Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SOCIAL WORKERS

Mr White moved resolution number 36:

That in the opinion of this House,

Whereas the public is entitled to receive professional social work services from legally accountable professional social workers; and

Whereas professional social workers work with people suffering from serious degrees of vulnerability; and

Whereas survivors of sexual abuse, children at risk, persons with disabilities, homeless persons and assaulted women who receive professional social work services are vulnerable to further victimization; and

Whereas Ontario is the only province in Canada without any form of legislation for the profession of social work; and

Whereas the government of Ontario has recently enacted legislation to regulate the practice of 24 professions, these protections should be equitably extended to those being served by the profession of social work; and

Whereas the province allocates substantial resources to social work services in such key ministries as Health, Corrections, Education, Community and Social Services; and

Whereas the province supports social work education at the baccalaureate, masters and doctorate levels at 10 universities including programs in both official languages and in first nation communities; and

Whereas the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers created the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers in 1982 and that body represents those who are willing to be held publicly accountable for their professional practices; and

Whereas over the past 10 years, this college has established an excellent record as a regulatory body, but it still lacks the authority of legislation;

Therefore, since the public would be best protected by legislative authorization of professional social work regulation and that social work clientele are just as entitled to such protection as are clients of any other profession, the government of Ontario should develop an act for the registration and self-regulation of professional social workers within the sanction of a ministry of the government of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to advocate for a social work act and indeed to advocate for the social vision of care and connection that is so central to the profession of social work. Social workers and their clientele are well represented here today. I've received support for this resolution from as far away as the Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse in Alberta.

I'd like to particularly mention my wife, Norah Love, my children, Amanda, Devin and Lenore, who's just celebrating her seventh birthday; Sandy Campbell, president of the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers; Miriam Mayhew, director of the Ontario Association of Family Service Agencies; Mae Harmon I believe will be in attendance from Canadian Pensioners Concerned of Ontario; and I see Ray Tremblay, le président du collège.

As well, there's a broad coalition of support, including children's aid societies, hospitals, regional governments, seniors' groups, universities, colleges and many more. Their efforts show that there's a great deal of public support for a social work act for Ontario.

A public opinion poll showed that close to 90% of Ontarians support regulation for the profession of social work and a large proportion of those surveyed had personal knowledge of abuse or incompetence by a social worker. This is a rather startling testimony to the need for public regulation and public accountability of social work.

Here in Ontario we can be proud of the high quality of our public services. Our government is moving ahead with significant protections in the advocacy and consent to treatment bills. Our government has clearly affirmed that woman abuse and sexual abuse are not to be tolerated or condoned. As nowhere else, we have an agenda that creates equality of access to good public services. We are the first province to regulate midwifery and we have already an impressive legislative record and, I know, a significant and already overcrowded future agenda.

Unfortunately, we are also the only province in Canada to have no regulation for the practice of social work. Every other province has a social work act or regulation. Social workers are responsible for crucial judgements and treatment in child welfare and mental health services. They work with the most vulnerable in our community and with people at the most vulnerable periods in their lives, when families are breaking up and suffering the profound distress of family and marital conflicts.

Social work clientele deserve to have the most sensitive and skilful care possible. The public deserve to have services that are accountable to them. They should be able to trust their social workers, to be comfortably assured that they will be treated ethically and competently. That accountability, those assurances and that trust is central to our regulated professions.

During the last month I've received a number of calls and letters from social work clientele who've complained about very specific abuses.

An abused woman was shot several times by her husband. Previously she had seen a social worker who had allegedly counselled her to remain at home in an already dangerous setting. That social worker is not accountable to her for the dangers that he condoned. That woman has no recourse to the courts, no opportunity to secure public validation.

Another woman was seduced into having sexual relations with her therapist, a man in private practice, a man who also teaches at a school for social work.

A foster mother reported suspicions that her natural children were in danger of being molested by a youth she was fostering. She was ignored by the children's aid society worker. She went to that social worker's supervisor and she was again ignored. Her pre-school-aged children were abused in the most horrible of ways.

The damage and the scars from that preventable abuse may be with them for the rest of their lives. Their daily lives, their ability to trust, to have normal relationships and their self-esteem may be affected by the callous indifference or the incompetence of those workers.

1010

All these clients should have the right to demand accountability, to demand ethical and competent behaviour from the professionals who are employed to serve them. In Ontario, alone in North America, the poor, the disadvantaged, the vulnerable or indeed the well-functioning family that requires social work services are denied this level of accountability.

These people and thousands like them have no recourse. If they complain to the responsible agency, they would run up against bureaucratic self-protection. They might be told that it was their problem and that everything was done properly. We know how these systems can effectively blame the victim.

Many of these disadvantaged clients are not the most sophisticated. They are loath to trust the very complex systems that have let them down so badly. They deserve better from us. We grant rights to dogs, since veterinarians are regulated. We grant such rights to bushes, since landscape architects are regulated. We protect dogs and bushes, although not one from the other, but we do not afford such protection to people.

Regulation of professions, with adequate public oversight, is the route we have pursued with 24 other health professions. Some of these professions have little or no organization. Some have only limited skill training and educational preparation. Social workers, by contrast, are the third-largest health organization. They've been organized for almost all of this century. There are 10 universities and numerous colleges that offer diplomas, baccalaureates, masters and doctoral degrees in both official languages and in native areas. This is a profession that has long been ready.

A self-regulating profession wants to clean up its own act. As a government, we can further dictate the level of accountability that we think is appropriate. The professions pay the cost of their own regulation and the majority of social workers want to bear that responsibility. In these days of high deficits and tight finances, this kind of action will be a highly cost-efficient means of regulating the practice of social work.

Some might say that there are problems, though, with a self-regulating profession. By establishing competence and ethical standards, some will be kept out. Social workers deal with this issue with their inclusive approach and make constant efforts to bring in minority groups. As a profession that's dedicated to social welfare and to promoting equality and the strengths of their clients, social workers go the extra mile to be inclusive. The promotion of social welfare, self-development and group and social activism are central to their very written code of ethics.

Social workers are indeed their own worst critics in terms of the extent to which they have been inclusive. Still, they should not be expected to reinvent the wheel. Their association has been in existence for 75 years. The majority of social workers voluntarily contribute and they have voted and had plebiscites and firmly support a self-regulatory model -- the majority. If we as a government endorse the self-regulation of so many health professionals, how can we ask the social and caring professions to invent some other process, to reinvent the wheel?

The vulnerable, the socially disadvantaged and families in crisis have long been delegated to a lesser status in our community and to inferior levels of care. Is it because social workers work with this very group that this profession has been so long, so badly and so uniquely neglected here in Ontario? Surely the disadvantaged in our community deserve better from our government.

We are moving ahead with the sex abuse protocol, the amendments to the Regulated Health Professions Act and in many other areas in protecting vulnerable adults through the advocacy office or helping patients to make difficult decisions regarding their care. We know that these services are offered by competent and ethical practitioners.

In summary, allow me to implore my colleagues to join with me and with my friends here in calling for a social work act in Ontario. I hope we can write the last and the best social work act in this Dominion. I know we have a tight and crammed agenda. Let's find a place within it for some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our community.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I am pleased to rise this morning to support the resolution brought forward by the member for Durham Centre. I must say at the outset, though, that I find it more than passing strange that a private member on the government side of this House has to bring this matter before us as a private member's resolution.

May I take you back, Mr Speaker, to some letters the Premier, while he was still leader of the official opposition, wrote about the very issue we are discussing this morning? In August 1987 and again in June 1989, the now Premier, Bob Rae, wrote to the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers. In the August 1987 letter, Mr Rae said, "New Democrats will support the efforts of the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers to secure a provincial statute, the social work act." August 1987, Mr Rae.

In June 1989 Mr Rae went even further and said that the ministry had "been slow to respond to the needs for responsible legislation." He said, "I was very pleased to have the opportunity to work with the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers to convince the government" -- the then government -- "that...regulations are needed to ensure that the profession will continue to develop and expand based on accepted principles of practice." He continues, Mr Rae speaking: "The success of my collaboration with the OAPSW is an important milestone in the development of the social work profession."

In 1987 and 1989 the Premier, the present Premier, Bob Rae, seemed to be speaking very clearly and very proudly of his record of supporting the direction of the member for Durham Centre's resolution.

As we have heard, Ontario is the only province in Canada which does not have any form of regulation of social workers at this time and is in fact the only jurisdiction in North America which does not have some form of regulation of this important profession.

I want to go back again to 1988. A preliminary draft of the professionals' proposal for a social work act was submitted to cabinet for its consideration, and the cabinet then provided its approval of the principles of the legislation, pending clarification of certain outstanding issues.

In June 1990, after consultation with interested parties, the government, the previous Liberal government, announced that it would be moving forward the regulation of social workers and other social service providers. A steering committee was established to establish the parameters of the legislation, and it planned to complete its work in the fall of 1990.

Upon taking office in 1990 and that work having been done, the New Democratic government suspended the work of the steering committee, put it on a shelf for a whole year, pending direction from the then Minister of Community and Social Services. A draft framework for the legislation was not presented to cabinet until fall of 1991.

Since taking office the Premier seems to have had an awful change of heart about the importance of this legislation. In a letter written on November 4 -- not that long ago -- 1992, the Premier said, "Our government decided that this legislation is not a priority at this time." He went on to say, "This decision doesn't mean we have changed our minds and in no way diminishes our commitment tobringing in social work legislation in the future."

Mr Speaker, I ask you and those who are listening, how can anyone find logic in that answer, that response? How can anyone find security? I have to think it's a flip-flop; it's another broken promise.

1020

The Minister of Community and Social Services sent out an even stronger negative message on February 5, 1992. I quote from a letter from that minister: "The government has decided that the development of legislation for the regulation of social workers is not a priority at this time. Therefore, this ministry will not be proceeding with this project during this term of office." We're talking now about 1994-95. How very, very disappointing.

As my party's critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services I'm very much aware of the important role played by social workers in our communities right across this province. The social worker is often the key front-line person who draws together all the other professionals and paraprofessional supports for people in need.

