, the minister's vision of long-term care reminds me of a jigsaw puzzle. Last week we had one piece, and then this week, today, we have another piece, and then maybe in January there will be another piece. Somehow it's got to all come together and be coordinated.

But I think the biggest question that remains in my mind is that the minister's been very adamant about soliciting consumers' opinions and advice, yet by the creation of her many service coordination agencies, it's going to be clear that maybe the consumers' choices will be taken away from them, and I sincerely hope that doesn't happen.

1400

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): In the absence of our Health critic today, I'd like to make a few comments with respect to the minister's statement.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the fact that the government has finally lived up to one of its commitments, that is, the expansion of integrated homemaker services. That's the good news, Mr Premier. There's more to come, not all of it good.

The next thing I would like to say is that I note that the government plans to introduce a comprehensive multiservices agency. This is to replace the 12 regional offices now that have been transferred to the Ministry of Health with respect to these items. But in the briefing meeting this morning, I understand that Ministry of Health officials were unable to provide any costing with respect to what that administrative cost will be and how it would compare to the current system.

I also would like to note that when the government introduced its legislation last week, I believe, they provided for the government providing capital funding for non-profit nursing homes. I think we can see a trend here that this government has. It's the same as their philosophy towards day care. There seems to be no room for the private sector whatsoever any more in the province of Ontario, despite the fact that the private sector may be able to do it better, more economically and more efficiently than the government can do it.

The last point I'd like to make with respect to this statement is about the levels-of-care funding formula. Nursing homes and homes for the aged were promised this formula on several occasions. They were promised previously that this would be in place by January 1, 1993, and we're now being told by the government that it'll be some time in the spring of 1993. If that turns out to be like the former Attorney General's definition of "some time in early fall," I guess the next question I would have is, which year?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In responding to the statement by the Minister of Health, I would just like to make a few comments as it pertains to people with disabilities. When we look at the subject of long-term care, the people with disabilities are some of the major users. We certainly heard and saw, a week ago today, on the front lawns of Queen's Park over 4,000 people who came down to say to this government: "We need your help. We don't need your cuts." Those were the representatives of community living associations around this province.

I recognize that this is a shared responsibility through two or three ministries, including the Minister of Health, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the minister responsible for disability issues, but I say simply to the Minister of Health that I hope she can use whatever persuasion she has at the cabinet table for the need for expanded services for the residents of the institutions, who are hopefully going to be able to live outside of those institutions; but in order to do that, when they come home, they're going to need alternative accommodation and a lot of help from all three ministries. This is a well-documented fact, it's certainly a well-documented need, and these people are looking to this government, including this minister, for help with their community-based services, which presently do not exist to the extent that they are needed, even without further deinstitutionalization of some of those family members.

So we simply say that while supportive services are extended through this announcement, there is still a lot of work to be done by this government to meet the real needs of people in this province, and I particularly speak about the people with disabilities, both physical and developmental disabilities. I hope this government will start to prioritize in terms of human need, and put these people at the top of their list.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a former member of the assembly currently seated in the members' gallery west, the former member for Waterloo North. Welcome, Mr Herb Epp.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's my understanding that we had unanimous consent for there to be brief statements with respect to the commemoration of the tragic events in Montreal three years ago.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Rae: The entire country was united in a sense of national grief three years ago when we began to come to terms with the tragic shooting of 14 young women in Montreal. Like no other event in recent memory, this tragedy, I think, has mobilized awareness and understanding among the entire population about the question of violence against women.

This is an issue that transcends peoples, races and cultures. It certainly transcends politics. It's not my intention today to give an account of any of the policy directions of the government with respect to this issue or to outline in some broad governmental way the various programs which have been in place for some time and were put in place by previous governments and have been carried on, maintained, expanded or whatever by other governments.

I simply want to say that I think it's entirely right and appropriate that we spend a brief moment reflecting on the extent of that tragedy, that we carry on vigilant against those examples and cases of violence against women, of abuse against the more than half our population, and that we take note of this date and of this week and of this time as one in which a growing number of people are joining together in wearing the white ribbon, and in speaking out and in taking steps in our own lives and in our own behaviour to meet this extraordinary challenge which we all share.

I want simply, on this occasion, to say that on behalf of the members of my caucus and on behalf of members of the government, we take this day as a day of memory and also as a call for action. I'm sure we're joined in those sentiments by all members in the House.

Il y a trois ans, tout le Canada, et je dirais même tout le monde a été uni pour un moment assez bref par une tragédie énorme, la tragédie à Montréal où quatorze femmes ont été tuées par un homme. Cette journée et cette semaine, depuis ce temps-là, sont devenues des semaines et des jours de souvenir et aussi un appel à l'action, action nécessaire pour vraiment vaincre cette terrible violence faite contre les femmes.

De temps en temps nous avons des arguments partisans, de temps en temps nous avons des différences d'opinions, mais aujourd'hui nous sommes tous unis d'abord par un sens profond de mémoire de cet événement si triste, si difficile, si dur et si tragique pour les jeunes femmes et leur famille. Nous sommes tous d'accord, j'espère, qu'il y a beaucoup plus que nous pourrons faire ensemble.

1410

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): This is not a pleasant or easy topic to discuss, but too many people across Ontario, both men and women, have been silent for too long.

It is a myth that wife assault occurs more often among certain groups of people. In fact, wife assault occurs in all ethnic, racial, economic, social and age groups. However, violence in more affluent groups is often hidden because these women use shelters, legal clinics and other social services less often than others. No one in Ontario is immune, regardless of where they live or what they do for a living.

This issue really hit home for me recently when I learned, in my own riding of Timiskaming, of a recent study and survey that estimated that one in four women have experienced some form of violence against them, from physical abuse of young girls, to rape, to spousal abuse.

The significance of choosing one day to call attention to the issue of violence against women should not end when we take off our ribbons at the end of the day, because the violence does not end at the end of the day.

In Ontario, one woman in five experiences some form of violence in her home. In Canada, at least one woman in 10 is battered by her partner. This translates into more than 200,000 women in Ontario alone who are victims of assault; 57% of all women murdered in Canada in 1989 died as a result of domestic violence.

The term "wife assault" is applied to physical or psychological abuse towards one's mate. The assault can take many forms, including hostage-taking, intimidation, forcible confinement, uttering of threats and murder.

It is suspected that three quarters of men who abuse their wives grew up in homes where their fathers beat their mothers. Sons of battered women are a thousand times more likely to beat their wives than men who grew up in homes free of violence.

In 1981, police laid charges in only 3% of cases, although 20% of victims were advised to get medical attention. A directive instructing police to lay charges in all domestic assault cases where reasonable and probable grounds exist was issued because of this. By 1988, police in Ontario laid criminal charges in 51% of all occurrences reported to police.

A Canada-wide survey shows that 61% of women physically or sexually assaulted by male partners are injured in the attack. Further, assaulted women may be more likely to attempt suicide than women who are not assaulted.

The South Temiskaming Coordinating Committee for the Prevention of Violence Against Women put out a flyer recently to call attention to violence against women, and I'd like to quote briefly from that.

"If it were between countries, we'd call it a war. If it were a disease, we'd call it an epidemic. If it were an oil spill, we'd call it a disaster. But it's happening to women, so it's just an everyday affair. It is violence against women. It is rape at home and on dates. It is the physical abuse that one in four women experience in their physical relationships. It is sexual harassment at work and sexual abuse of the young. It is murder.

"There's no secret enemy pulling the trigger. No unseen virus that leads to death. It's just men. Men from all social backgrounds and of all colours and ages. Men in business suits and men in blue collars. Men who plant fields and men who sell furniture. Not weirdos. Just regular guys."

In closing, I can only hope that by all of us by speaking out, perhaps we can help stop one man from raising his hand in anger or encourage one woman to seek help.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I too would like to make a few comments with respect to the white ribbon campaign and a few comments to remember the Montreal tragedy.

This week we mark the national white ribbon campaign to remind us that men's violence against women must be stopped. The need for men to join with women in this battle has never been more compelling than it is today.

Today we recall the horror and tragedy of women's lives cut short by men. The campaign began in December 1991 by a group of men from Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Kingston and London who felt they had a responsibility to speak out against men's violence against women.

The statistics against violence towards women are alarming and very quickly lead me to believe that this problem must be dealt with by all levels and genders of society, not exclusively men or women. One in four women in Canada is expected to be sexually assaulted at some time in her life. One in seven women is a survivor of spousal abuse. Two out of three women sexually assaulted were attacked by men they knew. Sexual harassment is a pervasive problem in workplaces and schools.

Every group in society must make a decision that this is a problem that can only be solved with everyone getting involved. Men and women must work together to decide that they are not going to look the other way when they feel friends and relatives are being abused. Men and women must decide together that education and awareness are the first and most important steps to solving this problem within our society.

I will be wearing a white ribbon this week to support the White Ribbon Campaign, and I urge men all over Ontario to do the same. The white ribbon is a call to men to lay down their arms which they continue to use against women. It is a call for the men in our society to support our female family, colleagues and friends in a fight to stop this abuse. It is a call to pressure our governments to take decisive action and provide the needed education within all society, rehabilitation for abusers, and the shelters necessary for battered women.

It is now time to move from ribbons to legislation and from legislation to program implementation, to begin to address violence against women and its root cause in our society.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question today is for the leader of the government. Mr Premier, like most Ontarians, I've had the opportunity over the last 24 hours to at least hear about, and in my case to read, the 1992 annual report of the Provincial Auditor. I think it is fair to say that most Ontarians awakened today to the annual news of misadventure, I suppose I could say, in the expenditure of public funds. I think we all understand, in the current environment, just how concerned taxpayers are about how well we manage the dollars that taxpayers provide.

This auditor's report, like every other auditor's report, can necessarily only concern itself with those horses which have fled the barn. It is necessarily retrospective. But against the backdrop of what the auditor said and against the clear concern that's in this recession-ridden economy about efficiency in government and government-imposed costs, can I ask the Premier this question:

It goes back to a question I raised with his colleague the Treasurer a few weeks ago, and that is this: At this point in the economic history of this province, when we face some of the worst economic numbers and some of the worst unemployment we have experienced in a long, long time, we have a major government agency, the Workers' Compensation Board, which is embarking upon new office space. Office space at this time in the city of Toronto, as the honourable Premier knows, is in abundant oversupply.

Will the Premier give the taxpayers of Ontario an assurance that as leader of the government of Ontario in these troubled times, he is going to use his influence to stop the Workers' Compensation Board from spending $200 million, which clearly the Workers' Compensation Board does not have, to build what will be some of the most expensive office space in Metropolitan Toronto at a time when there is 27 million empty square feet of commercial office space in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm advised that the information which the member shared with the House when he last asked this question, that the rental rate to be paid by the WCB -- I think $380 a foot was the figure he used. I'm advised by people who know about these things that the member's rental description is an absurdity and in fact bears no relationship at all to the facts. I must say I'm not astounded by that, since I'm getting used to that from the honourable member.

It's anticipated, according to the information that's being put forward by the board, that the rental rate will be very competitive with current market rates for existing facilities over the 20-year term of the lease.

Now I just want to indicate to the member that the WCB, acting in good faith, reached certain contractual arrangements. The fact of the matter is that it simply isn't possible for us, in terms of responding instantly, to say yea or nay to that without incurring certain other consequences of a financial nature as well. So I would say to the member, the Treasurer continues his review with respect to the overall approach that's being taken, but I want to say to him that the information that he's put out, that somehow it's $380 a foot, is just false.

1420

Mr Conway: The Premier announced in a scrum the other day that the problem with question period is that it bears no relationship to reality. Well, I want to bring the Premier back to the reality of his own government's numbers.

The numbers are -- put out by the government -- that at this time, in the midst of this recession, in this city, where there's 27 million square feet of vacant commercial office space retailing at an average price of between $15 and $22 a square foot, the Workers' Compensation Board, a government agency that is awash in financial difficulty and is faced with all kinds of pressure from injured workers, is going to take up 525,000 square feet at a cost initially of $200 million on some of the most expensive ground in the city of Toronto, down at Front Street and Union. Those are the numbers that the government put out.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Conway: My question remains: In light of the severe financial situation in which both the government and the Workers' Compensation Board now find themselves, and in light of yesterday's auditor's report, which reminds the taxpayers of this province of how much we have to do to ensure that there is more efficiency in the way in which we superintend their tax dollars, how is it possible that the Premier's government is going to allow a major government agency to undertake this kind of office relocation at this time?

Hon Mr Rae: Obviously, the Treasurer's going to be reviewing it, but I want to stress to the honourable member that the WCB caters, with the client base that it has, to people who have very special needs with respect to the kind of office building that's appropriate and the kind of access that wants to be ensured. The WCB will retain a 75% ownership in the building, which means that it will maintain an equity interest and that the investment fund will maintain that equity interest in the building, and that therefore it is something which will work to its advantage in that sense.

I say to the honourable member that I don't think I need to take any lectures on responsibility from the honourable member. It was his government that allowed the unfunded liability at the WCB to run up to $9 billion, under the previous government.

I want to say to the honourable member that the facts he's presented to the House are not correct with respect to the overall cost over a 20-year period, and he has to consider the overall 20-year lease costs which are being projected, and they bear no relationship to the kinds of numbers which he's put forward.

Mr Conway: I'm just simply using the numbers that the government put out. I want to add that the incontrovertible reality is that this city is swimming in excess commercial office space. The Workers' Compensation Board is awash in billions of dollars of unfunded liability. The employers of this province, whom we are expecting to take us out of recession, are enraged at these government-imposed costs by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, among others, has expressed a real concern about this unbelievable move at this time.