Social workers provide crucial support for many of our most vulnerable citizens: victims of family violence, as we heard this morning, our seniors, our children, troubled adolescents and substance abusers. They provide counselling services, assessment and diagnostic services, referral services, community development services. Often they serve as the bridge -- the only bridge -- between the person in need and the service provider.

There are, as we have acknowledged before, fears and concerns and objections surrounding the regulation of social work in Ontario. The social work reform group has expressed its concern that this kind of legislation is totally unnecessary, because most social workers are employed by agencies and institutions and therefore are governed by the standards of those bodies. Some also say that the regulation of social work would undermine the credibility of existing educational programs by adding another layer of assessment qualification and suitability-for-practice tests.

I refer you to the other practitioners who are already regulated in this province and have been for years and years: doctors, nurses, dentists, psychologists, chiropractors, and I could go on and on. Ontario's post-secondary education system provides courses of study in all of these fields, and the fact that professionals themselves are regulated does not diminish one iota the credibility of the educational programs that lead to their designation.

I support this resolution because I agree with the direction that the former Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr Sweeney, and his successor, my colleague from York North, were heading. I regret that their significant progress has been stopped in its tracks by this government. I would urge the Minister of Community and Social Services to listen, and I'm sorry she's not here this morning to listen to the legitimate concerns of professional social workers and of her colleague from Durham Centre.

Ontario needs this legislation. We know that; we have been working towards it. Ontario needs the same regulatory framework enjoyed by every other jurisdiction in this country and, in fact, in North America. Ontario's most vulnerable citizens deserve no less.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It is with pleasure and enthusiasm that I speak in favour of the resolution this morning. Now, as we approach the end of the century, the problems that our society faces are more complex and the remedies, when apparent at all, more so.

The divorce rate today is equal to one third the number of marriages in Canada each year. For every reported case of wife-battering, 10 are not reported. And in 1986, one million of Canada's children lived in a state of poverty.

Not only have the old problems become more severe but we have newer, very complex social ills: the increasing number of homeless persons, abuse of the elderly, substance abuse, unemployment resulting in stresses and family breakdown, to name but a few. Social workers are society's front line in the battle against these increasing problems.

The roles played by social workers have developed and become more complex over the years. Today they work in hospitals, helping families and individuals to deal with the crisis of sudden illness and chronic disability. They are now more often involved in community agencies, helping people link up to the resources they need. Social workers are expected to plan and implement social policy through all levels of government and types of agencies.

Fortunately, social workers across Ontario are hardworking, caring and competent. However, as with other professional groups, abuses can and do occur, all too often with tragic consequences. The public needs protection from professional social workers as well as from those without qualifications who claim to be social workers.

It is astonishing that Ontario is currently the only province in Canada -- indeed the only jurisdiction in North America -- without any form of social work legislation. This places the public in every region in Ontario at enormous and unnecessary risk from incompetent and/or unethical social work practice. If the government has one moral imperative, it is to protect the public, especially those most disadvantaged and vulnerable. Social work regulatory legislation is urgently needed, and the process to develop this legislation must begin immediately.

I can only say personally, as the former critic for our party of Community and Social services: Here we are again. In June 1990 I asked the then Minister of Community and Social Services, the member for York North, Charles Beer, when he would be introducing this important legislation. In answer to my question, he announced in the Legislature the initiation of a process to bring key stakeholders together to craft that legislation. At the time, then-Leader of the Opposition Bob Rae expressed his unqualified support for the need for consumer protection through regulatory legislation.

Boy, if you want to get something done, be the Premier. Here's his chance. Indeed, once in government the process seemed to be moving forward under former Minister of Community and Social Services Zanana Akande, currently Bob Rae's parliamentary assistant. I hope she urges him on with this one.

I've been most impressed over the past few years at how different groups have reached out to each other and come together in the effort to develop representative social work legislation. I've met with several people in my own riding, including social workers and the public, who have urged action. Mr Speaker, you have to know, this has not been an easy process. There has been divisiveness, and when I say "come together," that's exactly what they've done.

During this time a large coalition has been assembled representing thousands of service providers and tens of thousands of service recipients from every corner of Ontario. The profession has never put together a bigger coalition representing over 50 major service providers. I wish I had the time to read it into the record, but I don't. I will submit it for the record. All of these people have reasons for putting their names on this list. There are many stories behind the urgency for them adding their name to this list.

The Toronto Star has said, "The time has come for a proper governing body for social workers that will protect the public and set standards for the profession."

"Legislation is a win-win situation," as Don Andreae put it, who is the coordinator of Project Legislation.

Who will gain from social work legislation? Very clearly, the public, the government and all social workers. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the government in making this legislation a reality in the fall session of 1993.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm very honoured to have the opportunity to participate in the debate in support of the resolution moved by the member for Durham Centre. I think this is an important resolution to support social work legislation and I think this is an opportunity where I can share my experiences that I received as a social work student in getting my MSW. I also had experience being a social work client, because I received services from a social service agency. So I have the university and the social services agency background.

I think it's important that social work education include cultural sensitivity training, and when you talk about a model, it's important to focus in on an affirmative and empowerment model instead of negative aspects. I think there need to be some positive images there. I think there have been some improvements in the social work curriculum: decisions have been made; there are more and more women now being involved; there are more and more visible minorities being involved in social work education. This has happened in the last few years, so it will continue to improve.

I think it's important to develop ethical standards when we talk about the skills in assessing and the social work counselling. Those are areas that have greatly improved.

Also, my own experience using the services: There are some social workers who have received community college diplomas. I have experienced quite a negative impact because of people's lack of understanding in terms of the cultural needs I had, or they had a paternalistic model and that had quite a negative impact on my own experience.

I have heard concerns from the social work reform group, which has strong concerns, when it talks about employment equity or access to professions and trades, that visible minority groups have been excluded from these groups, and that's interesting. Their concerns, I think, are valid, but until now, I think -- we have noticed a change.

1030

The Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers has become more proactive in meeting the needs of the various ethnic groups within the community and matching its curriculum to their needs in becoming more culturally sensitive and more respectful of the different groups. I think the program of affirmative action is taking into consideration the different groups. I think this is very important.

Also, a social work act is important to establish in legislation, because it will then give some public accountability to the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers so that they will be required to follow high ethical standards. The social workers who have the qualifications will need to continue to update and maintain their certification, so the best benefit of this will be for the benefit of the clients and the vulnerable people who have experienced sexual abuse or oppression, or who are victims of the system in terms of experienced discrimination.

Then these people will be able to empower the clients to help themselves to more effectively use the services. I think this is done by the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers, which has given great leadership in this issue and has been able to reflect the needs of the various clients.

In closing, I would like to strongly support the resolution moved by Drummond White, the member for Durham Centre. I think this is important legislation and will most benefit the people who are vulnerable in society and who will use the services of social workers.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am delighted to just take one minute to offer my support for this legislation. When I first graduated from university several decades ago, I went into the social services area with Community and Social Services and worked as an adoption case reviewer, first of all, and then a field worker with the children's aid society as a provincial worker. What I saw then convinced me that we need this legislation.

There are many, many good social workers out there, but when you're dealing with the vulnerable, when you're dealing with the people who use these services, you must ensure that the people who are doing it are qualified. There has to be that public accountability.

I just want to say on the record that I am supporting the legislation of the member for Durham Centre and I'm delighted he's continued the philosophy of our government that this was good legislation.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion that's been put forward this morning. I congratulate my colleague for bringing it forward. However, I have to also say I'm disappointed that Mr Rae himself, the Premier, and the cabinet have not brought forward this legislation, because there is a desperate, desperate need in this province for this legislation.

That became very obvious to me shortly after I was elected in September 1990, when several women in my community -- my community being Kitchener-Waterloo -- approached me as individuals to share with me their experiences concerning sexual abuse that they had suffered at the hands of professionals in my community.

I'm very concerned that this government, although there have been promises made by the Premier, as has been pointed out this morning, has been extremely negligent in responding to this desperate need to regulate social work in our province and to protect the very vulnerable public. Although the government has seen fit to move ahead on midwifery and to provide advocates, unfortunately, this has not received the same attention from this government. I'm extremely disappointed that has not happened.

I'd like to indicate that our party has now for many years supported the regulation of social work. In fact our leader, Mr Harris, when he was elected in the spring of 1990, indicated his very strong support for this legislation, and we were very optimistic that the government might have included this when it enacted legislation to regulate the practice of the 24 professions earlier in its term. However, it failed to extend protection to those who were being served by the profession of social work, and it's absolutely appalling that we are still the only province in Canada with no self-regulation.

I'd just like to read to you a letter from one of the individuals who came to my office to discuss this issue. It's a letter to the Honourable Frances Lankin, Minister of Health:

"I am writing to you as a person who would like to make changes as a concerned consumer and as a victim of sexual abuse by a social worker who is in practice in our community.

"As someone who has spent the last three years attempting to have someone respond to my situation, I looked forward to your recommendations, believing that the regulations would be forthcoming which would provide me and others in my position an avenue through which our concerns could be addressed.

"When I read your proposals to the Health Disciplines Act, I was extremely distressed," to discover that indeed there was not an opportunity to have her concerns dealt with. I won't read any further, but I want to tell you I know how desperate these individuals are, and I know how desperate I felt, not being able to help these women who had been victimized by social workers.

I would urge this government to follow through on the resolution that's been put before us today and act as quickly as possible. They have a responsibility to respond to the needs of very vulnerable people in our community who deal with social work.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I am very pleased to stand and offer my support to this resolution, which I know my colleague Mr White has put a great deal of effort into promoting.

For a starter, I'd like to note that as other people previously have mentioned, this is the one jurisdiction in North America which lacks such legislation. They surely can't all be mistaken.

I actually spoke to my mother-in-law, Marianne Breslauer, in New York City this morning, who has been a social worker for over 50 years, and she was quite surprised that we didn't have legislation here. To her, it's a commonplace that social workers are regulated and certified.

I think we should acknowledge the existence of the voluntary Ontario College of Certified Social Workers and, as a member of a self-regulated profession myself, it seems that things are in place to move quite easily from a voluntary body to a legislated, self-regulating body. I realize Mr White's motion does not state exactly what form this should be, but certainly I can see that it would be quite simple to do that. I personally strongly believe in self-regulated professions. I think there are many advantages -- and in the short time that I have, I don't want to dwell on all of them -- but the advantages around investigation of abuse has been mentioned and I want to dwell on that.

I would like to mention one aspect around records and confidentiality, and clearly in the social work field this is going to be very important. Social workers are going to be aware of many strict confidences. I realize that there is not an absolute right of confidentiality in my profession and I would not imagine that this will happen in social work, but I think that the way the courts regard confidentiality very strictly, although they only allow absolute confidentiality in the legal setting, is very important and I think is one of the benefits which will come when legislation takes place.

One other thing that I would just briefly mention is that I see that having a certified group makes it easier for payment agencies. As we move into human services being insured or publicly funded, I think we clearly need a group with recognized standards, as happens in medicine right now and in other professions, so I think that there are a number of reasons to support this as well as the ones which have been mentioned already.

1040

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It is with a great deal of pleasure that I too rise in support of the resolution which has been brought forward by our colleague the member for Durham Centre.

I want to be somewhat personal in my remarks, because as a former Minister of Community and Social Services I have had the opportunity to deal with this particular issue and indeed to meet with a number of the practitioners in the field of social work. I want to share that with members, because I think it is fair to say that when I first became minister I had some concerns and reservations about whether moving towards a social work act was the best way to go. I suspect that was sensed by those in the profession itself.

But having met, over the course of the time that I was minister, with representatives from the social work field, I became convinced that indeed this was the way to go. In particular, I can recall sitting down with representatives from the community colleges and from the social work association to try to come together to set up a way of going forward to develop legislation. As has been mentioned before, we did that in 1990, and I said at the time that if those two groups could come to an understanding, I would then direct that legislation be prepared and would be prepared to take that legislation to cabinet. That process began.

I think what is encouraging is that since that time, we had the debate around the health disciplines legislation, and so we now have before us models, if you like, examples of how we can construct, from the motion that I believe we will pass today, the actual act so that we can have that brought to this Legislature in 1993.

Members will recall that during the debate around a number of the health disciplines -- midwifery, psychology and dentistry in particular -- there were concerns expressed by people within those fields as to how you would ensure that you were inclusive, how you would ensure that you protected both the public and the public interests as well as protecting the professional, so that the client could be assured of having the best possible service and so that professionals would know they had an organization and a college that would be able to set out the protocols, the regulations, the whole format within which they would function.

We had problems with those health disciplines but we worked them through. I think the fact that the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers was able to sit down with the community college representatives and work out an understanding gives us a clear sign of hope that we can do it with other groups that feel that perhaps somehow they won't be included or won't be able to be part of this new system. I'm persuaded this won't happen and I think we can ensure it doesn't.

The key thing, then, is where do we go from here? I'd like to suggest to the minister and to the government a process, perhaps, that we can get going. First of all, I think we'd want to reconstitute the working group we had, get it together. I also think somebody should speak to the ministry, because I believe that in a couple of drawers there are some draft acts that were being put together. Some very good people in the ministry have been involved with this, and I don't think it will take too long to put together a draft act and review it with the various stakeholders. We may find very soon that that is something that could be brought forward in the spring and where there would be agreement.

It is certainly something that could, as with the Health Disciplines Act, be directed to the standing committee on social development; that committee could carry out some public hearings and report back to the House.

But it does seem to me that this is an idea whose time has come, and while there may have been, as I mentioned before, some of us at different stages who were not as supportive as we are now, over time the argument has carried, and what we see now is that this is something that needs to be moved forward.

Various members have talked about all the different areas that social work encompasses and why it is important to ensure this protection, and I don't want to go back over that. But what we do want to underline is that sense of professionalism that social workers possess, the need to ensure that in this time of tremendous social stress, it is important both for the clients, those who are going to be seeking the assistance of social workers, and for the social workers themselves that they have this body, because one of the important things I think this legislation could give us would be a self-regulating body, a council, that would be able as well to do a great deal of education work with the public, and that that is something that at the present time cannot be done in the way that would be most helpful.

So there are many positive things that flow from this resolution. I would simply urge the government that when we have reached the point where we have that draft act, we want to make sure we can put it into legislation as soon as possible. I know we are going to work with the government to ensure that that happens.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I too rise in support of the resolution from the member for Durham Centre, Mr White. This is a position that our party has expressed an interest in and support of for some time and continues to do so.

The whole issue of sexual abuse is a concern in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, as it is around the province. I'm going to read the two introductory provisos in the resolution, because I think it expresses a concern that we all have in this House, and I would encourage all members of the House to support Mr White's resolution: "social workers work with people suffering from serious degrees of vulnerability" and "survivors of sexual abuse, children at risk, persons with disabilities, homeless persons, and assaulted women who receive professional social work services are vulnerable to further victimization." I think Mr White's resolution moves in a direction to assist those people.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I rise in support of the resolution. I feel very strongly in support of this particular resolution.

Some time has been taken in hesitation, because there were others who came forward who said that they too should be qualified under this particular piece of legislation. I feel very strongly to point out that there are many professions in which there are ancillary services -- there are educators, there are medical professions in which there are ancillary services -- yet those professions go forth with support for professional legislation which protects others, without their supportive services, their ancillary services, being included in that. It's extremely important that we recall that and remember this when we look at this legislation.

This is the kind of legislation which identifies the professional qualifications of those people who are working with our most vulnerable people. Therefore it is important that we have a way of ensuring that these people are protected, that those who work with them have the kinds of qualifications which will make them sensitive to their needs, and which will allow us to be certain that the kind of service these people are getting is the kind of service which will lead to their ultimate wellbeing.

It's a kind of sensitive legislation that we have lacked for a very long time; in fact, this particular legislation will bring forward and allow us to support not only the kinds of concerns we have about women and about children but the concerns we have about all people who need such support.

1050

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Brampton South, you have 16 seconds.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): In 16 seconds, what can you say? This is legislation that's needed. It will protect people in a significant way who need protection and are not able to protect themselves adequately now.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I am very pleased for now. It would now appear to be about the seventh occasion in my tenure in the Legislature to participate in a discussion, a debate or even an exchange with a government minister on the need for and the support of a regulated social worker act for the province of Ontario.

Much has been said in the debate currently which I won't reiterate. We know we're the last jurisdiction on the continent not to proceed. Imagine: Bill Clinton could have campaigned in the last American election that his great state of Arkansas is ahead of Ontario, and that would be a sad truth. But I don't wish to reiterate.

Much of what I have is my own personal understanding and knowledge of this. I've brought my file that Dan Andreae and I have gone over, over the years; I notice Dan in the House today, and I'm sure he'll be pleased if we can proceed with this legislation and he can get on with the rest of his life. But that's my file: that's how much we've been discussing it; that's how many cases we've recorded of abuse, of vulnerability; how many cases of premiers and former leaders who've changed their minds; governments who've said one thing and done another.

The truth is, now more than at any other time in this province's history we need this legislation, because we are in a period of restraint and contracting funding commitments to the vulnerable in this province, and the pressures on those people providing professional services has never been greater.

I cite the example of the children's aid societies, where they've lost substantive staff in this province: 175 over the last year. These are front-line workers working with children who are vulnerable and at risk, the victims of sexual abuse. Cutbacks financially from this government, funding shortfalls from this government, and the pressure goes on these professional service providers. Unless they are regulated appropriately they will not have the protection they need in order to complete their professional mission, so they can perform those essential services, those front-line services that are so critical.

I wish to dwell specifically on the issue that the only way children are protected in this province is under our laws, and the only way in which those laws will work is if the children's aid societies and the hundreds and hundreds of social workers in the field who do the investigations, who do the preparations, who assist in entrées to our court system in order to protect and to save the future of those children. Unless we put the appropriate value on their professional services, we are making a statement about the value we put on protecting our children, and that is a terrible double standard for us as a government, and it's a shame that we're the last in North America to consider it.

I have heard all manner of explanation as to why the Liberals suggested they might have this legislation and then backed off from it during their tenure. I've heard all sorts of speculation as to why Bob Rae promised it in opposition. It's easy when you're in opposition to promise everything. The critical issue is, why is he resisting it now that he's the government?

I have heard arguments that bureaucrats in several ministries of this government are paranoid that the notion of professionalizing and codifying the profession of social work in this province will compromise certain pay levels, because bureaucrats who've been sitting behind desks for 28 years have no or little practicum and they cannot and should not be paid at the rate of our field workers, who are doing the essential daily front-line service to vulnerable people in this province.

It's been suggested that the all-powerful unions have indicated that they don't want additional proliferation of "quasi-professional unionized bargaining units." I think that's paranoia and nonsense, and the government and Bob White and the people who make the decisions about these things should be told: "Get your hands off the social workers. They conduct themselves professionally and they can bargain responsibly in this province, and you should learn to trust them."

Many years ago I had the opportunity to help develop a bargaining unit in my school board jurisdiction, the Halton Board of Education, when I was the chair of the collective bargaining committee. We developed a union for our professional social workers and psychometricians and others and we were very proud of what we developed. We gave them the status they richly deserve for the contribution they make to our educational system.

I cannot help but comment in the brief moment I have left that the member for St Andrew-St Patrick talked about her sense of commitment. I say to that former minister, you had your chance. Coming from a field of education, she should have known how critical front-line social work services are to the kinds of problems facing children in our schools today, and the solutions lie in access to highly qualified professional services.

For about the eighth time in this House in as many years, I ask all members of this House to support the resolution. I fear it is only a resolution and buying time, and I hope we have a bill within the next two years in this House that we can all pass.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm rising with the rest of my colleagues here on this most interesting of mornings, because it appears that Drummond White has indeed struck a nerve with this particular resolution. I anticipate that there will be unanimous support for this resolution when it comes to a vote at noontime today. The record will of course show that.