The question remains: If the Premier and his government are to be taken seriously about the need to be more efficient in these troubled times of economic recession; if he expects to have any credibility with the universities, the colleges, the hospitals, all of his transfer partners who are going to have to fundamentally re-examine their operating and their capital accounts on the basis of his recent transfer announcements, how can he expect to have any credibility with those transfer partners --

The Speaker: Will the member complete his question, please.

Mr Conway: -- and with the employers' community if he allows this unbelievable office relocation to occur, particularly under the commercial terms as announced?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member, first of all, stated last week that the cost is $380 a foot, and I want to say to the honourable member that there's a 20-year lease. Then you look at a figure -- the honourable member is really developing quite a reputation. This is like somebody who comes into the House and says almost anything that comes into his head on the basis of anything he's heard; just walking into the House and he asks you.

The figure is about one-twentieth of the figure you've announced. Those are the facts and that's the fact. You have a 20-year fixed lease. You have a commitment from the board that the investment will not affect in any way the unfunded liability or employer assessment rates as a result of the project. You have the fact that employer representatives on the board itself approved it --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- so the honourable member is coming up --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- with arguments and with a case which bear no relationship to the facts whatsoever, and those are the facts.

The Speaker: New question.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Brampton North has the floor.

Mr McClelland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I refer the minister again to the auditor's report that was tabled yesterday.

Minister, the auditor states very, very clearly that there are some serious misgivings and in fact a complete lack of action in addressing some of the problems that fall into your responsibility as Minister of the Environment, particularly with the issue of surface water quality in this province.

What the report says in essence, Minister, is that because of your dawdling and your almost concentrated effort on nothing but Metro Toronto's garbage, you're basically ignoring other problems, letting them slide, and literally hundreds of tons of contaminants, including persistent toxic chemicals, continue to flow into Ontario's waterways.

Minister, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, MISA, provides but one example. It shows, as the Provincial Auditor said, that the development of water quality regulations have been significantly delayed since your government took office.

I remind you, Minister, how you used to stand in opposition and rail against former governments and demand the opportunity. You promised, standing right in this place, that -- I recall it very, very clearly, one day, on a non-confidence motion. You said: "Give me one year and I can have it in place. Just give me one year and I can do it."

Minister, when can we expect the final regulations to be completed for the nine industrial sectors and the municipal sector under the MISA regulations that you talk and talk on and now are unable to deliver?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): Let me start by saying that I think the honourable member has put a certain number of words in the Provincial Auditor's mouth that do not appear in the Provincial Auditor's report.

What the Provincial Auditor did say, and I certainly agree with his conclusion, is that the MISA industrial program has been considerably delayed. I regret that, but I point out to the member that even since the Provincial Auditor examined the programs of my ministry, the first of the MISA regs has been out for consultation.

In answer to the latter part of his question, let me assure him that the rest of the regs will be out long before the end of 1993. I'd like the opportunity to just remind the member of some of the factors built into the MISA program that have meant that not only did I miss the deadline; the deadline had been missed before I became the minister. In part, that was due to the incredible complexity and technical work that needed to be done to prepare the regulations, a very labour-intensive and technical-intensive program, as it was.

Secondly, in consultation, it's been a very consultative process and for that I make no apology.

1430

Mr McClelland: It's true, Minister, that you have been consulting and it seems that's all you're doing. Time after time you stand in the House and make announcements about the consultation process you're engaging in. At the end of the day, whether it be waste management, people end up turning and saying there was no really meaningful consultation of any kind. Consultation involves listening as well, Minister.

Also, the auditor goes on and points out that you consult to the nth degree and throw up your hands in the air and say, "We can't get unanimity on some things." The only thing you can get unanimity on, I might add, is the opposition to your ill-conceived waste management problems. But you come here and say: "We have difficulty consulting. It's complex and we can't move ahead."

The Provincial Auditor also pointed out the slow progress made by you in carrying out anything with respect to the remedial action plans. Along the Great Lakes, 17 areas known as toxic hot spots have been identified by the International Joint Commission. You're very familiar with that, Minister. These action plans were designed to clean up the hot spots.

The auditor concluded, Minister, that the provincial government has done between little and nothing to move these programs along. He cites lack of coordination and lack of leadership. The auditor's report says, "It is evident that insufficient direction and support from the ministry" -- I think we can read "minister" -- "is also a factor in the slowness of RAP progress."

Minister, why have you been so content with the slow progress of the RAP programs? Notwithstanding the fact that I asked you in estimates and you said things were moving along just fine, the auditor seems to have a different view. When will you give some direction, the direction that the auditor says you need to have, that you need to assume the responsibility?

I remind you again --

The Speaker: Could the member complete his question, please.

Mr McClelland: -- of your sanctimonious statements in opposition on how you could get the job done. You were high on rhetoric. You've now been given the opportunity for two years to deliver. The auditor says that you're unable to deliver. When will you do it, Minister?

Hon Mrs Grier: The honourable member's questions are very interesting. Let me remind the honourable member that with respect to the MISA program I have certainly been contacted by the Leader of the Opposition and urged, because of the difficult economic times, not to produce regulations under MISA that might cause any particular hardships to industries in this province. On the one hand I have the member saying, "Speed up MISA," and on the other hand I have the Leader of the Opposition saying, "Slow down MISA." When there's a consistent message from the opposition, it will be easier to respond to the questions.

But let me say to the member with respect to the remedial action plans that he again undervalues the progress that is being made in 17 communities around this province. In Collingwood I was pleased to join with my colleague the member for that area from the third party in a town that is moving to have its remedial action plan delisted as the first of the areas in the Great Lakes where in fact it will no longer be an area of concern. Others are moving to stage 2 and in fact very real progress -- not enough, not fast enough, but certainly not at the pace that the member opposite seems to describe.

Mr McClelland: I hasten to remind you that it's not only myself. The Provincial Auditor, who looked at this independently in an objective analysis, says that you're way off track in terms of your timing.

Again, Minister, I bring you back to the lofty rhetoric that you were so free to flow with in your time in opposition. At that point you had all the answers and knew how to do it. We find now that if we measure the progress that took place between 1985 and 1990 against the progress in the first two years of your administration, there is absolutely no comparison. You have done virtually nothing in terms of water quality issues in this province, Minister, and you continue to find excuses and roll it off and say it's a matter of rhetoric.

I draw you back to your rhetoric. I don't really care what I have to say about it, Minister. How about your own words, the fact that you said that you could get the job done and railed constantly about the inability of former governments which have done much, much more in their terms than you have even begun to do?

Minister, the auditor also talked about the problems of watershed contamination. The auditor says that you have not addressed that at all.

The Speaker: Could the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr McClelland: The auditor says that you have not even begun to address that. Minister, if you've done nothing, as stated by the Provincial Auditor -- and that's what the auditor says, that you've done nothing on that issue -- when will you begin to see that there are environmental problems facing the citizens of Ontario that are outside of the current waste management problems, get the blinkers off, begin to deal with some of the real issues, deal with the watershed issues, getting coordination with the other ministries involved? Maybe the next auditor's report will say that you've done something, as opposed to nothing, Minister.

Hon Mrs Grier: To say that nothing has been accomplished is absolutely inaccurate. Let me remind the honourable member of the list of accomplishments that this government has had with respect to protecting the environment.

We have made pollution prevention the cornerstone of our environmental protection policies; we have established a pollution prevention pledge program with industry; we have worked cooperatively with industries such as the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute to prevent pollution; we have signed agreements and memoranda of understanding with the Big Three auto makers; we have done the scientific work to identify the toxic 21, the most persistent chemicals that are found in our waterways; we have banned incineration and come to grips with airborne pollutants which are a major contributing factor to the degradation of the Great Lakes; and our waste reduction action plan -- and waste has contributed in many ways to water pollution -- is the most effective reduction plan on this continent, second to none.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, yesterday the entire NDP caucus voted unanimously in favour of proceeding with market value assessment for Metro Toronto. The city of Toronto has warned what this will do to its downtown core, particularly on top of all of the other problems and the other taxation and other efforts of government. Cumulatively now they say this will be the nail in the coffin.

We are talking about the downtown core, the economic engine that drives the whole greater Toronto area, and it is becoming apparent that we could lose this heart and soul of, indeed, many would argue, if not the country, the province of Ontario.

Given that market value assessment is now a reality, Mr Premier, I would like to ask you this: How do you intend to assist our already overtaxed and overthreatened downtown core to ensure that it doesn't collapse altogether?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, I'd be interested to know what the position of the honourable member is, since I'm not quite clear what his position is, and perhaps he'll tell us what that is in due course.

But I would say to the honourable member, we made a decision as a cabinet and as a caucus and as a government that we would give to Metropolitan Toronto the right to work out a compromise with respect to property tax reassessment within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto.

He describes it as a market value assessment scheme. I would say to the honourable member, in comparison with any other market value assessment scheme anywhere else in the province, this is a proposal which does rejig and rework some assessments but it cannot be described under any sort of fairly neutral description as any kind of wholesale shift to market value assessment.

Many of the criticisms and comments and many of the concerns that were raised by people over the last number of years have been raised with respect to a move or shift to pure market value assessment, which would have produced enormous increases in some rents and huge reductions in others. What has been worked out by Metropolitan Toronto council represents a different approach, if you will, and this government decided that it would be better on balance to allow Metro council to proceed. In terms of the impacts, obviously we will be monitoring very carefully, as any government would, as any government should, the nature of the impacts and exactly what is taking place.

But I want to say to the honourable member --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the honourable member, it is of concern to me that he would continue to simply adopt the rhetoric that would suggest some kind of absolute calamity that is taking place when in fact the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto has had to work out a very tough balance and, in our view, the municipality --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- like all the other municipalities in the province ought to be given the right to make those decisions, and that's the issue before us.

Mr Harris: I think I was very clear in the question. I wasn't adopting any rhetoric. I was talking about the cumulative effect. You can talk about rejig this, rejig that. The fact of the matter is you have decided unanimously, all members, not one dissenting voice, to proceed with market value assessment. That's a given, that's a fact. You weren't here for the vote yesterday. The fact of the matter is, there's not a dissenting voice.

Hon Mr Rae: Neither were you.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): You weren't here either. That's a bit much.

The Speaker: Order.

1440

Mr Harris: But my question, Mr Premier, dealt with, given the reality that we're dealing now with the cumulative effect of what is occurring, you, Mr Premier -- and this is a fact, Jack -- and Floyd Laughren vehemently opposed the Liberal government's commercial concentration tax on businesses in the GTA.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): This is the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: Yet, Premier, since you have taken over, you have happily taken over $200 million from that tax from the city of Toronto core alone. Now, Premier, if you repeal the commercial concentration tax today, you would more than offset the annual effect of MVA on some of Toronto's businesses. I would ask you today --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: -- given that you've made up your mind on market value --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Durham West, come to order.

Mr Harris: -- and given that the cumulative effect of all of these taxes is destroying the heart and soul of my city of Toronto, of my province of Ontario, of my country of Canada, will you live up to your commitment and repeal the commercial concentration tax today?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member, since he did this in his preface, chose to draw attention to the fact that I was in Cambridge yesterday announcing 230 new jobs in that city, and I'm delighted to have been able to do that. I would only say to the honourable member, that's where I was. Where was he? Because I've got a record here of the vote and I don't see his name on the list.

On the issue of the commercial concentration tax which the member has raised -- and I must say I've been waiting for the question from the honourable member and from others -- I would say to him that obviously the Treasurer, in preparation for the budget, is going to be reviewing a number of issues. I think I can tell the honourable member that we are clearly going to be looking at a number of issues with respect to taxation, of which the commercial concentration tax is one.

So I will say to the honourable member, obviously that's an issue that would now be reviewed in the normal course of preparation for the budget. I'm not announcing anything special with respect to that, except to say that the full panoply of provincial revenues, of provincial taxes, of provincial expenditures is obviously being reviewed in the context of the budget and that is the context in which this issue will be reviewed.

Mr Harris: I am pleased to know that the net loss of jobs yesterday was only 270. I thought the reason you and the Treasurer weren't here was because it was Provincial Auditor's day, but in fact I guess that was not the case.

Hon Mr Wildman: What were you doing yesterday?

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: The fact of the matter is this, Premier: You've had two budgets, you've had two years, you've ripped another $200 million right out of Toronto, you've ripped over $300 million out of the GTA from a tax that you said was wrong.

In a recent meeting with Jean-Guy Bélanger, one of my new-found allies and friends, the head of the hotel and restaurant workers' union, he says that, "The commercial concentration tax taxes the space that working men and women, such as dishwashers, cooks, bartenders and waiters, use for their jobs," that it's a tax on jobs, that it's a tax on people, that it's a tax on exports.

I agreed with him, Premier, and I agreed that, in your absence and your lack of leadership, it would now be me to lead the fight for the brothers and the sisters fighting desperately for their jobs here in Toronto. You've had two years. The hotels are going bankrupt. The Sutton Place Hotel is now in receivership. Don't tell me anything about the normal course of events --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: You've had ample opportunity --

The Speaker: Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Harris: Will you today live up to your commitment to repeal the commercial concentration tax as one of the measures to give the heart and soul of this province, downtown Toronto, a chance to survive?

Hon Mr Rae: I must say to the honourable member, I know how difficult it is in opposition. You go into these meetings and a group of people say, "We'd like to repeal the tax." I want to say to the honourable member that I think he's shown admirable courage in the face of enormous odds to go into one of those meetings and say: "Yes, I agree with you. That's a tax I'm going to fight to remove." Let me tell you something, that's what we've come to expect.

I say to the honourable member very directly we are obviously listening to what people are telling us. The Treasurer is reviewing very carefully the impacts and looking very hard at all these issues.

But I want to come back to another fundamental point. The honourable member will go into a meeting and say, "Yes, let's cut that tax, let's get rid of that." Then he'll go into another meeting and say, "Let's spend more money there," and "We support the auditor when he says, 'Let's spend more money here or there on a selective basis.'" Then he turns around and says, "Your deficit is too high." Those are the kinds of contradictions which the people of Ontario are beginning to understand only too well.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is to the Premier. It's related to his policy -- or perhaps I should say policies -- of dealing with members of his cabinet who are part of a police investigation.

The member for Kitchener, Mr Ferguson, resigned, based on allegations dating back over 20 years. The member for Elgin, Mr North, resigned following an allegation of misconduct. Both of these incidents were surrounded by a great deal of media attention.

Premier, I've been advised of an ongoing police investigation dating back to August of this year involving a number of very serious allegations related to the Minister of Government Services and raising questions of conflict of interest and political influence in the awarding of a government contract; allegations which, to my knowledge, you have not addressed publicly, perhaps because this matter has received little media attention.

Premier, could you indicate today to the House why you have not taken action in respect of this situation, and how Mr Wilson's case differs from those of Messrs Ferguson and North?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member should know that I can't comment on any allegation that he might make with respect to an investigation. It would be inappropriate for me to do so.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I think if you review Hansard, I was not making any allegations. I was asking the Premier specific questions in respect to the distinction between the problems he's encountered with Mr North and Mr Ferguson and why he has dealt differently with this particular case.

In my view, this case -- certainly on the surface they are extremely serious allegations, and some of the facts are clear and indisputable. For example, Mr Wilson did private business with a company doing business with his ministry. His family was dealing with the company while the tender was open. The company was awarded a contract. The company awarded the contract was paid by Mr Wilson the day after the tender was called. There are serious irregularities in the tendering process itself, including a decision to bypass the 10% bid bond requirement, even though it was stipulated in the tender. There a number of other serious considerations that the Premier should be aware of.

Again, I ask him, why has he taken a different tack with respect to this matter than he did with Mr North and Mr Ferguson?

Hon Mr Rae: I don't think I can add very much to the answer I've given, except to say that I would not comment in any way, shape or form on an investigation, or indeed whether such an investigation is taking place.

Mr Runciman: I don't know. If the Premier is unaware of this, I'd appreciate his being more forthcoming. I would assume that he would be made aware of any investigation that involves a member of cabinet. This investigation was in the media; this investigation was commented upon in the media -- I'll grant you, regional media, the Kingston Whig-Standard -- in August of this year. The investigation is ongoing and, I'm advised by the OPP, should be concluded some time within the next few weeks.

I'm asking you, Premier, based on what's happened here, the fact that the minister clearly was doing business with this firm while it was involved in the tendering process with his own ministry, there are significant irregularities. And I'm not saying anything that's not part of the public record here. These are serious concerns, serious allegations, and I ask you why you haven't dealt with it. What's the differences between the allegations made in respect to Mr North and Mr Ferguson? Have you talked to anyone? Are you familiar with this case? Have you spoken to Mr Wilson? Have you spoken to the deputy? Have you spoken to anyone in respect to this case? Why is this being handled differently?

Hon Mr Rae: I say very directly to the honourable member that all kinds of allegations can be made against an individual, and frequently those allegations are such that the information is passed on and in the ordinary course of events they're the subject of some investigation by the OPP. I think it's neither right or fair for me to comment on that in any way, shape or form. I have no intention of doing so, and I think what I've done and the practice I've followed is quite consistent with the approaches I'm following in this regard.

1450

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Premier. By way of preamble, yesterday the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology made a statement in the House about a $4.8-million loan to a company that, if it's successful and if it meets the preconditions of the loan agreement, may create 230 jobs over the next five years. That works out to less than one job per week; this, at a time when we are losing 500 jobs a day and at a time when a plant closes in Ontario every three days. The rhetoric of the announcement would lead one to believe that this could be the second coming of the Industrial Revolution. This event was considered of such importance that not the minister but the Premier himself travelled to Cambridge yesterday afternoon to make a speech to the company's representatives. Today the Premier just commented that that was where he was and that he was doing things that were of great importance.

I hasten to add that I have no problem with the support this company is receiving, none whatsoever. The only thing I would comment on is that while we were in government we used to make announcements of this type, of this scope and of this size, several times a month, and we used to do it by a simple press release.

I now want to get to the heart of my question. I have a copy of the Premier's itinerary for yesterday that was distributed to members in the legislative precinct and to the media. What it says is that at 12 pm the Premier would be at the consular corps luncheon at the Ontario Club, Commerce Court South. This luncheon is hosted by the consular corps. It's an annual event so that the Premier can meet and mingle with those members of foreign representations in Toronto. It is considered of such importance that many consuls invite their ambassadors to attend.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place the question, please.

Mr Kwinter: Yesterday, Mr Premier, over 200 people, including consuls, ambassadors and their wives attended the luncheon in anticipation of your presence at this event. There was only one problem: You didn't show up. You didn't send a representative. You didn't do anything; nothing. They didn't hear from you. Someone stood up and said, "The Premier is not coming."

Mr Premier, you didn't have the courtesy, the grace and the good manners to honour a commitment that you yourself made. It's listed in your itinerary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member ask the question, please.

Mr Kwinter: I am asking the question. I am saying that the members of the consular corps are justifiably embarrassed and upset. Mr Premier, you and your government have been accused of incompetence, you have been accused of inexperience --

The Speaker: Would the member please place the question.

Mr Kwinter: -- and now we can add one more, and that is stupidity. How else can you explain --

Interjections.

The Speaker: All right, just relax. Would the member for Wilson Heights please take his seat. Through it all, I don't know if the Premier actually heard a question, but there was a question with respect to his attendance.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will just say that there was some change in my plans, which was communicated to members of the consular corps, who were having their annual Christmas lunch. I will be attending a major reception, in fact hosting a reception, in January, so I indicated very clearly --

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Now you've got to host it to make up for it.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it's part of my normal schedule of events. If members of the consular corps came expecting to see me, I'm sorry I wasn't there, but there will be many other occasions on which I will be there and able to meet with them.

Mr Kwinter: Unfortunately, this is a pattern of this Premier. He did not attend. To bring it closer to home, this morning on his schedule it says that he is going to have a photo opportunity with the Queen's Park pages at the main staircase today. What happened? All of the kids got dressed up. They all came out. He didn't show. He doesn't show at these things. So this itinerary is a fiction. All I have to say to you, Mr Premier --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Kwinter: -- is that I think you owe the consular corps --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order and the member to place his question, please.

Mr Kwinter: I think you owe the consular corps an apology, and I think you owe the people of Ontario an apology. As the personification of this government, as the so-called head of state of this province, you have embarrassed the people of Ontario, you've embarrassed the province and you should do the right thing and apologize to both of those groups.

Hon Mr Rae: I feel very badly about the pages. I was in cabinet and, as the member will appreciate, sometimes in terms of the schedule these things happen. I had cabinet today and couldn't simply walk out of cabinet at the appropriate time.

I would say to the honourable member that I look forward on many occasions to meeting with the consular corps, which I do on a regular basis and will continue to do on a regular basis.

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY MAILING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier regarding his government's concerted efforts to smear its critics.

Premier, in an NDP fund-raising letter signed by you personally -- Bob Rae, not Mr Piper, not somebody else -- dated October 14, you allege that your opposition, which you call "the Liberal right and the Tory right," would only provide three weeks of maternity leave in Ontario.

Premier, thanks to the federal government, six months is the law of the land and it is simply not true that any opposition to you could, even if they wanted to -- and I don't know where you would find anybody who would want to -- provide only three weeks of maternity leave. I would ask you this: Unless you can produce one shred of evidence to support your claim, I ask you to correct the record today, to admit that this is a fabrication and to apologize for yet another blatant effort to smear anybody who opposes the direction you are going in.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It may be that from time to time we have legitimate differences of opinion, or perhaps we have expressions of a different point of view. I think to blow this up into something, a letter that was sent in the middle of October, is a little strange.

Mr Harris: Quite frankly, telling the truth is something that many people in this province took for granted from their political leadership until the Minister of Northern Development and Mines came along and until the new Bob Rae standards came along.

Earlier in this place today, in response to the member for Renfrew North, you said: "What would you do? You'll make up anything that comes into your head. Anything, you make up. It bears no relationship to the facts." Premier, you just wrote and signed a letter that you made up in your head, that bore no relationship to the facts. I've asked you to apologize for misrepresenting or lying to the people of this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable leader of the third party knows that he has used an unparliamentary term. I would ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Harris: I have, and I will withdraw that. Let me move on, since the Premier won't apologize for that, and ask him about this. The letter of October 14 goes on to say, "Our first step" -- this is to get money out of unsuspecting, unwary people of this province -- "is to expand pay equity to include 400,000 more Ontario women."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Harris: Premier, you know that's not true. You know you broke that promise last Thursday. Why did you personally sign such a letter, with such blatant untruths in it, in an effort to extract an extra dollar from the unsuspecting public of the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I'll tell you: because the Minister of Labour introduced legislation last week which will in fact extend pay equity to 420,000 women. He knows that full well. It will in fact provide for fairer comparisons in terms of proxy and on the proportional basis. He knows that full well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

1500

Hon Mr Rae: The only issue before us with respect to pay equity, since he's raised it in the rhetorical way that he has, is the period of time over which this will be staged in.

I will say to you, Mr Speaker, that we are phasing it in --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Have you read your householder lately, Bob? You said --

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Rae: -- but to suggest that we're not doing it or not extending it is quite untrue. It's quite untrue.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: The members --

Mr Harris: You cannot tell the truth. I know your cabinet can't. I know you have no standards. Can't you tell the truth?

Interjections.

The Speaker: No, no. All right, the leader of the third party -- I'd ask first that the House come to order.

Interjections.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): -- to send out hate literature --

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the honourable leader of the third party, followed by the honourable member for York Mills, to both in succession withdraw the unparliamentary language which was used. Then perhaps we can carry on in a calmer --

Mr Harris: I withdraw that remark.

Mr Turnbull: I will withdraw the statement on the understanding that --

The Speaker: No, the member may take his seat. Order. Will the member take his seat? If it's of any assistance to the member, all that's required is a simple withdrawal. Nothing else needs to be said, and I do appreciate the fact that the member withdrew the remark.

Mr Turnbull: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of the Environment and the responsible for the greater Toronto area.

Last week, my friend across the way, the member for Markham, made a statement in the Legislature with respect to a document that has come to be in his possession, which he says comes from the office for the greater Toronto area, a document that he says is the discussion paper that the Interim Waste Authority will be circulating with respect to compensation. Compensation --

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: Can you take a deep breath and just --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Durham West take his seat? I ask that members exercise a bit more restraint and that the member for Durham West direct his question to the chair.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was trying to get to the question of a document that has been circulated, and the member for Markham has a copy of it. It has to do with the compensation package that is being considered by the IWA.

My constituents are very concerned about that because no matter what happens in terms of my area and in terms of my constituency, this question of compensation, while it will never restore the community's faith in the process that has been continuously visited upon them, dump site after dump site, they believe this is a very important document.

My question to the minister is this: When will we know or have an idea or even begin to discuss the crucial issue? When will the IWA go to the communities with some sort of assurance that the damage that the dumps are going to create will be kept at a minimum, that their property values are protected and that they will know they will have as minimal an impact as possible on their way of life?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I certainly share the member's view that this is a very serious issue that must be addressed. At the time that Walter Pitman, the chair of the Interim Waste Authority, made the announcement that the list of potential landfill sites had been significantly reduced as they go into the next stage of the selection of the three preferred sites, he indicated that a discussion paper about compensation would be released very shortly. He did not give a date, but I understand that it is going to be shortly.

I believe that people who may be directly affected have quite rightly demanded that the Interim Waste Authority develop a position on acquisition of land, property values, community control of landfill operations and good design and operation to reduce the impacts of a landfill. There will, of course, be public consultation at the time the discussion paper is released, and I hope that during that period the very real concerns of the residents in Durham West can be addressed.

Mr Wiseman: As I mentioned, the member for Markham just last week flashed before this House a copy of a document that he says is this consultation paper. I know my community has a copy of this paper, thanks to the member opposite who circulated it. How could it be that all the members of this House are not afforded the same privileges with respect to obtaining this documentation? It raises the question as to the source of this document and whether or not the IWA is truly at arm's length from the process when members opposite can get documentation and we can't.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me reaffirm yet again that indeed the Interim Waste Authority is at arm's length from the government and is an independent agency that is fulfilling the direction of the government, which is to seek three landfill sites within the greater Toronto area to deal with the waste of the greater Toronto area.

If the member for Markham is circulating a paper, let me assure the member that it is not the final version of any compensation paper, because I said in response to his first question that it has not yet been released. I think it is, quite frankly, irresponsible to circulate draft versions of papers on an issue of such very real concern to people and to create even additional uncertainty to that which I know those people are already feeling.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): In the absence of the Premier, I'll ask my question of the Minister of Revenue. Minister, this has to do with your discriminatory tax against people who purchase used cars. I just want to give you a couple of quick examples.