I listened to the member for Ottawa-Rideau talk about the fact that it was Drummond White who brought this forward rather than the government. Well, I say thank goodness for Drummond White. I first met the member for Durham Centre, Drummond White, during the election campaign prior to September 1990. I was impressed then with his insight, with his evenhandedness, his ability to tackle problems and resolve them analytically, and what we're seeing today is a demonstration of that same capacity and skill.

Not only can the people of Durham Centre and its communities be proud of their representative in this Legislature today, but this government, this Legislature, this assembly, can be proud of this member for having brought forward this resolution.

Far more significant, though, than the fact that there's going to be unanimous support for this resolution is the fact, and the record should show this, that the visitors' galleries are full. That's not a common thing on Thursday mornings when private members' bills and resolutions are being discussed. Indeed, it demonstrates the fact that there is a large constituency in this province that calls upon this government promptly -- not later; now -- to give effect to the content of Drummond White's resolution. There are undoubtedly a great number of members of the profession who look forward to the ability to regulate themselves.

As well, we'd be remiss if we didn't note that Drummond White's three children, the younger Whites, Devin, Amanda and Lenore, aren't in school today, but probably learning far more here than they would in a classroom. And if you need a note, either your dad will provide one or, if need be, I'll write one for you.

Let me tell you, I'm proud because I come from Welland-Thorold and proud because we have the presence in that community, in the Niagara region, of a significant number of members of the social work profession, who work not only for agencies, governmental and quasi-governmental, but also -- and this is very much a growing trend, thankfully a growing trend, in the social work profession -- people who provide private services. We're the beneficiary of such skilled people like Bill Lidkea and his firm operating out of Thorold. I note that his interest in this matter is not recent but, again, long-time, and I've been the beneficiary of the counsel and advice from Bill Lidkea with respect to this particular matter.

1100

I note as well, and the resolution remarks on the fact, that there is social work training at the bachelor, master and doctorate level here in this province. We also have a number of community colleges which provide outstanding training in their social service programs. I am confident that Drummond White, when he prepares and presents this resolution, anticipates that those very same people, graduates from our fine community colleges like the one in Welland, Niagara College, where people like Goldie Hill and Murdock Keith, now retired, along with the whole other plethora of fine talented skilled people, have been training students in the social services program for a number of years now. We are grateful to them.

We also acknowledge the important role of graduates from the social service programs at community colleges like Niagara College in Welland, students and people like Goldie Hill across this province. We're conscious and cognizant of the invaluable contribution they make to this helping profession.

We note that there's going to be unanimous support for this resolution. We ask the government to note that the visitors' galleries are full. We ask the government to note that this government and previous governments have been called upon again and again to give effect to this resolution. I say to you, Mr Speaker, a resounding support for Drummond White's resolution today will undoubtedly impress upon this government the need to act promptly.

Mr White: I should note at the outset my own anxiety in presenting this. I thought there would be all kinds of vitriol pouring forth from the opposition and, of course, I am pleased that that was not the case. The stars in their firmament must be behind me today. In fact the Toronto Star, the Sault Star and the Sudbury Star are all behind me. They all have editorials saying there should be regulation of social work.

Mr Jackson: They're behind social workers, Drummond. Don't get too big a head here.

Mr White: That's right. They're behind this resolution, my friend. I want to thank my colleagues for pointing out the importance of this profession and how it empowers and strengthens its clients and deals with those natural resources and builds on them; how they are also dealing with people in the most vulnerable situations and how those protections for our most vulnerable adults and children are so badly needed now, even more than ever.

The issue we have before us is not, are we in support, which I understand we are. We understand that Bob Rae has indicated his support and that many of our ministers have as well. That's not the question. The question is -- and I thank the member for York North particularly for helping to push forward this item. Yes, we're in support. Yes, the government's in support. I know that. This should be an opportune time. It has not happened before with any government. Let us make the venue clear that a social work act could be on our agenda, I hope, this term. The people of Ontario need it, the public need it, the vulnerable adults need it and every other profession needs it too.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

CONSUMER AND BUSINESS PRACTICES CODE, 1992 / CODE DE 1992 DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DES PRATIQUES DE COMMERCE

Mr Cordiano moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 98, An Act to provide a Consumer and Business Practices Code for Ontario / Loi prévoyant un Code de la consommation et des pratiques de commerce pour l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I want to say how proud I am to be able to bring forward this piece of legislation standing in my name. It is a combination of efforts on behalf of previous ministers of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Liberal ministers in the previous administration, who were ministers who stood up and said, "We need consumer protection and a new business practices code because this province needs to move forward in modernizing its economy." We understood that. We understood that it was a priority for the economy and for the people of this province, that consumer protection needed to be advanced.

I say that because it is in marked contrast to what we have today. The efforts of this government have largely been towards revenue generation. The efforts of this Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations have been entirely focused on revenue generation. We see that with the advent of casino gambling. We see that with changes in a variety of areas, with fees -- the new corporate registration fee has been increased to $50. We see that right across the board and, as a result, we see an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and on the part of her Premier, who directs her in that regard. As a result, this government has failed miserably to advance the cause of consumer protection. In fact they have done precious little.

I want to deal with what's in the bill and briefly touch on some of the main highlights. Much of the consumer legislation that's currently on the books is more than 20 years old. Many of the 20 acts in force are either outdated or inflexible and need to be brought up to date.

In January 1989, when we were the government, the business-consumer consultation group was formed to make recommendations about how best to consolidate and update Ontario's consumer protection legislation. The process included such groups as the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association as well as the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Input was also received from various other interest groups and professionals concerned with consumer legislation.

It was in July 1990 that the then minister, Greg Sorbara, my colleague for York Centre, introduced a draft bill which would create this new code for Ontario. We intended to introduce legislation at that time in the fall of 1990.

As I said before, consumer protection is a responsibility of this government and one that it has ignored since its election. I believe that the consumers of this province have waited long enough for consumer protection legislation.

Bill 98 consolidates, simplifies and updates existing legislation and addresses new and growing areas of consumer concern such as telemarketing and the expanding service sector, for example. These have never been comprehensively introduced before. This legislation is a codification of acceptable marketplace practices.

Bill 98 applies to the sale of goods as well as to sale of services. The same standards of fair play will apply to both these areas. The code will cover those businesses and individuals that provide legal, medical, most financial, repair and domestic help services. It will also apply to companies that sell goods and services combined as a package, such as dishwashers and extended-service packages.

The foundation of the code is based on four principles:

The principle of disclosure ensures that marketplace participants receive accurate, understandable and timely information in order to make sound purchasing decisions.

Transactional fairness is another principle of the bill. Transactional fairness means that ethical standards of conduct will prevail throughout the entire buying process, beginning with the consideration of a purchase and continuing through to after-sale service.

Fair value is the third principle. Consumers are entitled to receive what they have been led to expect. They should not be vulnerable to after-purchase surprises.

Finally, the fourth principle is access to remedies or justice. When standards of disclosure, transactional fairness and fair value are not met, consumers and businesses will have better remedies and means of resolving disputes.

1110

Bill 98 clearly defines the rights and responsibilities of both the buyer and the seller. The bill also addresses the question of what an unfair practice is, which will serve to benefit both business and consumers.

Part I of the bill defines what constitutes an unfair practice, providing general rules and extensive examples of unfair practices. Under section 8, fairness applies whether or not a sale has actually been made. As an example, a company that distributes flyers that state that its prices have been reduced by 50%, when in fact the goods are being sold at regular prices, could be charged under the code.

Part II of the bill deals with consumer warranties. The definition of warranties will also be broadened to include any written or oral statement. The code will also extend the responsibility for honouring certain warranties to manufacturers, importers, distributors and wholesalers.

Bill 98 will clarify and consolidate rules and warranties given by law and also define what an express warranty is. I see that I'm somewhat running out of time, Mr Speaker, as it winds down, but I just want to summarize the new provisions in this code. The code now applies equally to goods and services. Express warranties, as I've indicated, are now specifically dealt with in legislation. A new warranty is now given by law which requires that spare parts be available for a reasonable time. Suppliers will now be required to clearly notify the consumer about their refund policy. Otherwise, a universal refund policy of 10 days from purchase will automatically apply. New provisions covering repairs over $50, including a mandatory 90-day warranty, now apply.

Bill 98 also improves existing protections, and here are some examples. Liability is extended to manufacturers, importers and wholesalers for the warranties given by law of fitness for purpose and acceptable quality of the goods or services. The list for unfair practices has been expanded and updated. Consumers will now be protected from unfair business practices and real estate purchases. Existing provisions for door-to-door and remote sales have been significantly enhanced and, in addition, a number of specific provisions have been added to address telemarketing.

As I said, the code concerning consumers and business practices attempts to bring us forward, to modernize transactions that have become highly complicated and in some cases quite controversial in the marketplace. I think this legislation is long overdue and I would say that the government has had ample opportunity to deal with this matter. All of the necessary work has been done.

The previous ministers, as I mentioned, had dealt with this matter, initiated it. My colleague the member for Wilson Heights, the then minister who initiated this process, Monte Kwinter, needs to be commended because he conducted a review to bring us forward and then, following on his good measures and good efforts, finally this bill was brought forward as a draft piece of legislation by the then minister in 1990, Greg Sorbara.

We have a very strong tradition in our party of advocating on behalf of consumers and understanding that the marketplace and the economy have become quite complex and that our economy needs to improve into the modern kinds of aspects which this legislation will certainly bring forward.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in support of this bill which is introduced by the member for Lawrence. It is a bill that does codify much of the common law that exists in this province and in fact this country, with some subsections, as the member for Lawrence has indicated -- the telemarketing issue -- and of course there are sections that expand the issue of the warranty; there are more definitions that perhaps clarify some of the definitions that have come forward from the common law.

There has been very little time -- and I'm not saying this in criticism of the member for Lawrence -- to properly consult with the various business and consumer groups specifically on this bill, notwithstanding the fact that it has come from a discussion paper -- and I'm not too sure whether it was the member for Wilson Heights or the member for York Centre who originally, when the Liberals were in government, brought forward this issue -- but this specific bill I certainly haven't had proper time to properly discuss with the business and consumer groups. But generally speaking, I certainly support the principle and I'm certain that there is nothing that could be fine-tuned in committee hearings.