I have an unemployed worker in my riding who paid $400 for a 1985 compact car. The Canadian Red Book value is $2,000. Based on the Red Book value, the tax would be $180; $180 for a car that he paid $400 for and a car that doesn't run. So his option is to get it towed to a dealer, which would cost $75, have it appraised, which would cost $50, pay the $180 in tax, which amounts to 40% of the purchase price, if you can imagine, to your government, and then hope that somewhere down the line you will reimburse.

I have a student who paid $200 for a car from a friend with a Red Book value of $1,000. The tax on that, under your tax, amounts to $80, again 40% of what he actually paid.

This new tax penalizes the unemployed, the working poor, students and anyone else who has to buy a used car for whatever reason. My question is: Will you amend this tax law to allow these people to submit proof of purchase and to pay only the provincial sales tax of 8%, because they cannot afford the cash-flow that's necessary to get the appraisals and the towing of the vehicles and everything else that's necessary, and submit an appeal to prove to you that they only paid that amount? It's totally discriminatory against the poor in this province. Will you amend your unfair tax law?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): I thank the member for the question and the opportunity to respond.

As many of you are aware in this House and this Legislature, this is a new program that was introduced with the Treasurer's budget. We are presently consulting with the Treasurer, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Minister of Transportation on how the program is working, as the program just came into effect on October 1.

We are looking at perhaps making some administrative changes to deal with some of the consumer and client issues as they've come to the counters at the Ministry of Transportation. I would like to inform the member that we are looking at amendments, possibly within consultation with the other three ministries that are involved in this program.

1510

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): By way of supplementary, Madam Minister, I too have been receiving a number of complaints about this hidden tax imposed by you on the sale of used cars. I was quite interested to hear that you have been consulting with the Ministry of Transportation.

Madam Minister, I think you should be aware that an auction was held by the Ministry of Transportation on October 29, 29 days after the imposition of this tax. A number of cars were sold. Many of the cars sold were below the Canadian Red Book valuation, yet the tax was paid on the amount that was bid.

Let me give you two examples: 1987 Chevrolet Scottsdale, the bid price, $4,000 -- there was a retail sales tax paid of $320, 8%. The Red Book value by the Ministry of Transportation: $7,150. Item 54, a 1987 Ford Crown Victoria, bid price $750, retail sales tax paid, $60; the Red Book value: $5,975.

Will you give to the people in this province the exemption and consideration you are giving to yourself through the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Transportation?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: The retail sales tax changes, as we all know, came into effect on October 1 of this year. I believe you said the date of the sale was October 29. I don't know how this issue occurred. It was handled at the Ministry of Transportation, and my colleague the Minister of Transportation has heard the question and will look into it, as will I at the Ministry of Revenue.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. New question, the member for Lanark-Renfrew.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister provided a response. You cannot provide a response and then send the question somewhere else. She should have referred it at the beginning.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. As the minister is aware, Ontario's major industries are being placed in financial jeopardy due to Hydro rate increases. Both Falconbridge, and General Motors in Oshawa, will face a $9-million rate increase this year. Ontario's major industries are telling us they can't remain competitive in this province because of excessive rate increases. Will the minister issue a directive to the board of Ontario Hydro to cap the rate increase at 2% for 1993?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): The direct answer to the member's question is no. A short-term, short-sighted approach like the member is suggesting, of just capping one year's rate increase without looking some distance into the future and understanding the potential impact of that kind of action, is just unacceptable to this government.

We are in the process, since September, of taking on the job of looking at Ontario Hydro's entire rate structure -- it's a very complex rate structure -- and looking specifically at the industrial rate structure in this province and how we can start to associate industrial rates that customers in this province pay to the huge surplus of energy that's out there. We will be in the position, in a very short time, to come forward with a very responsible package.

Mr Jordan: The minister didn't hesitate to use his directive power when he wanted to fire the president of Ontario Hydro. Now he's afraid to use his directive power, which he fought so hard to get under Bill 118, to bring Hydro rate increases somewhere near the rate of inflation.

An analysis by Grant's magazine, a prominent international publication for investors, indicates that the poor performance of Ontario Hydro has contributed to a drop in the Canadian dollar and has detracted from the strength of Ontario's credit rating.

If you will not give direction to the board, Mr Minister, what assurances will you give to Ontario's industries and investors that they will have certainty of supply and some certainty of reasonable cost?

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, the member's a couple of months out of date. I announced in September, at the time that the OEB reported on the rate increase as a result of its hearings this year for next year's rates, that we had an objective, to get the Hydro rates to the inflation rate as quickly as we could possibly responsibly get them there and to hold them there for the rest of this decade.

The package that we're now working on, including the industrial rates package, is a package that's designed precisely to provide some relief in the industrial sector in the short run and to create stability in the rate structure of Ontario Hydro in this province for a considerable period of time in the long run without jeopardizing, as the member would do, the financial viability of that corporation.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Labour has a response to a question asked earlier.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'd like to respond to the question from the member for Waterloo North regarding WCB coverage of students and field placements.

Last summer, the WCB adopted interim guidelines that would cover all students under WCB in case of an accident on the job. This decision was carried out in response to employer concerns about a lack of consistent policies on coverage for students. This was an advantage to most employers, including most hospitals, our schedule 1 employers, because they did not incur any additional costs.

The member has expressed concern about a small segment of employers, such as ambulance services, because they do not fall under this category. They're under the schedule 2 category and must pay the costs if a student has an accident. To help resolve this issue with these employers, the board is undertaking consultations this winter with employers, workers and sponsors of training programs. It is very important that these training programs continue, and the Workers' Compensation Board is taking measures to ensure this happens.

It is also true that these students are exposed to the same risks as the paid workers and are entitled to the same protection and accident benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'd like to indicate my dissatisfaction with the response given by the Minister of Revenue to both myself and the member for Mississauga West.

The Speaker: The member who asked the question is entitled to file dissatisfaction. I trust that if he is in fact dissatisfied, he will find the necessary document at the table.

PETITIONS

MENINGOCOCCAL DISEASE

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I'd like to present a petition on behalf of the member for Cornwall, Mr John Cleary. There are 4,601 signatures and the petition goes like this:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

"The guidelines for control of meningococcal disease developed by the advisory committee on epidemiology state that those individuals who have had 'close contact' with a case of meningococcal disease are to be notified and administered antibiotics. One of the defining characteristics of 'close contact' is exposure through sharing of food or beverages. Since it is common practice for children in all grades at the elementary level to share food, drinks and chewing gum, we ask that the present guidelines be amended so that classroom contacts may be treated as 'close contacts' rather than 'casual contacts.' Parents of children who may have had close contact with an infected classmate have a right to be informed by their public health officials so that they can take the appropriate preventive measures."

There are 4,601 signatures. I have signed the petition myself on behalf of Mr Cleary. Thank you.

1520

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Again, I add to the thousands of signatures on the issue of casino gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly, along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I sign this with great pleasure.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas independent and non-partisan economic studies have concluded that the proposed changes to Ontario labour legislation will increase job losses; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in investment in Ontario; and

"Whereas they will seriously undermine the recovery and the maintenance of a sound economic environment in the province,

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

"That the government of Ontario declare a moratorium on any proposed changes to the labour legislation in the best interests of the people of Ontario."

It's signed by 45 residents of Mississauga and the Metropolitan Toronto area, and I have also signed it.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition supported by a large number of people throughout the Muskoka area of my riding, and it goes:

"Whereas recent incidents at Beaver Creek minimum security prison in Gravenhurst, the latest involving the escape of a convicted murderer and the following alleged rape and beating of a local resident, have caused extreme concern among residents of the south Muskoka area regarding their future safety,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a permanent canine unit in Bracebridge and to increase the number of OPP at Bracebridge to a level which will ensure the protection of the residents of this area."

CONSENT TO TREATMENT

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario will be reviewing Bill 109, consent to treatment legislation, through the committee of the whole on Thursday, December 3, 1992;

"Whereas this legislation has undergone some 200 amendments from its introduction;

"Whereas the presumed age of consent of 16 years was removed from the legislation through these amendments;

"Whereas the removal of the age of consent interferes with the necessary role of parents in Ontario to support the medical, dental and mental health needs of children in Ontario,

"We, the executive directors of children's aid societies in the province of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To make the families of Ontario aware of this legislation; and

"To reinstate the age of 16 as the age of consent."

I have signed this petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario government does not have a mandate to declare Ontario officially bilingual."

This is signed by approximately 1,900 people. The names were gathered at the London Western Fair in September and I'm just doing it now. I have assigned my name to this and dated it for your information.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I have a petition to the members of provincial Parliament from Father J. Henry Cassano and parishioners at Seaforth and they come from the Seaforth, Goderich and Brucefield area, and also a petition -- it is the same -- from the area of Zurich, Hensall, Dashwood and Exeter. It reads:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38 which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of a legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of a legal holiday and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I do so sign.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, to condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and to reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London.

I've affixed my signature, and it's signed by a number of residents.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have another petition to the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding the amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act which proposes wide-open Sunday shopping and elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday, and it reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of legal holiday and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

This is signed by 33 of the members of St Stephen of Hungary parish, 155 Bruce Street, in London, Ontario. I have added my name to this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'd like to introduce a petition on behalf of my colleague Marilyn Churley, the member for Riverdale. It's signed by 19 employees from Holy Name Catholic school.

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 recognizes the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and in keeping with this, the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 104,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas these students represent 30% of the total number of students in this area, yet have access to just 20% of the total residential assessment and 9.5% of the pooled corporate assessment; and

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is able to spend $1,678 less on each of the elementary school students and $2,502 less on each of its secondary school students than our public school counterpart,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned so that Ontario's two principal educational systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, a very fine petition:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected and respected Speaker by removing from that position the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

1530

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from residents of Middlesex county, who ask the Legislative Assembly to set aside the report of arbitrator John Brant because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, and it is not in the best interests of the London and Middlesex area residents. While other plans exist, they believe that this one has provided too extensive an area of annexation to the city of London, will jeopardize agricultural land, the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life, and I have signed my name to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital

Bill Pr65, An Act respecting the City of London.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr71, An Act to revive Women in Crisis (Northumberland County).

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr71, An Act to revive Women in Crisis (Northumberland County).

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF LINCOLN ACT, 1992

On motion by Mr Hansen, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the Town of Lincoln.

CITY OF TORONTO (NATURAL GAS PURCHASE PROGRAM) ACT, 1992

On motion by Mr Marchese, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

INSTITUTE FOR CHRISTIAN STUDIES ACT, 1992

On motion by Mr Marchese, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr64, An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

ADVOCACY ACT, 1992, AND COMPANION LEGISLATION / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'INTERVENTION ET LES PROJETS DE LOI QUI L'ACCOMPAGNENT

Consideration of Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons / Loi concernant la prestation de services d'intervention en faveur des personnes vulnérables; Bill 108, An Act to provide for the making of Decisions on behalf of Adults concerning the Management of their Property and concerning their Personal Care / Loi prévoyant la prise de décisions au nom d'adultes en ce qui concerne la gestion de leurs biens et le soin de leur personne; Bill 109, An Act respecting Consent to Treatment / Loi concernant le consentement au traitement; and Bill 110, An Act to amend certain Statutes of Ontario consequent upon the enactment of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 / Loi modifiant certaines lois de l'Ontario par suite de l'adoption de la Loi de 1992 sur l'intervention, de la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement et de la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I'd just like to explain what's happening. We're on the second sessional day, and at 5:45 pm on that sessional day, which is today, "those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bills and any amendments thereto and report the bills to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions" etc.

There was also an agreement at that time, an understanding, that there would be all-party agreement to divide the time equally. There was another agreement that rather than having the requirement of five people stand for each division, if either of the critics indicate there's a recorded division, then that would be adequate. If you agree with those agreements we had previously, we'll proceed that way. Do we agree? We agree.

Minister, do you have a comment to make?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I certainly do agree with what you've set out except that I believe we have unanimous agreement which supersedes one point. If I could just go through that before we move on with clause-by-clause consideration, there are a number of matters that affect this afternoon's proceedings that we have agreed to.

First of all, we have unanimous consent to end the debate on these bills at 5:30 pm today, at which time the Chair will read all of the amendments into the record and will then put all the questions. We continue the unanimous consent to divide the time for this debate equally between the three parties. And we have all-party agreement to move all Bill 110 motions and vote on them, even if some may technically be out of order. There are a number of proposed amendments to the Mental Health Act that have been discussed with the opposition, including amendments that allow us to bring the Mental Health Act changes into force in advance of the rest of the bill.

There's also an amendment to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act identical to the amendment made at the standing committee to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This is just to make the two acts consistent.

The proposed amendments are quite important, and I'm grateful to the opposition for agreeing to support them.

1540

The Chair: Okay. So we agree, first of all, that we end at 5:30; secondly, when there's a vote, only one person can stand; and thirdly, with Bill 110, everything will be deemed to be in order at that time. We all agree on that? Do you agree?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Yes, Mr Chair. We concur with the procedures the Minister of Health has put forward as per the agreement by the House leaders. I am asking further, and I believe that we have, unanimous consent to proceed with the bills in the order of Bill 74, Bill 109, Bill 108 and then Bill 110.

The Chair: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): One of the things about the agreement that upsets me a little bit, which I will agree to because my House leader did, is that we were going to deal with this debate yesterday, Tuesday, and I had made a request to the government House leader that he give us just a little more time so that we could go through these amendments.

I don't think anybody who's been watching these proceedings on television is under the illusion or under the understanding that either opposition party is trying to stall. We have made our arguments in a succinct manner and put them forward, but we would have appreciated just a little time to deal with all the amendments, even in a short period of time. We had asked that the time be extended from 5:45 to 7 o'clock so that we'd have an hour and a quarter more in order to get through the amendments in some fashion.