I have some concerns, of course, with respect to such issues as the limitation period. The three years that are mentioned in the bill may be sufficient. It may be long enough, it may not be long enough, and I'd like to hear more input from the groups on that subject. The issue of costs, the cost of the greater action that's going to be taken by the ministry: I don't know what bureaucracy that is going to result in. I'd like to hear more about that. I will say that there may be more action as far as the courts are concerned. There may be better ways of processing these complaints other than through the civil courts.

So I do support the bill. I believe that giving consumers protection when they buy goods or services is an important element in stimulating economic activity. Consumers need to have confidence that they are being treated honestly and fairly when they enter the marketplace. Whether they are contracting to get their carpets cleaned or are buying a house, consumers have a right to a fair deal, and I'm sure that's what the intent of the member for Lawrence was when he introduced this bill.

The member for Lawrence's private member's bill will certainly go a long way to addressing the needs of consumers and businesses in this province, and as he has indicated, it is quite similar to the draft consultation paper that was released by, I believe, the member for York Centre. I don't mean to insult you; it could have been York Centre or Wilson Heights. I know you both had an active part in it when the member for York Centre was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The previous consultation paper, I'm aware, had received wide support from consumer groups such as the consumers' association and the business community, represented by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.

As the member for Lawrence has suggested, it is certainly inconceivable that the members of the NDP government have refused to proceed with this bill or introduce a similar form of bill. It shows the lack of commitment of this government to consumer protection, and I say that as a member of the opposition and as a critic to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This government has failed to act on an already drafted piece of legislation. This legislation was already drafted, and certainly it could require some changes, but at the very least this government has had two years to bring this back and for some reason it has chosen not to, particularly when it has received wide support from business and consumer groups in the past.

Bill 98 reflects an important revision and improvement of existing consumer protection and business practice laws. One of the important elements of this proposed code is that it would put all the rules in one place in a readable format. I think consumers and business people need more of that. We need to have more codification.

It also modernizes those statutes to take into account changes in the marketplace such as telemarketing and the sale of services. Consumer activity is changing continually, and I do believe the member for Lawrence in his bill is trying to keep up with that process.

1120

People purchasing goods are already protected from false claims about the goods from high-pressure sales tactics. For the first time, the acquisition of personal or professional services would also be covered. Vendors would not be able to make false claims about their services, as well as the purchase of real estate.

The statutory warranty that applies to goods would now be extended to services. As I indicated, this policy already exists in the common law, and as I indicated, hopefully would be refined in the committee process.

There are three other areas in which the consumer and business practices code makes much-needed improvements: that is, in the warranty area, the unfair business practices area and the repairing section. With respect to warranties, this bill provides for the extension of statutory warranties to cover services. The bill provides for the extension of warranties so that they cover not only the seller of the goods but also the manufacturer, the importer and the wholesaler. This would extend the already widespread acceptance of manufacturers of responsibility for the quality of their goods, and again this is an attempt to codify the common law.

Finally, this bill puts forward a definition of warranty which would be expanded to cover oral or written assurances about a product or service -- for example, a promise that a particular good or service would meet specific needs.

Secondly, the bill deals with the subject of unfair business practices. The bill deals with unscrupulous business practices by the few who smear the entire business community, and those are out there. Every year the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is forced to investigative people who take advantage of children, senior citizens or the developmentally handicapped. This bill would extend the protection that already exists.

The bill would also clearly restate what unfair business practices are. The principles of fair business practices contained in this bill are also contained in most professional ethics codes, such as the principle of full disclosure and the prohibition of false claims.

The subject of repairs, finally, the third area: Faulty estimates can be a financial nightmare for consumers. The member for Lawrence's bill would require that estimates would be required to be provided. There would be written estimates on request which the final cost would not exceed by more than 10%. A reasonable estimate of the time required to complete the repair would also be provided. There would be a 90-day warranty on parts and services.

One can certainly wonder why this bill has languished in the hands of the NDP government for the last two years. It was already prepared; why not bring it forward? Yes, it could be refined, but at the very least, why not bring it forward instead of some of the crazy policies that are coming out of that ministry such as gambling casinos and the $50 fees and the strange lack of procedure with respect to elevators?

This is the party that trumpeted the need for greater consumer protection when it was in opposition, yet it has sat on this draft legislation and done absolutely nothing. In fact, if the New Democratic Party were a business trying to sell the people of the province on its promises it would be in violation of this very piece of legislation. When you think of what the bill is trying to do, this government is in violation of this very bill. It has engaged in unconscionable business practices from the very beginning by promising things which it won't deliver. Yes, I'm making political comments, but when you think of your promises and what this bill is trying to do, if people in the business community did what you're doing they would be fined and probably taken to court.

Perhaps the reason the government has refused to act on this draft legislation is because it represents a fine model of business-consumer cooperation. After the fiasco of Bill 40, cooperation with the business community seems out of style with this government. The kind of process that produced this bill is the kind of government the people of this province deserve. It shows that special interest groups can work together without confrontation.

I think when you look at many of the provisions in this bill, the member for Lawrence has attempted -- and I realize it's too bad he doesn't have more time to elaborate on many of the sections. Part I talks about unfair business practices, and most of them exist. They're simple statements but they're excellent to be codified so that consumers and business know exactly what is required when you get into commercial relations.

Just as an example, "It is an unfair practice to do or say anything, or fail to do or say anything, if, as a result, a consumer might reasonably be deceived or misled." That is happening out there. I think that it is admirable that this bill is trying to deal with these problems. I'm referring to section 3 under part I: "It is an unfair practice to make a false claim." Of course, this already exists, but, again, to codify it and to make these clear and to expand in the new, ever-changing commercial activity that we have in this province.

"It is an unfair practice for a person to take advantage of the consumer if the person knows or ought to know that the consumer is not in a position to protect his or her own interests

"It is an unfair practice to claim that the person who is to supply goods or services has a particular affiliation, sponsorship, approval or status or connection, if that is not so." So, in other words, there is much deception that is going out into the commercial activity of this province, and I think that it is excellent that this bill is dealing with these issues.

The right of action, section 10, is one area that I do have some hesitancy with, and that is the limitation period of three years. I don't know. Three years may be enough; it may not be long enough. On this and several other issues, I would hope that there would be an opportunity for the member for Lawrence -- in fact, all members of this House -- to consult with the various interest groups on this issue and other issues. But I think that, generally speaking, one should not vote against the bill simply because you pick out a particular section that could be refined at committee or at a later date. An amendment could be made that could perhaps satisfy the interest groups or concerns of members of this House.

There is an excellent section, section 22, that talks about, "In the case of an agreement for the supply of services by description, the supplier shall be deemed to warrant that the services will correspond with the description." There is so much strange activity that goes out in the commercial world that there are many, as I have indicated -- the seniors and the children and handicapped people -- who need protection. There are many people who are astute and are able to deal with these issues, but I think this bill tries to assist many who do not have that ability.

There is a section, part VI, which talks about the enforcement powers of the ministry. Again, I hesitate to speak against that section; I would like to hear more about that from the member for Lawrence. I doubt if he has time, in the time allowed this morning, to do that, but if not the member for Lawrence, then some of the consumer groups. We are in a difficult recessionary time. I don't know what added bureaucrats that will mean to administer this type of section, because, clearly, it will be necessary to retain more people to deal with that. But it may well be that the member for Wilson Heights or others who had some time to review this policy when they were in government could clarify those issues for me.

In conclusion, I would urge this House to give second reading to Bill 98, which is An Act to provide a Consumer and Business Practices Code for Ontario. It is a welcome initiative that will enable consumers to enter the marketplace with greater confidence and businesses to have a clear set of rules that apply to themselves and their competitors.

I believe that the result of this code can only be beneficial to the people of the province of Ontario, and I congratulate the member for Lawrence for bringing it forward at this particular time.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I think it's most appropriate that, as we get closer to the holiday season and many people are out purchasing gifts for the holiday season, we talk about consumer protection issues.

I want to congratulate the member for Lawrence for bringing the issue to the forefront once again in terms of the need for updating consumer protection legislation. I think everyone agrees there is a need to do that. Certainly, we know that in any piece of consumer legislation, it needs to cover some of the things that are covered here: the timely delivery of goods, delivery of goods ordered by mail, telephone high-pressure sales tactics, negative option plans, refund-exchange policies, written estimates for repairs and warranty problems. As I mentioned, many of these issues are addressed in this bill.

1130

It is my sense, though, that when this bill was released in terms of a draft proposal, originally in 1990, there were some concerns raised by both consumer groups and business groups about how practical some of the things were and whether it would create more difficulties. I think there are still those concerns, and I hope that more consultation will go on and that the minister herself will be bringing forward something that may be a bit more comprehensive.

In terms of this bill, I would think that some business people who may be watching this morning would be concerned. All governments get criticized for more regulation, more rules that businesses have to follow. But I hope that most business people would see that a strong consumer protection code is in their best interests as well.

Certainly, from my sense, I know that in my riding the vast majority of the businesses have good business people. They've worked hard to build up their businesses. They rely on a good reputation of providing good service and fair consumer practices.

Unfortunately, there are some unscrupulous people out there who do try to take advantage of consumers, some who move from place to place and set up business. I think all of us as MPPs get people into our office with concerns that we wish we could solve, but these people are maybe working on the edge of the current legislation and it's a little tough to help them.

I also want to point out to those business people that if you look at a couple things, this also helps. Michael Porter, in his report on competitiveness for the economy, talks about setting high standards, talks about energy efficiency, talks about those other things. I think he would agree high consumer protection standards, in terms of what is produced, are also a way of continuing to keep your businesses competitive, not only here but for those types of practices carried out for producing for exports as well, and so there are strong benefits to this as well.