It's really unfortunate that the government House leader, at this stage of this bill, which, of all the legislation we have dealt with in this Legislature over the two years this government has been in office -- there has probably not been more cooperation between the various parties to try to reach a product that is workable in the end. It's unfortunate that the government House leader did not grant this minor concession at the very end of it. It would have, in my view, wrapped up a very consultative process. What's an hour and a quarter, when we're going to be talking till midnight tonight anyway? I think it was kind of childish on the part of the government House leader not to grant that request on Monday.

Hon Ms Lankin: I appreciate the fact that the member opposite is supporting the all-party agreement on this. I would just comment that I also agree with him that there has been tremendous cooperation of all three parties with respect to amendments to this legislation and to the process here in the House.

I do want to point out, however, that his reference to the events of yesterday and the request from his party to extend debate on this to 7 o'clock also were brought about as a result of the fact that there was a vote scheduled for yesterday which would have delayed us moving into commencing our committee of the whole deliberations, so it's not quite appropriate to suggest that it was simply denied.

In fact, I should suggest that moving committee of the whole today was to accommodate us to be able to have more time, because there aren't scheduled votes or other procedures today before moving into committee of the whole that would have delayed our commencing the discussion, other than if I go on too long, which takes up too much time and takes it away from the member opposite.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): You would never do that.

Hon Ms Lankin: I would never do that. Let me say that the discussions of the House leaders today -- and all three parties participated and agreed to this time schedule -- have as much to do with other issues that are scheduled for this evening's business.

The Chair: We'll now proceed, as agreed, with Bills 74, 109, 108 and 110. I believe the last motion that was moved was by Mr Wilson, the member for Simcoe West. It was section 16.1, and the debate was on at that time. Shall we continue?

Mr Sterling: Mr Chair, I had been, along with Mr Wilson, carrying this particular amendment. Under the legislation, Bill 74, as it now stands, if a person is dissatisfied with how an advocate has behaved or carried on his duties, there is going to be a discipline process whereby a member of the public can go to somebody and complain about this activity.

My concern, however, is that the legislation gives to the commission the right to set up the disciplinary process. Our amendment sets out a specific discipline process. I had said to the minister that my greatest concern about this is the fact that this is not like any other profession that is self-regulated.

We have here an employer-employee relationship. I'm not putting this forward just for the protection of the public; I'm also putting it forward for the protection of the commission, because it's my view that if you put an employer-employee into another relationship, of the determinant of a disciplinary process, the issues as between employer and employee will get mixed in with the discipline process. I think that at the very least the minister should set forward the discipline process in order to ensure that there is adequate representation from the community outside of the commission and that kind of thing.

That is the thrust of my argument in terms of putting forward this amendment. I want to protect the public and I want to protect the commission from not getting into employer-employee arguments when dealing with discipline procedures.

Mrs Sullivan: Once again, I want to underline our support for this amendment. We believe that the complaints review process which the ministry has put forward in the bill is inadequate in terms of notice and inadequate in terms of process in dealing with complaints with respect to the commission itself or the work of advocates.

Once again, I want to underline that the government amendments would include no process whereby complaints against the commission itself, on the basis of decisions that are made by the commission, can be placed. Further, if those complaints were placed, the commission itself and the chair of the commission would be the ultimate judge of whether those complaints are valid. It seems to me that this is an absolutely wrong approach to any complaints review process. We will be supporting this amendment, and I urge the government to do so as well.

Hon Ms Ziemba: We will not be accepting this motion, and we believe our complaints processes have adequately addressed the concerns of complainants and in a fair manner. We have included in our amendments a written policy procedure and we've provided for an impartial tribunal to hear complaints as necessary and to also take out any frivolous complaints that might come forward.

I just want to respond to one point that was brought forward about complaints that might arise for the commission itself and all commissions that exist within the Ontario government. When there is a complaint against a commission, it is dealt with at the Ombudsman's level, and we feel that will happen with this particular commission as well.

Mr Sterling: I only want to say to the minister that I've recently received a letter from the parent of a child who is in a psychiatric institution. As you know, there are advocates within the psychiatric institutions. This parent tried to go to the Ombudsman to have the particular problem resolved. They were told that the Ombudsman would not become involved in the affair. There was no means to get at the conduct of the advocate within a psychiatric institution.

My concern is specifically that, that there are no means of redress outlined in this bill. The government continues to proceed with creating advocates. There are still question marks as to who these people are, ie, what training will be required etc. There are great regulating powers within this act. It's going to cost a lot of money. All we want to do is nail down this one area in terms of discipline. I cannot say any more, but I will predict this: that this part will be the downfall of this commission and will eventually lead to its destruction.

1550

The Chair: Any further questions or comments?

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chair, could I request that this vote be held for the stacked vote at the conclusion of the proceedings?

The Chair: We have to take a vote on each section. Shall section 16.1 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Mrs Sullivan: Division, please.

The Chair: Division? Deferred.

Now we will deal with subsection 17(1) and (1.1). That is a government motion.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that subsection 17(1) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Instructions

"(1) An advocate who is providing advocacy services to a person shall not do anything that is inconsistent with instructions or wishes that the person expressed, orally or in any other manner, while capable of instructing an advocate.

"Revocation of instructions

"(1.1) A person to whom advocacy services are provided and who is capable of instructing an advocate may revoke or revise his or her instructions."

The Chair: Any questions, any comments? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 17, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 18 carry? Carried.

We will now deal with subsection 19(3).

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that subsection 19(3) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Revocation of instructions

"(3) A person referred to in subsection (2) may revoke or revise instructions that he or she gave to an advocate."

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Shall subsection 19(3) carry? Carried.

Shall section 19, as amended, carry?

Interjections: Carried.

The Chair: We will now deal with section 19.1.

Mrs Sullivan: I move that the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on the administration of justice, be amended by adding the following section:

"Appeal re status

"19.1 An advocate who determines that a person is a vulnerable person shall,

(a) advise the person that the advocate has made that determination and the reasons for the determination;

(b) advise the person that he or she may request the commission to review that determination in accordance with its review procedures;

(c) advise the person that he or she is entitled to consult a lawyer."

The Chair: Any questions? Any comments?

Mrs Sullivan: This amendment is proposed because a number of actions can kick in once an advocate has determined, on the basis of whatever criterion the advocate chooses to use, that a person is a vulnerable person. The advocate has rights of access to confidential records of a clinical or medical nature or other nature. It may be records relating to their involvement in vocational or educational activities in terms of dealing with people who provide the person's housing and other health care services.

The advocate would have the right to access, as I've said, the medical records in certain circumstances without the consent of the person, and the person himself or herself may well have other people who indeed provide the advocacy role that the person has himself or herself chosen.

There is no provision in the bill that would enable the person to be informed that a determination about that person has been made by an advocate, nor that the person could choose to correct the determination that that person is vulnerable. The definition of "vulnerability" is one which is fairly broad with respect to the ability of the person to express wishes or to determine and act on rights available to him or to her.

It's logical, it seems to me, that when the advocate has so much power in terms of actions surrounding a person who is determined to be vulnerable, the person himself or herself should be able to question that judgement. This would enable an appeal to be made to the commission through the regular commission review procedures -- which, of course, we believe are faulty, but none the less it's the only thing that the government will allow -- and the person can in fact let it be known that he or she does not believe that he or she is vulnerable.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments?

Mr Sterling: We will be supporting that amendment, Mr Chairman.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Respecting this motion, vulnerable persons will normally and generally call advocates for assistance or advocates will receive a third-party referral; therefore, making determinations would be an unnecessary labelling.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments?

Mrs Sullivan: This is part of the crux of the issue about when the advocate can move in. The minister is operating with the assumptions that advocates will come in on a third-party referral or when called in specifically. In fact, there are provisions in the bill that would enable the advocate to move in without that kind of third-party referral or request. The advocate has the freedom, and indeed the power, to act on his or her own judgement with respect to another person.

The criterion for the judgement is not made available, and the minister is simply surmising that the advocate would only act on the circumstances that she has indicated. It's not true. Indeed, systemic advocacy would insist that the advocate act without request or without, in many cases, third-party referral. I think this kind of a protection to an individual is simply a matter of their personal right.

1600

The Chair: Any further questions or comments? Shall section 19.1 carry?

Interjection: No.

The Chair: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

Mrs Sullivan: I request a division on that vote.

The Chair: The vote will be deferred.

Subsection 20(2).

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that subsection 20(2) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "shall, on request, present identification showing him or her" in the second and third lines and substituting "shall present to the person prescribed by the regulations made under this act identification showing the advocate."

The Chair: Any questions or comments?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I would like to comment that we are introducing this amendment after extensive consultation with the provider groups. This will provide a provision especially for advocates who will have to show identification when they're entering a facility, a controlled-access residence or a private premise to make sure that the person who is actually saying he or she is an advocate is truly an advocate and representing the commission.

Mrs Sullivan: I want to speak to this amendment and you'll forgive me if, in doing so, I have to speak to my own amendment which will immediately follow. We think this is an improvement on the previous drafting and indeed on the entire concept of the advocate being able to enter premises without being appropriately identified.

However, my view is that it still doesn't go far enough. I take you back to the situation at the Toronto Sick Children's Hospital a couple of years ago, when a person wandered the corridors with the intent of molesting children who were resident in that hospital for treatment. The situation that the hospital was left in and the circumstance that the hospital was left in was that the hospital had to use the Trespass to Property Act to challenge the person's right to be there.

When family and friends enter a hospital, the practice, not a statutory practice but certainly the practice which is the policy of every hospital I know about, is that people are required to present themselves at the desk and identify themselves. The advocate, in any facility, is in a different situation clearly than a family member or friend. The advocate is tending on many occasions to be entering that facility or that institution or that hospital to conduct an investigation, to seek facts that might not otherwise be available.

In terms of the protocols, I believe that it should be a statutory requirement that the advocate shall automatically present identification. I concur that in this case there should be a specified person within an institution to whom that identification should be presented. That's clearly part of the government amendment, but the identification should be presented so that any unfolding or untoward obstruction of the advocate is one that the person employed by the facility doesn't have to face latterly. I think the presentation of identification should be automatic.

The Chair: Any further questions? Mrs Churley, any further questions or comments? Shall subsection 20(2) carry? Carried.

We will now deal with an amendment brought by a Liberal motion, section 20(2) --

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, I take it all back and I withdraw my amendment to subsection 20(2).

The Chair: Shall section 20 carry as amended? Carried.

I'd like to deal with the amendment by Mrs Sullivan, subsection 21(2).

Mrs Sullivan: I move that subsection 21(2) of the Bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by inserting the words "facility or" before "controlled-access" in line 1 and line 6.

The Chair: Any questions or comments?

Mrs Sullivan: This one there clearly is no confusion about. This is an amendment that we put in committee. It was an amendment that the third party also put in committee with respect to the right of access to premises or facilities by an advocate.

The government proposal is that the advocate may enter a controlled-access residence, and with that right of entry is allowed entry to the common quarters, the hallways, the public areas of the residence. That controlled-access residence could be an apartment building; it could be any place -- it could be a boarding house -- where there is a limitation on who can come in, at what times and where there are dwelling units within that building.

The amendment which is proposed limits the advocate's entry in a controlled-access residence to those public areas. However, it does not limit the advocate's entry to a facility, which is defined in the act, to those same common areas without the consent of the person involved.

Our view is that the advocate should have no more right of access in a nursing home which, under the Nursing Homes Act, I point out, is considered the home of the person who is resident there, or in the private room of a hospital, once again which has strictures surrounding it in the Public Hospitals Act than the advocate would be allowed in any other controlled-access residence.

As I've indicated, this amendment has been put forward vehemently on other occasions by both the opposition parties and we hope that the government will accept it. It's a serious one and we believe an important one.

Mr Sterling: We very strongly support this. We think the government, through this legislation, is perpetrating a grand invasion of privacy of many of our older citizens in this province.

We do not understand why an advocate has the right to enter the private nursing home room of an individual and we think this is an excessive power that is given to an advocate in those cases. We believe it's an invasion of privacy of many vulnerable people in our province which will not be viewed by them with a great deal of kindness and we think it's not necessary to do this in this legislation.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Mr Chair, we will not be accepting this motion. There are many vulnerable people in institutions who are unfortunately not able to leave their rooms, and this would prohibit an advocate being able to see them. However, if a vulnerable person does not want to see an advocate, the advocate is bound to leave under subsection 17(1), and we feel that this covers all the requirements of privacy.

1610

Mr Sterling: I would like to argue that they could be invited into the room by the vulnerable person. There's nothing to prevent that. They don't need to have any right of access in order to do that. I believe that under section 22 if the advocate believes there is a risk of harm to the vulnerable person, we would agree that perhaps under those circumstances he or she would have a right to go into the private room of an elderly person.

We just don't believe that an advocate should have the right to bust into the private room of an elderly or a vulnerable person, or a person who is not vulnerable. Sometimes these rooms are shared, as you know. You have two people in a room and perhaps there is consultation that goes on between those two as to who their visitors should be or should not be.

We don't believe an advocate needs this right. We think that the power is excessive and that the fewer powers we give to officials to go into, in effect, private residences, the better the laws of this province are. We view the privacy of individuals very strongly in our party and it's obvious that this kind of thought or kind of principle is not evident in the NDP government.