I think it's also important to note one issue, the refund policy. It was interesting: I had the pleasure of attending the business achievement awards in the town of Ingersoll in my riding a couple of months ago in late October. The guest speaker for that evening was Linda Lundstrom. As many of you may know, Linda Lundstrom is a Canadian with an international reputation in designing clothes, particularly jackets. She makes good use, for a lot of her inspiration, from growing up in northern Ontario, near native communities, and displays a lot of their talents.

It was quite interesting talking about refund policies, because she mentioned that when they first started up the company, they had a very complicated refund policy, that it would only occur here, that you could only bring it back after seven days or whatever. She said that they were finding it very complex. So what they decided to do was they changed the refund policy and basically changed it to, "If you want to bring it back, you can bring it back," a very open refund policy. She has found in her business that she hasn't been taken advantage of, that in fact her customers appreciate that it's much easier to bring things back, and she's been able to secure her business in terms of repeat customers.

I think it's clear to say that while obviously consumers are the ones who need to be protected, an enhanced consumer protection code is in the best interests of not only consumers; it's in the best interests of business and the economy overall, and really does protect those very hardworking and dedicated men and women in this province who believe in strong standards, believe in strong ethics and believe in providing the best product and services to their customers.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I am delighted to rise in my place and support Bill 98. Bill 98 had its genesis in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations while I served as the minister, and the reason for it was quite simple: Of the over 80 acts that came under the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, which covered the whole spectrum of everything from horse racing to liquor control acts to stuffed furniture and stuffed articles to being the Registrar General of Ontario to looking after amusement devices, all of those things, I would say that then and probably now, the one issue that created more input and more complaint from the general public was the whole area of consumer protection.

The consumer protection legislation that is now on the books of the province of Ontario is an amalgam of many different bits and pieces that have been developed over the years in response to particular problems.

The one governing principle that usually governs the marketplace as far as consumers is known as caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, and what that means is that except where there is a specific warranty, the buyer is at risk as to the quality of the product he buys. That may be fine, but it doesn't really address the many problems that are out there, and as the marketplace becomes more complex the problem gets accentuated.

I'd just like to talk about a couple of the things that really created the need for this particular kind of legislation. Members will probably know that the one area where we did get some legislation was auto repairs, because the auto repair business was by far the number one area of consumer complaint.

Members might know or like to know that there is a process where we have what we call a "ghost car program." The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has cars that it takes to the government garage, makes sure that they are absolutely perfectly tuned, and then takes these cars to selected car repair places and tells them that it's having trouble with these cars and would they please examine them.

Of course, if you get a responsible and legitimate repair office, he will look at the car, test it and say: "Sir, there is nothing wrong with your car. I can't find anything." On the other hand, indications have shown that in some cases there have been very extensive repair bills, with a whole range of imagined problems with that car, where whole parts of the engine have been replaced and major repairs initiated. Of course, the results are that these people are charged with unfair business practices, the idea being that once word got out throughout the industry that this program was in place, those unscrupulous dealers and those unscrupulous repair people would get the message and would certainly try to act in a responsible way.

There were other areas that created some problems: health clubs, for example, where people paid fees for services and prepaid two- and three-year memberships, only to find that in some cases the health club didn't even open, let alone survive, and in other cases they stayed open for a very brief period of time and then they folded, with the loss to these purchasers of service that couldn't get redress. That created a problem.

Another problem was in the travel industry. Travel packagers were selling tours and showing brochures of hotels that looked as if they were on the beach and looked as if they had great facilities. When people got to their destination they were quite dismayed to find that the actual place had no relationship whatsoever to what the brochure showed, and what was supposed to be the highlight of their year as far as their holiday was concerned turned into a travel disaster. That, of course, created many problems in the ministry.

The last example that I'd like to talk about is of course the one that created a lot of problems, and that's people in the dance studio business who got elderly people who had problems in sort of socializing. They looked at this as a solution and bought lifetime memberships for not hundreds, but thousands of dollars, and found themselves obligated when they could never, ever dance that long, or live that long.

These were problems that had to be addressed, and of course, it brought to the one line, whenever you see a lifetime offer, you don't know whether it's your lifetime or the lifetime of the person who is offering it, and in many cases, that could be a very short life, because these people go out of business.

1140

The purpose of the legislation was to try to codify all the different consumer protection pieces that were out there and come out with a code. The previous speaker kept referring to this as a consumer code and I just want to correct that. It is a consumer and business code. It is meant not only to serve the consumer, but to serve businesses. Businesses, if they are working in an environment where they know what is expected and know what the ground rules are, can function. Most businessmen are legitimate businessmen out there trying to perform the services they advertise and trying to be good, corporate citizens.

The idea behind this legislation is to make sure that all the participants in the particular commercial endeavour know what the ground rules are. This particular code, which was introduced by my successor, was a result of consultation with the consumers' groups, the chambers of commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and others who had an interest in getting an environment in which the consumer can be protected, the businesses can be protected, and a good situation would prevail for everybody.

It was with some surprise that a draft bill that was tabled in July 1990 -- and now we are into December 1992 -- has not seen the light of day, or had any kind of publicity or any kind of indication from the government that it would be bringing it forward. There's no reason to believe -- this bill might have some flaws, and during the committee hearings it could be amended, could be refined to suit the particular situation that we have today, but we've seen nothing. I want to commend the member for Lawrence for bringing forward Bill 98 because I think it's important to the consumers of Ontario and it's also important to the businessmen who are servicing those consumers.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): First of all, I wish everyone Merry Christmas.

It's nice to see that the member for Lawrence has brought this bill forward and especially in today's marketplace. It is changing, Ontario is changing, and we do need better consumer protection laws. They haven't really kept pace with what's been going on.

The development of new stronger consumer protection legislation continues to be a top priority with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. New consumer legislation has been in the development stage, as the member said, since the Liberals were in power. Really, what's so good about Bill 98 is that it was pretty good legislation. One thing is, it wasn't quite good enough. Since the time the Liberals started working on their bill, the ministry has been reviewing a lot of the submissions that took place at that time, and there were some stakeholders who had concerns with Bill 98.

Again, while the original draft provided a pretty good overall framework, there are several areas that Bill 98 just doesn't address. For example, it doesn't cover the area of home improvements. Home improvements are a major source of consumer complaints, but they had not been included in that draft. There's also the concern that Bill 98 falls short because it concentrates on creating new offences and not providing new remedies for consumers. Remedies that are currently available to consumers who suffer losses arising out of consumer transactions are extremely limited.

The ministry is exploring different ways to help consumers to resolve their own disputes. We're also concerned about Bill 98 having a number of provisions that just don't work in the business world, especially in areas of mail order and telemarketing, which has already been discussed.

Also, the bill doesn't recognize that there are many consumers with special needs for information that's easy to understand. In this regard, as with all legislation being passed by this ministry, we're looking at simple-language legislation.

We appreciate the amount of work that the Liberals put into this. Again I have to say it's nice that the member for Lawrence brought this forward at this time. I know from speaking with the minister that she's said we intend to build on the framework; we're not going to throw away what was already done. It was not perfect, and it wasn't right for what the New Democrats were saying in terms of what's needed for Ontario consumer protection. What is the minister doing; what is the minister going to do? Let me say right here that she has conveyed to me that she hopes all members of this Legislature will support the new consumer fair marketplace code that hopefully will be brought in in the spring of the new session.

Mr Tilson: What's wrong with this one?

Mr Fletcher: What's wrong with this one? It's just not there, it's not quite good enough. If you'd listened to what I was saying before, we explained some areas. I know that your position is to oppose because you're opposition; something you're used to, I know.

The problem is that this piece of legislation just doesn't go far enough in a changing marketplace. That's what's wrong with this. I'm not saying it's all bad; I think it was good. But we have to make sure it has been kept up to date with what's been going on in the marketplace in Ontario, and it just hasn't.

So we thank the previous government for the work it did, we thank you very much. As I said before, we hope the opposition will be able to support the new legislation that comes through in the spring.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I'll be very brief. I want to begin by congratulating my colleague the member for Lawrence for introducing this legislation.

My colleague Mr Kwinter summarized a little of the history of the draft consumer code I had the privilege of presenting in June 1990, just after the recess of the 34th Parliament, for consideration. I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, and the members of this House that an incredible amount of work had gone into that draft consumer and business code by officials in the ministry, not only while I was there but while Mr Kwinter was there, and other ministers. Beyond that, there was consultation by virtually every single group that has an interest in fair and honest codes for the protection of consumers in the marketplace.

In short, the bill was ready for presentation to Parliament when the New Democratic Party took office in September 1990, and I cannot for the life of me imagine why the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is not even in the House today to listen to this debate, has not simply put whatever socialist revisions she wants on the five and six works that have been done on a new consumer code.

The only thing I can surmise is that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has given over all of her time to worrying about casinos and where they will be and how they will operate. I think she is shirking her responsibilities. She has a code ready and waiting, all the work has been done; she simply needs to bring forward that bill in Parliament, and after two and a half years she not only has not presented a bill but she hasn't even reported to Parliament on the status and the progress of revising the code that was prepared so that Ontario can have a new and modern consumer and business code to more effectively regulate the marketplace.

I think it is regrettable in the extreme that, all that work having been done, the minister would not even have the grace and goodwill to present us with an update and, ultimately, a consumer code. But where there is a vacuum, other members move to fill the vacuum, and my colleague the member for Lawrence has done just that with a bill that I think will begin to revise and reform the consumer laws in this province. I hope the members of this Parliament can give second reading and expeditious consideration to this bill.

1150

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): Much has been said about the previous bill, and indeed the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has taken both the draft legislation and the concerns raised in the original and further consultations with business and is preparing new legislation scheduled for release in the spring, called the fair marketplace code. That code will build on the strengths that are in the bill before us and take into account some very serious further modifications.

I would like in these few moments to make small business the focus of my remarks, both in praise of the work done so far and pointing towards the work still ahead, since small business people will feel the effects of a code of business practices most directly. Considering the role of the 300,000 small business as employers of 33% of the work force, particularly women, seniors and youth, we must make sure that we have their interests at the forefront of our minds when we pass legislation affecting them.

A long-overdue change contained in this bill is to include protection against unfair practices in supplies and services provided by this government and its agencies. This change will reinforce the government's commitment to accountability by making us play by the same rules of the marketplace as every other company. Our contracts with our own private partners will be open to mutual scrutiny and enforceability. Similarly, the government and its agencies will be responsible for providing warranties guaranteeing the fitness for purchase and the acceptable quality of all goods and services they produce in competition with any other vendor. It makes no sense to exempt the government from its own codes. This bill proposes to change that exemption, and I think that this is an important plank to build on with the new fair marketplace act.

As much as I agree with the principle of this bill and with the specific provisions in it, I think there are some gaps in this bill from the point of view of small business, and I would want to ensure that the new fair marketplace act will address the concerns of small business in a comprehensive manner. One of my major concerns is that this bill tries to remedy problems in the marketplace by creating new offences. It is important for the government to prosecute serious violations of fair business practice, but we must take care that we do not create technical and bureaucratic infractions in our attempt to guarantee fairness. In some cases, the better alternative to creating new rules and punishments is to give businesses and consumers the tools to work out their disputes without the government having to step in.

In conclusion, I want to state that this is a piece of legislation that can be very good for small business, and I'm delighted to see the initiatives that paved the way for the fair marketplace legislation that is expected this spring. I know Mr Cordiano will have substantial contributions to that debate, and I look forward to our continuing work to ensure adequacy of consumer protection for all.

As a member elected in 1987, I can recall bringing forward -- and many of my colleagues -- consumer protection issues in opposition, and at the time the response from the ministry was always, "Don't worry, we've got legislation coming through; therefore, just hold off and you'll see the legislation." But they didn't bring the legislation. They brought it forward just before an election. They had another three years in their mandate; they went to the people for a new mandate after two years, very politically inept in their decision to do so. The reality of the matter is that there was important legislation they could have brought forward, that they didn't bring forward, and now they're saying, "Why isn't this legislation on the books?" The Liberals had the opportunity of an extra three years to bring in any legislation they wanted -- they had the numbers -- and they refused. In an opportunistic manner, they went to the people seeking a new mandate, and the people said: "No, we will not accept that. You are out, and we're going to put somebody in who will indeed bring forward legislation."

Having said all that, I do not believe there should be a roadblock to Mr Cordiano's initiative on the basis of a proposed piece of legislation that has not yet been tabled by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Affairs. The reason I am going to support Mr Cordiano's motion is precisely the experience I had in opposition, that we talked about consumer protection and we were promised, "Don't worry; it will come," and the government, three years in its mandate, didn't deliver on the goods. The Liberals let consumers down. The Liberals let consumer protection down. The Liberals didn't deliver the goods. I am hoping that my government will deliver the goods, but in anticipation of that I support Mr Cordiano's initiative.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): That's quite an enthusiastic performance for any of us to follow.

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): You're never at a loss for words, Sean.

Mr Conway: The member for Lambton says I'm never at a loss for words. Let me just say to her that I appreciate the enthusiasm of my friends opposite for what did or did not happen between 1985 and 1990. There's no question that a lot happened and some things didn't happen; some of what happened shouldn't have happened, and some of what didn't happen should have happened. But I would have thought that in the course of two-and-a-half years we would have seen from this government some effort to advance the cause of consumer protection.

The members for Wilson Heights and York Centre have rightly observed that this proposal was essentially introduced and ready to be advanced in the summer of 1990. It is true, as the member for Cambridge has observed, that a new government might wish to add some refinements. But we haven't seen any of these to date --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): They're too busy with scandals.

Mr Conway: Well, no, I don't know that they're too busy with scandal, but they are too busy with something that I would never have expected to have been on the agenda of a New Democratic-CCF Party in government in Ontario. We all know that that which has been obsessing the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is how to get on with its new policy, its new enthusiasm, for gambling.

I'm like Pierre Berton. I read Berton. I don't think Berton is any stranger to the NDP, and he is like I am, he's speechless, he's incredulous at the thought that the NDP is about to turn our old Ontario into casino Ontario.

Mr Bradley: Mel Swart's with him.

Mr Conway: My friend from St Catharines says that Mel Swart is with him, and he sure is. To hear that pillar of the NDP, that former spokesperson for the NDP on consumer affairs, denounce the Rae government for the godless gambling fixation that it has developed is really quite something to behold.

I can appreciate how the department of consumer affairs has had little or no time to advance bills like the one Mr Cordiano has brought to our attention today, because all of her time is being spent dealing with delegations from Windsor and Sault Ste Marie and elsewhere, where apparently the rage today is how we get into the gambling business.

I just observe the contradiction from what the NDP said here in those years of opposition when consumer protection, of such a kind as is contained in Bill 98, was its top priority, and now after two years and three months we've heard nary a word and seen very little.

Mr Sutherland: We're going to use our full mandate.

Mr Conway: Well, I don't doubt the Rae government will use its full mandate. You will take this mandate and do with it what R.B. Bennett did in 1935 and what Richard Bennett Hatfield did with his mandate in New Brunswick a few years ago. This will be, I say to my friend the member for Oxford -- I think my friend for Oxford knows what of I speak. I don't doubt that this mandate will be the longest five years that this province has seen outside of wartime.

I think we should certainly get on with Bill 98. If there are improvements, let the government bring forward those improvements, but let's get on with it in the name of consumer protection.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cordiano, you have two minutes.

Mr Cordiano: I, in my remaining two minutes, just want to thank all the members who have spoken on behalf of Bill 98, and would like to hope that all members of the House would support this bill. It's long overdue. The initiative that I think needs to be brought forward indeed can be brought forward if all members of this assembly support this initiative, and from the indications thus far it would seem so.

I would urge members on the government benches to support this initiative. I understand that there are flaws with this bill; I don't think that there are any major flaws, but I do believe that we can improve this piece of legislation and in fact we should support initiatives to approve it.

As I say, the minister is not here today to speak or comment on this, but the fair market act which she is supposedly going to bring forward, I think she can use this initiative, bring it to committee to look at what needs to be done to improve it. Let's move forward with it.

But of course, this Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and her Premier, and indeed her Treasurer, are so lustful for dollars -- in fact, this minister and this Premier, I'm tempted to say this, they are more preoccupied, in fact this Premier is more preoccupied with --

Mr Farnan: Don't lose them. You're throwing it away. You're losing votes by the second.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cambridge, you had your turn.

Mr Cordiano: If I might finish my speech here and conclude my remarks by saying this Premier is more preoccupied with cash cows than looking after some sacred cows which he so put forward on the altar as having been sacred cows. But it's cash cows that they're after: casino gambling, increases in fees of all kinds to consumers and businesses, and I think that they are reprehensible and this minister hasn't been following her mandate.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

SOCIAL WORKERS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 37, standing in the name of Mr White. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr White has moved private member's resolution number 36. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

CONSUMER AND BUSINESS PRACTICES CODE, 1992 / CODE DE 1992 DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DES PRATIQUES DE COMMERCE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 38, standing in the name of Mr Cordiano. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Cordiano has moved second reading of Bill 98, An Act to provide a Consumer and Business Practices Code for Ontario. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1204 to 1209.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the members please take their seats.

Mr Cordiano has moved second reading of Bill 98, An Act to provide a Consumer and Business Practices Code for Ontario.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Chiarelli, Conway, Cordiano, Cunningham, Drainville, Farnan, Fletcher, Harris, Jordan, Kwinter, Mancini, Marchese, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey), Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Rizzo, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Tilson, Ward (Brantford), Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Nays

Akande, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Malkowski, MacKinnon, Martin, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Sutherland, Waters, Wessenger, White, Winninger.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 33, the nays are 24. I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Referred to the committee of justice.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on justice?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the majority seems to be in favour. Therefore the bill shall be referred to the standing committee on justice.

All those in favour of the bill going to the justice committee will please rise.

All those opposed will please rise.

Take your seats, please. A majority being not in favour, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Interjection: What was the count?

The Deputy Speaker: It was 27 to 30.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I think it's important to notice that all of the Liberals and Conservatives in this Legislature voted to send this bill out to the justice committee so the public would have an opportunity to put forward their views on it, and all the NDP voted against this, even though some of the NDP voted in favour of the bill. Disgraceful.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): A point of order: The member was not in the House for the entire debate and wants to make comments. It's nonsense.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. This private business has now been completed, and this House will adjourn until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1216.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SEA LAMPREYS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise today to bring to the attention of this House an important issue to anglers, charter fishing boat operators, commercial fisherman and all of those in this province interested in maintaining Ontario's natural ecosystems.

As members know, the opening of the St Lawrence Seaway introduced sea lamprey into the natural ecosystems of our Great Lakes. Sea lamprey devastated fish stocks in the 1950s and 1960s. Only now are we seeing a rebuilding of those stocks to pre-lamprey levels. This creature has the ability to again devastate our natural ecosystems if diligent lamprey control measures are not continued and implemented.

The Americans, under international agreement, split the cost of this control with the Canadian federal government. The Americans have increased their allocation this year by 18%, contingent upon a similar increase by the government of Canada. The federal fisheries minister, John Crosbie, has asked Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources to contribute $250,000 in addition to the federal government's contribution. The Great Lakes need this important program. We need the minister to respond to Mr Crosbie's request. We need Mr Crosbie to respond to the Americans.

We need in Ontario a strategy for the control of purple loosestrife, which isn't happening. We've seen a cutback of zebra mussel work by 50%. It's time now to move quickly to control the lamprey, this unwanted intruder in our waters.

CONGRATULATORY AND HOLIDAY MESSAGES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I had the pleasure of attending the 151st inaugural meeting of Simcoe county council in Midhurst on Tuesday as Tiny township reeve Ross Hastings was elected warden of the county of Simcoe for a one-year term.

As a former warden myself, I know that Ross and his first lady, Pat, will have an extremely busy schedule ahead of them during their term of office as they work on behalf of the people of Simcoe county.