Mrs Sullivan: I think that in discussing this area we should look at what the powers of the advocate are in terms of access to any place where there are people. First of all, the advocate can enter a facility -- maybe a hospital, a nursing home, a home for the aged or a controlled access residence, a group home, an apartment building -- without a warrant any time it's necessary or any time the advocate believes is necessary. That could mean any time of the day or night. The bill says "any time that is reasonable in the circumstances.". We were told quite specifically in committee that "any time that is reasonable in the circumstances" could be 2 o'clock in the morning, 3 o'clock in the morning.

The provisions of these sections of the bill mean that the advocate could enter into a private hospital room, the private dwelling unit, the private room in a group home, the private room in a nursing home or in a home for the aged, without the consent of the person. The minister says that by ensuring that the advocate has only the right of entry to the common areas, the halls and the waiting room and so on, the advocate is prohibited from seeing the person.

Remember, it is the advocate who is making the decision that a vulnerable person is there in the first place, and the advocate is also making the decision that the vulnerable person wants to see him or her in his or her bedroom at any time of the day or night. This is not appropriate. My children are not allowed into my bedroom at all hours of the day or night. Why should a stranger be allowed into another person's bedroom at all hours or at any hour of the day or night, for whatever purpose, without the consent of the person whose room he's entering? It makes no sense in terms of our own rights to privacy and the protection of our own sense of dignity and justice.

I really believe the minister has total blinkers on with this section. The provisions with respect to the advocate's belief that harm is actually occurring to a person are provided for in the next section of the bill, but for an automatic entry, at any time under any circumstances, into any private place is not what the people of Ontario want.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments? Shall subsection 21(2) carry?

Interjection: No.

The Chair: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, I feel very strongly that there should be a division on this section.

The Chair: Therefore, it will be deferred.

Mr Sterling: I feel very, very strongly on division on this.

The Chair: So do you withdraw your own --

Mr Sterling: I will waive that amendment because it is essentially the same amendment as put forward by my Liberal counterpart.

The Chair: We'll now deal with a government motion, subsections 22(2) and (3).

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that subsections 22(2) and (3) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Entry to other premises

"(2) An advocate is entitled to enter premises, without a warrant and at any time that is reasonable in the circumstances, if the advocate has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a vulnerable person in the premises who wants or needs the services of an advocate; and,

"(a) the occupier of the premises does not refuse to allow the advocate to enter; or

"(b) the advocate has reasonable grounds to believe that there would be a substantial risk to the health or safety of the vulnerable person during the time that would be necessary to obtain a warrant under section 23."

The Chair: Any questions or comments?

Mr Sterling: I have a question: What if the advocate doesn't have reasonable grounds? What is the remedy that the vulnerable person seeks or gets?

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, within the act itself, a vulnerable person can say to the advocate, "We do not want to have you in our premises" -- that's under subsection 17(1), I think -- and the advocate would have to leave.

Mr Sterling: So if an advocate breaks into a family and causes significant disruption of its life, continues to break into a family residence, forces himself or herself into a situation -- I mean, we've heard there aren't going to be any discipline procedures for these advocates because the commission is going to be protecting itself with regard to all of these matters. How do you protect the public?

This is an invasion of privacy. You're giving an advocate the right to go into somebody's private residence. You're telling me he has to have reasonable grounds, but if he doesn't have reasonable grounds, there's no remedy. What's the remedy? Does the advocate get fired if he does it twice or three times? You're giving rights to people to enter private residences. You have to balance that off with giving the citizen significant powers as well. You say all that happens is that the advocate leaves. What if he doesn't leave when he's asked to leave? What if that's the contention of the people in the place?

Hon Ms Ziemba: It very clearly says "the occupier of the premises does not refuse to allow the advocate to enter." I think that's very clear. If the occupying person in that premise says, "Please leave," or does not give permission to enter, the advocate will not be entering. They are not breaking in, they are entering; a difference of opinion.

The Chair: Any further comments?

Mrs Sullivan: I'd like to make it very clear what premises are. "Premises" means a private home. "Premises" can mean a place of schooling. "Premises" can mean a workplace. "Premises" can mean a place where recreational activities are taking place that the person is involved in.

But primarily the concern is with respect to the advocate's unwarranted and unrequested entry into a private home, once again, at any time of the day or night. This section would give an advocate the right to enter, any time of the day or night, any of those places I've mentioned. They could show up at a person's workplace. They could show up at the place where they're receiving training, where they're receiving other services. "Premises" is an all-encompassing word that refers to many areas.

Again, the fundamental and prime concern is with respect to the advocate's right to enter a private home. The occupier of the premises is not defined. Is the occupier the vulnerable person himself? Under this act it's only the vulnerable person who must consent. The occupier of the premises is provided with no recourse in not allowing the advocate to enter. The reasonable grounds that there is substantial risk to the person, in my view aren't adequately addressed in other parts of the bill with an incumbency on the advocate to inform appropriate authorities about that risk.

1620

Mr Sterling: I'd like to clarify. I hope the minister has read this legislation, because her comment in response to my concern over the invasion of privacy with regard to individuals makes no sense at all. She read the government motion. The advocate can go into the premises without permission under clause 22(2)(b) of her own amendment. She led us to believe in this Legislature that the advocate wouldn't go in. What I want to know is, what is the remedy for the vulnerable person if in fact this advocate busts into the home as he or she is entitled to under clause 22(2)(b)?

When we give away these rights for people to enter private homes without a warrant, then you are going to see members of my party stand up and ask, what are the remedies when this power has been abused? We've seen that the minister has resisted a disciplinary process being set out in this act and wants to give that over to the commission. I want to know, how is she going to protect those vulnerable people from the intrusion of privacy by her advocates?

Hon Ms Ziemba: As we discussed earlier, there is a complaints process, and this has been established, and the commission will be made up of representatives of persons with disabilities but also by the general public as well, by appointments. We believe this will ensure proper and adequate behaviour by advocates and by anybody who is related to the commission itself.

Mr Sterling: I can only say this: If we are setting up a brand-new set of individuals across this province who are going to have significant powers, if we do not pay attention to the control of those powers and give the public at large some remedies with regard to the abuse of those powers, we are looking to the excuses that will start to flow out of this commission and what these advocates do, which will lead, as I said before, I think to the eventual destruction of the commission as a whole.

I hate to talk like that when we're going into something. I don't understand the reluctance of this minister to try to control what these advocates can or cannot do. I agree you must give them some powers in order to do what is the intent of the act, but surely the people who are going to be sitting on the commission do not want a situation which is going to get out of control or has the potential for getting out of control.

That's what is going to happen here. We don't know who these advocates are. We don't know what kind of training. We don't know what kind of framework is going to be put around them. Many people out there, particularly those people who are pro-life people, are very concerned about what these advocates are going to espouse with regard to that issue. How are they going to express their disapproval when an advocate advises a young person other than the way they would wish them to advise them?

We are seeing the creation of a commission which is going to be expensive and uncontrollable, and the minister continues to protect that commission to an excessive degree.

The Chair: Any further comments? Shall the amendment to subsections 22(2) and (3) carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it, and I declare the motion carried.

Mrs Sullivan: Could that vote go to division?

The Chair: We'll now deal with one of your amendments, Mr Sterling, subsection 22(3.1), if you want to move it.

Mr Sterling: I move that section 22 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following subsection after subsection 22(3):

"Entry to private dwellings

"(3.1) Despite subsections (2) and (3), an advocate is not entitled to enter a private dwelling without a warrant for entry."

The Chair: Any questions or comments?

Mr Sterling: I would not have introduced this amendment if the minister had accepted some kind of jurisdiction over the disciplinary process with regard to advocates. I would not have introduced this amendment if the prior amendment the minister introduced had some kind of remedy for the vulnerable citizen who has had his privacy invaded by an advocate.

I am only introducing this amendment because there are inadequate safeguards to deal with advocates who might step out of line and, number two, because there is no remedy either for the vulnerable person or the family when an advocate invades the privacy in a private dwelling in this province.

As I said before, we do not give lightly to anyone in this province the right to enter a private residence. Police do not have the right to enter a private residence without a warrant. We are not in agreement with allowing an advocate, who is not a police officer, the right to enter a private dwelling without a warrant, in light of the inadequate measures by this government to control or to have a disciplinary process in place to control the activities of advocates in this province.

Mrs Sullivan: We'll be supporting this amendment, and we have an amendment which is identical. I think enough has been said. It's very clear where we stand.

Hon Ms Ziemba: We will not be accepting this amendment. We feel that we have amended our sections in a way that addresses the needs and rights of vulnerable persons and occupiers of private dwellings. As well, we have a great deal of support from the various provider groups that have read our amendments and feel very comfortable with them.

Just to add to that, I would like to remind the members opposite that under the Child and Family Services Act child protection workers also have a right to enter private dwellings without a warrant.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister rightly points out the rights of the child worker, who also is authorized to take other actions of a very different nature than those which an advocate is authorized to take. I suggest to you that if the minister wants to reference another act, she should also have a look at the Nursing Homes Act and the powers of the inspector with respect to entering the specific room or residential portion of that space of a resident.

Mr Sterling: I would assume that a child care worker who exercised this right of entry would be essentially responsible, through this Legislature, through her minister or his minister, with regard to that entry. Children's aid societies are legally responsible for that particular matter. Children's aid societies are very much more in the control of the Minister of Community and Social Services than this commission. This commission is deliberately being set out and apart and away from the minister.

She has said that. The government has purposely done that. We accept that. Therefore you require, in my view, many more controls over the activities of the people who are being given special rights under that arm's-length commission. That is why there is a very significant difference in the examples which she's drawing and the commission which we are trying to set up here today.

It continues to worry me that the minister doesn't understand the structure. She was not involved in the committee hearings. She did not hear the concerns of the parents and the groups that have to deal with these advocates in the future. Again, we continue to express concerns over that issue.

1630

The Chair: Any further questions or comments?

Shall the amendment to subsection 22(3.1) carry?

Interjection: No.

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the motion lost.

Mr Sterling: I'd like a division on that.

The Chair: On the last one I just --

Mr Sterling: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Therefore, it shall be deferred.

Mrs Sullivan: The next amendment I wish to put was to subsection 22(6). Although it appears in a different place, it is the identical amendment proposed by the opposition, which we just dealt with, and it's withdrawn.

The Chair: We'll now deal with a government motion. I believe it's clause 23(1)(a).

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that clause 23(1)(a) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a vulnerable person in the premises wants or needs the services of an advocate."

The Chair: Questions or comments?

Mrs Sullivan: I just wonder if the minister would clarify the addition of two words, "or needs," to what is already before us in the bill.

Hon Ms Ziemba: This is for non-instructed advocacy.

Mrs Sullivan: That's not enough of an explanation.

Hon Ms Ziemba: There will be times that a vulnerable person is at risk, and this also explains "or needs." Also, there are times when a vulnerable person is unable and incapable of instructing an advocate, but there are situations that show that the vulnerable person is in danger of risk of health or in danger of his or her life and is being abused, and this will clarify that.

Mrs Sullivan: Would the minister explain how the new clause (a) amendment which is being put forward interrelates with clause (b) of either the reprinted bill or the proposed amendment? Surely, the need comes from clause (b), or there would be no other reason for the advocate to be there.

Hon Ms Ziemba: It could go under either, and it does clarify the right of an advocate to obtain a warrant for entry.

Mr Sterling: I support the amendment. I think the difference between (a) and (b), quite frankly, is that under (b) it would be required proof that there is a risk, and clause (a) gives the judge or the justice of the peace the power to give one if you could present evidence that several people have talked about the fact that there is a person there, and therefore I think the standard of proof would be less. But I think it's needed. Again, I have no objection when a warrant's been obtained and there's a hearing in front of a justice of the peace, even though it's ex parte, but I think the amendment is supportable.

The Chair: Questions or comments?

Shall clause 23(1)(a) Carried.

We will now deal with another government motion. Do you want to move it?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that subsection 23(1) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by (a) adding "there are reasonable grounds to believe that" at the beginning of clause (b), and (b) adding "there are reasonable grounds to believe that" at the beginning of clause (d).

The Chair: Questions or comments? Shall the motion carry? Carried.

We will now deal with the motion by Mrs Sullivan, subsections 23(6) to (8).

Mrs Sullivan: Considering the votes that have been taken, I believe this motion is now redundant. I'll withdraw it.

The Chair: Shall section 23, as amended, carry? Carried.

We'll now deal with another motion by Mrs Sullivan.

Mrs Sullivan: I move that subsection 24 of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Capacity to consent to access

"(2.1) A vulnerable person is capable of consenting to access to records if the person understands

"(a) the purpose for which the advocate seeks consent for access to the person's records; and

"(b) the reasonably foreseeable consequences of giving or refusing to give his or her consent."

The Chair: Any questions or comments?

Mrs Sullivan: This amendment is proposed to clarify the capability of a person who is determined by the advocate to be vulnerable, and the judgement or the gauge around which that person shall be determined to be capable of consenting to access to what are very private clinical, medical and other records.

We know from the definition of a vulnerable person in the bill that vulnerable persons may have difficulty in expressing themselves, in accessing their own rights. That may not mean, however, that the vulnerable person is incapable in terms of mental capacity of understanding issues. The difficulty may be in resolving issues that affect them on a day-to-day basis.

While there was a fight of long standing for individuals to have access to their own clinical and medical records, which at one time were seen to be the property of the physician or the practitioner in charge, that attitude has changed. It seems to me that a person, although vulnerable, should also be accepted as being capable of providing that consent, and there should be a gauge included in the bill that would describe what that capability is.

We've determined that our recommendation is that the test of capacity should be that the person understands why the advocate wants access to the records and what would happen if the advocate had access to the records or did not have access to the records. We feel that those tests are not too high a test, and that we should not underestimate that a person, while being vulnerable, may also be capable.

1640

The Chair: Any further questions? Any comments? Shall the amendment to subsection 24(2.1) carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.

We'll now deal with a government motion.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that subsection 24(3) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out.

The Chair: Any questions? Any comments?

Mr Sterling: Can I ask why you're striking this out?

Hon Ms Ziemba: This amendment, together with the motions to amend section 24(6) and to add section 29.1, moves the subsection to a more appropriate place in the bill, and it clarifies the enforcement provisions available to an advocate who is seeking to obtain the names, addresses and telephone numbers of family or friends of an incapable vulnerable person. So this is really put in the proper place that it should be.

The Chair: Any further questions? Any further comments?

Shall the amendment to subsection 24(3) carry? Carried.

We have another government motion.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that subsection 24(6) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5)" in the first and second lines and substituting "subsections (2), (4) and (5)."

The Chair: Are there any questions? Any comments? Shall the amendment to subsection 24(6) carry? Carried.

We have another government motion.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that subsection 24(7) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out.

The Chair: Any questions? Any comments?

Mr Sterling: Can I ask why?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes. The client is now entitled to full access to his or her own file, as a result of a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision. The effect of this amendment is to allow advocates, as agents, to have access to all of the information on a client's chart, including third-party identifiers, subject to appropriate duties of confidentiality. The required related confidentiality and disclosure provisions are dealt with later in the motions to amend sections 31, 33, 34 and 38(1).

Mr Sterling: Does this have anything to do with systemic advocacy?

Hon Ms Ziemba: No. This is actually to deal with the vulnerable person giving instruction to have information related to his own files. Again, a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision has come down to warrant that.

The Chair: Any further questions?

Mrs Sullivan: Perhaps the minister would like to go over that again, because in fact this subsection which is being removed is one which would require the striking out from a record of names or other identifiers about a person other than the vulnerable person.

My understanding is that the minister may well have covered that in a different amendment to the act; however, the difficulty was with institutions which didn't want to strike out other names from a cost point of view, and that was the only reason that they didn't want to do it. I'd like to have a little more discussion from the minister on this.

Hon Ms Ziemba: The health care providers and the access to records in hospitals have fully understood that there will be clear instructions and that only certain advocates will be given this particular information under strict confidentiality. This will give more access and will be more helpful both to the hospitals which are providing this information and also to the advocates who need to have this information.

Mr Sterling: I'm going to vote against this, and I'll tell you why: because we're talking about other people. We're not talking about the vulnerable person, we're not talking about the advocate; we're talking about personal identifiers of third parties or third persons whose names appear in some record. I don't buy the fiscal argument, if you want to put it that way, of the hospitals. I think if that happens, then we'll have to find some method of dealing with that.

If this government has such secrecy with regard to personal information, which I think is right and proper, then I don't understand why, if a person gives information about a vulnerable person to a doctor or to another health care provider and that name happens to be in the file, even if it happens to be given in confidence with regard to that health care provider, that third party should be vulnerable to an advocate who may or may not divulge the name of that third party to his client, the vulnerable person, and may do irreparable damage with regard to relationships, family relationships in particular, where family members have tried to help with a vulnerable person, have given history with regard to that person, and that particular remark has been put in the file.

I don't understand why an advocate should be privy to the person's name if in fact the major argument is an expense argument. That may sound strange coming from a Conservative, but the fact of the matter is that I view the personal confidentiality of people as being more important than that, in this case. Therefore, we will oppose this particular amendment by the minister to withdraw this protection for personal privacy from the act.

Mrs Sullivan: When I was reviewing the amendments that were proposed by the minister, I was surprised to see this amendment coming forward. I believe it's there because it was the price of reaching an agreement with health care institutions. I know how difficult it is to erase all personal identifiers other than those relating to the individual. We have certainly seen the difficulty of doing that and the time associated with doing that as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act has been implemented with respect to government.

In this case, the records are perhaps of even more individual sensitivity, or at least equally of individual sensitivity, in that they relate to clinical and medical matters. By example, if there is a procedure that is part of a research process -- I'm thinking only of a hospital, in this case -- each person who was involved in that process of research may well be identified and the outcomes of that research project made available. It depends on the record. In this case, people other than the vulnerable person will be identified and that identification will stay fully documented with the advocate, despite all the provisions of secrecy.

1650

The original intention was that the identifier should be removed, certainly all the issues surrounding the information, whether it relates to procedures or specifics of treatment or specifics of an incidence report. Is the minister satisfied that the provisions that were originally included in this bill -- and I believe this is a substantial enough policy change that in fact it means a significant part of the bill has been reversed -- is she satisfied that this is really an appropriate way to go, or was this the cost of the deal?

Hon Ms Ziemba: If I may respond, I would like to clarify just one more time. There was a recent Supreme Court decision, and that decision said that an individual has the right of access to his particular records. An advocate, as we know, is an agent, not a person who's acting out of that context, and as an agent for the vulnerable person should have the same rights as an individual.

Mr Sterling: I don't believe that Supreme Court decision considered the issue of confidentiality of third parties. Therefore, I think the argument is not valid and I think the argument is being put forward under the guise of a Supreme Court decision in order to justify a political deal drawn between health care providers and this ministry. The deal is that hospitals and health care providers don't want to take the time to erase these names. I say, tough on the health care providers. The protection of individual privacy is more important than the inconvenience to them of erasing these names.

Mrs Sullivan: The decision to which the minister refers relates to access to one's own record, from which personal identifiers of other people would be removed.

The First Deputy Chair (Mr Dennis Drainville): Any further discussion, comments? If not, then Mrs Ziemba has moved an amendment that subsection 24(7) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Is this amendment in order?

The First Deputy Chair: The answer at this point is yes, you can delete a subsection. Shall the amendment as moved by Mrs Ziemba carry?

All those in favour of the amendment carrying, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr Sterling: We would like to divide on that.

The First Deputy Chair: We defer this vote.

We are now moving to a Liberal amendment to section 24.1.

Mrs Sullivan: I move that the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by adding the following section:

"Request for access to records:

"24.1(1) An advocate who wishes access to records under sections 24, 25 or 26 shall make a written request to the operator of the facility, controlled-access residence or program prescribed by the regulations made under this act, as the case may be.

"Application to withhold records:

"(2) The operator may apply to the Consent and Capacity Review Board for permission to withhold all or part of the records sought by the advocate, and shall give written notice of the application to the advocate.

"Determination by the board

"(3) Within seven days after receiving the application, the board shall direct the operator to give the advocate access to the records or to such portion of the records as the board specifies, or may grant the operator permission to withhold all or part of the records sought by the advocate.

"Stay pending direction

"(4) The advocate is not entitled to access to the records to which the application relates until the board gives a direction under subsection (3)."

The First Deputy Chair: Mrs Sullivan has moved --

Mrs Sullivan: Dispense.

The First Deputy Chair: Dispense. Any comments?

Mrs Sullivan: This amendment is put forward so that the facility or the program has reasonable recourse to a review of the request for access to records by a board which has the ability and the knowledge to deal with the information which is contained in those records.

We know that the Consent and Capacity Review Board, under the Consent to Treatment Act, will in fact be dealing with situations where access to records or discussion of records may be seen to be problematic for the person involved if the person involved learns of the content of those records. We feel that a similar approach and a similar protection for the vulnerable person should be available under this act, and this amendment proposes the Consent and Capacity Review Board as the review operation because of the technical content of the medical and clinical records to which, in many cases, the access will be requested.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any other questions or comments to be made on this motion?

Hon Ms Ziemba: We will not be accepting this motion. We believe that our provisions which require an advocate to apply to a justice of the peace to access records when they have been withheld by a facility are adequate to review disputes, as there is always available to either party judicial review of the justice of the peace's decision.

The First Deputy Chair: Questions and/or comments? If there are none, Mrs Sullivan has moved an amendment to section 24.1. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. The motion is lost.

I will call on Mrs Ziemba.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that section 25 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Access to records, systemic policies and practices

"(1) An advocate designated under subsection (3) is entitled to have access to records described in subsection (2) if the commission authorizes access on the ground that the commission is satisfied that,

"(a) there are reasonable grounds to suspect the existence of systemic policies or practices that may be detrimental to vulnerable persons; and

"(b) access to the records is necessary for the purpose of an investigation into the existence of the systemic policies or practices.

"Types of records

"(2) The records referred to in subsection (1) are records that are in the custody or control of,

"(a) a facility;

"(b) a person who operates a controlled-access residence; or

"(c) a person who operates a program prescribed by the regulations made under this act.

"Designation

"(3) The commission may designate an advocate for the purpose of this section if the advocate has received training that, in the opinion of the commission, is appropriate for advocates acting under this section.

"Acting for commission

"(4) Subsection (1) does not apply unless the advocate is acting on behalf of the commission and is paid by the commission for that purpose.

"Restriction

"(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to an advocate who, in the previous twelve months, has provided advocacy services under clause 7(1)(b) to a vulnerable person who, at the time the services were provided, was in the facility or controlled-access residence or was served by the program, as the case may be.

"Opportunity to make submissions

"(6) The commission shall not authorize access under subsection (1) unless the commission has given the person with custody or control of the records an opportunity to make written submissions to the commission.

"Other acts

"(7) This section prevails over any other act."

1700

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions and/or comments on the amendments moved by Mrs Ziemba?

Mrs Sullivan: We believe this particular amendment is a significant improvement.

We'd like to know some of the training processes. I do have some concerns about subsection (5). My concerns relate to a similar issue that occurred with the mental health appeals board. The question is whether in fact there will be adequate numbers of advocates who will be available and who will not have been providing services in the facility, the residence or in the program as this process is implemented.

The minister has indicated that there will be some 150 advocates across the province. Frankly, if only a small portion of those are trained in the process for access to records, the provincial circumstances will be difficult. The second rejoinder on them is that they cannot have participated in providing advocacy services to the person who was in the facility or controlled-access residence at the time. So it looks good, but I suspect that it's not going to work. Perhaps the minister could comment.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any comments by the honourable member from the third party?

Mr Sterling: Yes, just briefly, we're not going to support this amendment. In talking with Ministry of Citizenship officials, it's my great concern that this will offer the legal profession an opportunity to go on fishing experiments with regard to various different health care institutions via an advocate posing for a vulnerable person, which according to the definitions of this act, includes almost anybody in this province. So there are some really great dangers involved in this section.

I don't like any section which ends by saying, "This section prevails over any other act." That means over all the protections that we are given with regard to rights etc in other legislation.

Therefore, I oppose it on those two grounds.

Hon Ms Ziemba: We feel that this amendment is very essential, especially for systemic advocacy, but I also want to say that the changes we have made have the full support of all the affected people, whether they are groups that provide services or whether they are people who are representing people with vulnerabilities.

We've also heard some very compelling arguments that have been put forward to us about the protection of privacy in smaller communities, especially if you have a very, very small community where an advocate has been working for the last 12 months and would have had access to information and lives in that particular community. Having discussed the third-party identifiers in the previous sections, we feel that this is one way of making sure that third parties are protected and that privacy is there for those particular people in smaller communities in Ontario.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further comments and/or questions?

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

Interjection: No.

The First Deputy Chair: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Shall section 25, as amended, carry? Carried.

Mrs Ziemba, section 26.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that section 26 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Access to policy and procedure records

"26(1) An advocate is entitled to have access, for the purpose of providing advocacy services under this act, to records described in subsection (2) that establish or describe policies or procedures for the observation, care, treatment or management of persons to whom services are provided, including orders, directives, rules, guidelines, protocols, policy or procedural manuals, reports, memoranda or other records that establish or describe such policies or procedures.

"Types of records

"(2) The records referred to in subsection (1) are records that are in the custody or control of,

"(a) a facility;

"(b) a person who operates a controlled-access residence; or

"(c) a person who operates a program prescribed by the regulations made under this Act.

"Other Acts

(3) This section prevails over any other act."

The First Deputy Chair: Any questions and/or comments? If there are no questions and no comments, let me put the question:

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

Mrs Sullivan: The amendments I was putting forward to 26(2)(c) and (d) and 26(4), as a result of other amendments proposed by the government, are redundant and I will withdraw them.

The First Deputy Chair: Mrs Sullivan withdraws her amendments on section 26, and 26(4). Both of those? Yes.

Shall section 26, as amended, carry? Carried.

I call on Mrs Ziemba on section 27.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that subsection 27(1) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "sections 24 and 25" in the first line, and substituting "sections 24 to 26."

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions and/or comments on this? If there are none, let me move the question.

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

I recognize Mrs Sullivan on subsection 27(1).

Mrs Sullivan: My amendment to subsection 27(1), in different words, is identical to the government's and I withdraw it.

The First Deputy Chair: Mrs Ziemba on subsection 27(2).

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that the French version of subsection 27(2) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by inserting after "devait" in the third line, "avoir pour effet probable d'".

The First Deputy Chair: Any questions and/or comments?

Mr Sterling: Could I have from the minister a translation, please?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I'm getting coached.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any other questions or comments? If not, I'll put the question. Carried.

Mrs Ziemba on subsections 27(3) and 27(4).

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that section 27 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following subsections after subsection 27(2):

"Exception, personnel records, quality review etc.

"(3) An advocate is not entitled to have access to a personnel record or to a record or part of a record dealing with,

"(a) quality review activities;

"(b) peer review or performance review activities; or

"(c) quality improvement activities.

"Exception, college of health profession

"(4) An advocate is not entitled to have access to a record or part of a record that is in the custody or control of a college as defined in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991."

The First Deputy Chair: Any questions and/or comments? If there are none, then I will move the question. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall section 27, as amended, carry? Carried.

Mrs Sullivan on section 28.

Mrs Sullivan: I move that paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of section 28 of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be struck out.

The First Deputy Chair: Any questions and/or comments? There being none, I will put the question. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjection: No.

The First Deputy Chair: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the motion lost.

Mrs Ziemba on amendments to section 28, paragraphs 8 and 9.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that section 28 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following paragraphs:

"8. If the advocate is entitled to access to the record under section 25 and the record contains the name of or any means of identifying an individual, the record shall not be removed and the person who has custody or control of the record shall ensure that the name of and the means of identifying the individual are deleted from copies of extracts of the record that are removed by the advocate.

"9. The commission shall pay the reasonable costs incurred under paragraph 8 by the person who has custody or control of the record."

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions and/or comments on Mrs Ziemba's amendments? Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendments carry? Carried.

Mrs Ziemba on subsection 28(2).

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that section 28 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Protection from liability

"(2) A person who has custody or control of a record is not liable for any loss arising from the person's failure to comply with paragraph 8 of subsection (1) if the person attempted in good faith to comply with that paragraph."

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions and/or comments on this motion? If there are not, then I would ask the question. Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendments carry? Carried.

Shall section 28, as amended, carry? Carried.

I would call on Mrs Sullivan for the amendment to clause 29(1)(b).

Mrs Sullivan: The concerns that we had in putting forward this amendment have been addressed in a government amendment a couple back, which carried. I withdraw this amendment.

The First Deputy Chair: Mrs Sullivan has said that the Liberal amendment to clause 29(1)(b) be withdrawn. Also an amendment now, Mrs Sullivan, on clause 29(1)(c).

Mrs Sullivan: This amendment related to a previous amendment which I put, which was defeated, therefore I withdraw this one.

The First Deputy Chair: Mrs Sullivan has withdrawn the amendment on clause 29(1)(c).

I would call now on Ms Ziemba on clause 29(2)(a).

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following section after section 29:

"Access to names, addresses etc

"29.1(1) If an advocate has reasonable grounds to believe that a vulnerable person is incapable of instructing an advocate, the advocate is entitled, for the purpose of disclosing information under subsection 31(8), to be informed by a person who has custody or control --

The First Deputy Chair: If I could ask you to hold on, I think we're not on the same motion at this point.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Okay. That's the next one I have in my --

The First Deputy Chair: There's a government motion on clause 29(2)(a).

Hon Ms Ziemba: Sorry, Mr Chair.

I move that clause 29(2)(a) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "subject to subsections 24(7), 25(3) and 26(3)" in the fourth and fifth lines.

The First Deputy Chair: Any questions or comments? Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

I call on Ms Ziemba regarding clause 29(2)(b).

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that clause 29(2)(b) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by inserting after "record" in the third line "subject to paragraphs 8 and 9 of subsection 28(1)."

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions and/or comments? Is the member for Carleton coming in on this particular clause? No? Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

I call on Ms Ziemba for the amendment to clause 29(2)(c).

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that clause 29(2)(c) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "paragraphs 6 and 7 of section 28" in the first and second lines and substituting "paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of subsection 28(1)."

The First Deputy Chair: Any questions and/or comments? If there be none, then I would ask the House, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

I now call on Mrs Sullivan regarding the amendment to clause 29(2)(c).

Mrs Sullivan: Due to previous changes, this motion is now redundant and I withdraw it.

The First Deputy Chair: Mrs Sullivan has withdrawn the amendment to clause 29)2)(c).

Shall section 29, as amended, carry? Carried.

I will now call on Ms Ziemba for section 29.1.

1720

Hon Ms Ziemba: I move that the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following section after section 29:

"Access to names, addresses etc

"29.1(1) If an advocate has reasonable grounds to believe that a vulnerable person is incapable of instructing an advocate, the advocate is entitled, for the purpose of disclosing information under subsection 31(8), to be informed by a person who has custody or control of records described in subsection (2) of any information contained in the records with respect to the names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons to whom information may be disclosed under subsection 31(8).

"Records

"(2) The records referred to in subsection (1) are records that are in the custody or control of,

"(a) a facility;

"(b) a person who operates a controlled-access residence; or

"(c) a person who operates a program prescribed by the regulations made under this act.

"Warrant for access to record

"(3) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant to an advocate for access to the part of a record that contains information with respect to the names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons to whom information may be disclosed under subsection 31(8) if the justice of the peace is satisfied that,

"(a) the record contains information that the advocate is entitled to be informed of under subsection (1); and

"(b) the advocate has requested the information but has not been informed of the information.

"Authority conferred by warrant

"(4) The warrant authorizes the advocate to,

"(a) inspect the part of the record specified in the warrant that contains information with respect to the names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons to whom information may be disclosed under subsection 31(8), between 9 am and 4 pm, or during the hours specified in the warrant; and

"(b) make extracts from the record, in any manner that does not damage the record, of names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons to whom information may be disclosed under subsection 31(8).

"Duration of warrant

"(5) The warrant is valid for seven days.

"Execution

"(6) The advocate named in the warrant may call on a police officer for assistance in executing it."

The First Deputy Chair: Any questions and/or comments? If not, I'll put the question.

Mrs Sullivan: I'd just like to say, and I think for all of the colleagues here, that this is an extremely important section of the bill. We are probably halfway through this particular bill. We have three other bills that will not be addressed in this time. The discussion on this particular section and other sections should in fact garner the attention of this place for a good 20 minutes of discussion, if not even a lengthier time.

We are constrained by House rules that, in my view, are outrageous and are a real detriment to people who will be served and will have to work with these bills. We know why these rules are there, but there are problems here, and I suggest that the people who will be most concerned about this section are people who have AIDS.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further comments or questions?

Mr Sterling: As we're approaching 5:30 -- it's about 5:23 now -- I'm going to ask you, Mr Chairman, to rule on whether or not the time allocation motion is any longer in order. Some time ago, when we all agreed to this time allocation motion, it was our understanding that the government had its act together at that time. We agreed to it because we required more public hearings last summer.

A lot of things have happened since then, Mr Chairman. As you may recall, at the beginning of those hearings there were 199 government amendments and I believe there were over 60 amendments to Bill 74, and that was the reason we called for these public hearings and agreed to this time allocation motion. During the committee hearings subsequent to that, there were 41 amendments to the bill. On Friday last, or Thursday last -- some time late last week -- we were delivered 46 additional amendments to the bill. We're talking about Bill 74, the one we're dealing with.

These amendments are not inconsequential. Some of the amendments, like the one we're talking about now, are a page and a half in length.

The question that comes to me is that the bill only has 41 sections, yet after the first reading we had over 60 amendments. After the committee heard it we had 41 amendments, the same number of sections of the bill. Coming into committee of the whole House, when our time has been constrained, we had 46 amendments. Quite frankly, I think the government is foolish in holding us to this particular time allocation motion.

Notwithstanding their desire to get it through whether it be perfect or imperfect, the question starts to become whether or not we're dealing with the same matter that we started with when this time allocation motion was made. When this time allocation motion was made back in June of last year, there were some 86 or 87 different sections we were dealing with at that time on which that time allocation motion was agreed to by this House. We start to get into a situation where I have some fear that this Legislature has not had proper scrutiny of this bill. The amendments brought forward today by the minister were first given to me and other members of the opposition late last week. We haven't had an opportunity to go back to the many groups who came in front of that committee to consult with them.

As I also mentioned before, we in the opposition have tried to be as responsible as we can with regard to this legislation. It's not my desire to block this thing or withhold it, but surely members of this Legislature must have some rights with regard to notice when major amendments are being made.

Quite frankly, notwithstanding having some major concerns over the whole idea of the advocacy legislation, one begins to wonder, when at the 11th hour there are 46 amendments to a bill which only has 41 sections. When we've gone through this process, those people who have been watching this process may have understood that these amendments were not a change of a word in a section or whatever. They are wholesale changes with regard to what the committee did in this Legislature.

I guess you can rule, Mr Chairman, that the time allocation motion is everything, and that therefore it ends the debate, it's all over and we will have our vote. I would have hoped there were some protections for the people of Ontario and members of this Legislature, that when we get to the final strokes with regard to this bill, what has happened would not have happened; in other words, at the very last moment the government decides to change the legislation holus-bolus and all of the consultation we had before is in some ways for naught.

Therefore, I would ask you, Mr Chairman, to rule at this point that a time allocation motion is out of order and that the government House leader come to this Legislature with a more reasonable timetable so that members of the Legislature and members of the public can have a reasonable time to consider the 46 amendments to a bill with only 41 sections.

1730

The First Deputy Chair: I thank the honourable gentleman from Carleton. I would say two things. The first is that it is not up to the Speaker, who is the servant of the House, to in any way dictate what the House does. We have to deal here with the decisions that have been made by this body. On May 28, this time allocation motion was put and was voted on by the House. It could have been amended; it was not at that time.

We have here this particular order, which tells us precisely the parameters we are to exercise this committee under today. Therefore, your view that the time allocation motion is out of order is not acceptable to the Chair at this point in time. It has now come to 5:30, so we need to move on to the actual deferred votes on this.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of privilege, Mr Chairman: I want to suggest to you that my privileges as a member and indeed the privileges of other members of the Legislature have been abrogated, not only by the actions of the government with respect to the preparation and dealing with these bills, but indeed by the motion of the House itself in terms of putting on time allocation.

The members of this chamber and I myself are unable to discuss in an appropriate way bills that will effect new laws that will affect every person in this province, and people from around the province will have no full knowledge of what shape those new laws will take.

On May 28, when the House made its motion, the motion was made and the agreement was only reached under duress on this side of the House. The tit for the government tat was that there would be public hearings after the presentation of a significant number of amendments that the government put forward in response to the first round of public hearings. There was no way those public hearings could have taken place without that agreement.

My view is that that motion of the House on May 28 is a breach of my privileges as a member and of every other member of this chamber.

The First Deputy Chair: I want to thank the honourable member for Halton Centre and just indicate very clearly again that the role of the Chair of the committee of the whole House or even of the Speaker is that of servant of the House. The House has decided by the decision on May 28 that we would move this afternoon at around this time to the deferred votes and deal with this issue in this way. That has been the House's directive to myself, who now sits in this chair. Nothing is out of order and I do not believe at this point in time that there is any question of privilege either, which has been implied by the honourable member.

I recognize the honourable leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I'll be quite brief. I intend to ask for unanimous consent and I'd like a brief opportunity to explain why.

I met yesterday with the executive committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They are supporters of proceeding with this legislation. This is not a partisan piece of legislation. This is not one where we're talking about spending billions of dollars in government-owned or run versus the private sector, or balancing budgets or other devastating things that are happening in our province. This is something we're all concerned about. We're concerned about advocacy for those vulnerable in our society.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons, as you know, was one of the groups that could not be coerced into signing off on this particular piece of legislation. Other groups were coerced into signing off on this legislation, something that has never happened in the history of this province before, where a government pressures those to sign off, trading one thing for the other, when what we're interested in here is sound, good public policy to benefit those vulnerable in our society.

I would ask the two ministers involved, on behalf of the government, to consider the flurry of amendments that have come forward from the civil service, the flurry of amendments that have come forward from others, how we have been boondoggled before -- just the fact that there needed to be more amendments than there are sections to this particular piece of legislation -- and to think about sound policy and legislation. This is not a partisan request I'm asking.

I'm asking, I would think, for their own benefit, two ministers here today who understand how absolutely difficult it is to get legislative time if we have to go back and fix something next year after the fact. It is next to impossible to get on this legislative calendar with all the requests of the various ministries and the priorities of the government.

Mr Chair, I understand your hands are tied by the time allocation motion. On the other hand, if there is goodwill among all parties in the Legislature, I would ask, on the benefit of what I heard yesterday when expert people -- I said, "Do you understand what the amendments will do?" He said: "No, we don't. They come at us fast and furious. We don't have time to look at it. When we did have time and we gave opinion, there were 60 more amendments." They recognized there were 60, then there were 40 more amendments."

I truly ask the two ministers to consider having their caucus and party give unanimous consent to give us some more time to understand the implications of all these amendments so they themselves can understand and hear from the various interest groups, to let them off, if you like, the forced sign-off they forced them into to shut them up, to let them out of that and let the interest groups come forward. Let the OMA, let the Ontario Hospital Association, let the College of Physicians and Surgeons now offer their opinion. Let the other groups that are involved and the health professions offer their opinion now on all these amendments that have just come forward.

I believe that would be sound public policy. I believe that would be a non-partisan way to proceed, where the Legislature and this committee of the Legislature are truly striving here to have the best piece of legislation possible, particularly for those most vulnerable in our society.

I would make that plea to the two ministers -- if they will agree, the rest will follow in their caucus -- and ask for unanimous consent to give more time for those groups and for others to take a look at what these amendments mean so we can be sure, hopefully still before this Christmas, we finally pass a piece of legislation that's not going to have to come back and be amended many more times as you try to implement and deal with this legislation in the coming year.

I would make that request -- Mr Chairman, it's an unusual request; I appreciate your patience in allowing me the time to state the case -- if we could have unanimous consent to have more time.

The First Deputy Chair: A request has been made by the honourable member, the leader of the third party. Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections: No.

The First Deputy Chair: I hear there is not. It is now after 5:30. We need to move on.

Ms Ziemba has moved an amendment to section 29.1. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

[Report continues in volume B]