I would also like to extend my personal thanks to Oro township reeve Bob Drury, grandson of the former Premier, who demonstrated his belief in the democratic process by tossing his hat in the ring. While his candidacy for warden proved to be unsuccessful, I believe Mr Drury deserves our thanks for making the effort to seek the position of warden of Simcoe county, at which next year I know he will be successful.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to our police officers who are staffing the RIDE program across Ontario, because it has become a sad fact of life that warm feelings associated with this festive season often result in too much drinking and tragedy on our roads and highways. I urge everyone not to drink and drive, and don't ride with anyone who does.

I continue to watch my office expenses closely, and because I am a true example of a Scotsman, I sent out very few Christmas cards again this year. My wife, Marjorie, and I sincerely wish that blessings, peace, prosperity and contentment be yours this festive season and throughout the coming year.

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, through you to every member of this Legislature.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to inform the House of a unique incentive to keep residents of the Niagara Peninsula shopping locally instead of in the US: free turkeys.

This Saturday morning the Niagara North Federation of Agriculture is giving away more than 20 birds at a store somewhere in Lincoln, Niagara-on-the-Lake, St Catharines, West Lincoln or Grimsby. The store's exact location will be kept secret until Saturday or maybe the night before. The turkeys, each weighing seven kilograms, will be distributed at a store known for its support of local produce. The big Christmas birds will be given out, as long as supplies last, to the people who buy at least $25 worth of groceries.

I'm sure grocery stores in the Niagara region will be filled with shoppers this Saturday morning, and that's what the idea's all about: keeping Canadian dollars ringing through Canadian registers.

A similar giveaway was organized in August by the Niagara South Federation of Agriculture. I take this opportunity to congratulate these two fine agricultural groups, the Niagara north and south federations of agriculture, for continuing to find ways of combating cross-border shopping.

There are still people out there who think it's cheaper to buy groceries across the border. Well, they're wrong. If they take into account the exchange rates and the expense of getting to and from the American stores and what their time is worth, it's easier on the pocketbook to shop at home.

Let's not forget the unsurpassed quality of Canadian produce, meat and dairy products. To steal a slogan from the recent Shop Ontario campaign, "It pays to look both ways before you cross the border."

I'd like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): An article in yesterday's Richmond Hill newspaper underlines the continuing controversy and scepticism with which York region residents are viewing the entire Interim Waste Authority megadump site selection. The headline reads, "Bet on Vaughan for Megadump."

Statements by the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the extension of the Rouge River Valley Park north and by the chairman of the Interim Waste Authority about the transportation problems facing the Georgina site seem to indicate that the noose is tightening around the only remaining site, that of Vaughan.

No wonder 39 environmental groups from across Ontario have called upon this government to stop its current site search. They, like virtually everyone else in this province except for the minister and her government, know that her so-called review process is deeply and irreparably flawed.

No wonder the level of paranoia is high in the region. We're talking about people's lives, about their futures. They're worried and, yes, they're frightened. But, Minister, they're fighting and will continue to fight. Last night, over 1,500 people gathered in Maple. They will not rest, we will not rest, until this madness of the minister's site search is dumped. This government has made a mockery of the supposedly democratic site selection process. Minister, you still have time to put an end to it. Will you do it now?

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Today I will be introducing a private member's bill entitled Registration of Pedophiles Act, 1992. The bill requires persons convicted of a sexual offence involving a child under the age of 14 to register with the police within whose jurisdiction the person lives. The public will have access to information in the register and will therefore know if convicted paedophiles are living in their neighbourhood. The police will have the power to disseminate the information in the register and can notify neighbours or schools in extreme cases.

The public have the right to be informed when a convicted paedophile is living within their boundaries. The only way the public can take precautionary measures for protection of their children is if they have the needed knowledge.

Serious sex offenders pose a significant threat to a community. This is an issue of rights, and I believe that the rights of children to a safe environment outweigh the rights of paedophiles to privacy. Society owes this to our children.

The only way to allow for adequate public warnings is by giving police the authorization to go door to door warning families and children that this is an individual to avoid.

As legislators, we have a responsibility and an obligation to provide public safety. This would be a regulatory statute that reflects the legitimate need of police and communities to know what's going on. The public deserve no less.

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I bring to the attention of the House news of two local initiatives in my riding involving jobs and taxes.

First, I want fellow members to know that the Jobs Ontario Training fund is realizing success in bringing together business, labour, equity groups, educators, trainers and the municipality of Peterborough to get long-term unemployed people in our community trained and back to work.

Don Pitt, executive director of the Peterborough Employment Planning Youth Career Centre and the local broker for the Jobs Ontario Training fund, says, "The program has been well received by local employers who recognize the need to train workers in the skills that will make their business competitive."

I'm pleased that the Jobs Ontario Training fund is working in my riding and anticipate many constituents, especially young people, will benefit from this training strategy.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Second, I'd like to tell members about a good and fair alternative to market value assessment which would not drive employers from the city core.

Peterborough city council has endorsed for study a new concept in property tax assessment known as the two-tier property tax system. Proponents say it is a fair and equitable system which has the advantages of preserving jobs and encouraging economic activity while discouraging land speculation. Peterborough council has requested that this Legislature study the potential benefits of the two-tier system for those reasons. Merry Christmas, everybody.

1340

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My colleague the member for Essex South and I note that the ominous news that General Motors may be laying off 1,200 employees for 18 months at its Windsor transmission plant has added to the gloom that has fallen over St Catharines and the apprehension that is in the minds of GM workers in Oshawa and London, as the predicted elimination of jobs and the closing of GM plants in Ontario become a reality.

Our communities will not, however, accept the removal of thousands of jobs and the dismantling of our plants without standing up for those who had devoted so much of their lives to General Motors operations and those who had jobs supplying and servicing GM facilities.

While there is some encouragement in the retooling of the GM transmission plant in Windsor that it will serve that operation for some time to come, the length of time employees will be without work and the belief that the permanent workforce will diminish considerably is extremely important to all of us.

It points to the need for the Premier to meet with the very top leaders of General Motors in Detroit to present the case for the retention of its operations in Ontario and the desirability of placing new investment in our province.

This points once again to the need of the Ontario government to establish a specific auto industry department within MITT to service the future of this important industrial sector. GM employees in St Catharines, Windsor, Oshawa and London deserve no less.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): As we look around today on International Human Rights Day, we see human rights violations in many corners of the globe: the deplorable rise of neo-naziism in Europe, the brutal ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and increasing violence in South Africa, where the move away from apartheid is incomplete.

Canadians are horrified by these events, but we are not immune to human rights problems. Recently I met with Dr Ubale, Ontario's first race relations commissioner. In his book, Politics of Exclusion, Multiculturalism or Ghettoism, Dr Ubale writes that despite a strong current of goodwill towards minorities in Canada, discrimination is still part of many Canadians' daily lives.

The exclusion of minorities is also due to the ghettoization of ethnic groups. According to Dr Ubale, this is encouraged by the divisive way our multiculturalism policies are applied. One result is the promotion of the idea of hyphenated Canadians, an idea which keeps Canadians divided. Dr Ubale also warns that minorities are increasingly divided from each other. The recent violence in North York is disturbing evidence of his warning.

We should reject a multiculturalism which creates separate cultural islands. Instead we need one which weaves the strands of diverse cultures into a colourful Canadian fabric. Dr Ubale's message is that if Canadians rise to the task, we can show the world how peoples of different backgrounds can live together in a dynamic, prosperous community which respects the rights of all its citizens.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): I rise in this House today to address once again the issue of property taxes. Two days ago our government sent back to Metro Toronto council its proposed interim property tax assessment reform because, if implemented, it would have caused more inequities than it would have solved.

Yesterday the Property Tax Working Group of the Fair Tax Commission, established by this government over a year ago, released its report that further corroborated the sound motivation of the government decision. Metro residents, though, will still be waiting for a tax reform that must be fair to all property owners.

The Fair Tax Commission quite clearly stated, "Ontario dependence on the property tax as a source of revenue for education and social service programs should be reduced." This principle must be one of the cornerstones of any future reform.

Inertia has never been an acceptable alternative to responsible government, and certainly inertia has never been a characteristic of progressive governments, and this must be a misnomer for this government.

Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to wish you and all the members of the House and my constituents and all the people of Ontario my most sincere and heartfelt wishes for a happy and safe holiday.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I draw to members' attention that for the last few weeks we have been extremely well served by a dedicated group of very wonderful young people. This is their last day serving us as pages, and I invite you to join me in thanking them for the service they have provided to all of us here at the assembly for the last few weeks.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): As members know, over the past two decades community information centres have become well known and respected for providing vital services to communities across Ontario. Last year alone, the centres responded to more than one million calls.

The centres are grass-roots organizations that mirror their individual communities. They respond to community needs for timely, accurate and relevant information on government and non-government programs and services that enable people to make important life choices. The users are often people who have never faced unemployment before, or need housing, child care or social service support.

Easily accessible to anyone, community information centres have an amazing amount of information at their fingertips. Many are linked through an automated information system, Online Ontario.

This government recognizes that community information centres play a vital role in the social and economic wellbeing of Ontario. We believe that all Ontario residents, and particularly marginalized groups, must have access to information that can help them understand and deal with the socioeconomic and technological challenges of our society.

Unfortunately, while the recession has increased demand, many centres are finding it more and more difficult to provide services due to uncertainty or shortages of funding. Some centres have had to close their doors, while others have been unable to provide a fast, efficient link to essential services when they are really needed.

Today, I am announcing that the government is committing $1.1 million a year to the funding of community information centres. This is a long-term commitment that I know will clear the uncertainty surrounding provincial funding as a result of constraints by previous governments.

This will bring centres into Online Ontario. As a result, more people will be able to find the information they need and communities that are underserviced will receive improved access to information.

By supporting the centres, we will help reduce costly duplication of information services and work towards an efficient and cost-effective information system. Our support also helps ensure the job security of people employed by the centres.

The Ministry of Culture and Communications will take the lead on developing new funding criteria for community information centres to ensure that people in Ontario get the help they need. By bringing stability to the vital work these centres do, we are contributing immeasurably to the quality of life of all Ontarians.

The staff of the ministry have worked for over a year with me on this issue, in conjunction with the treasury board and Management Board. Some are here today and I want to add my personal thank you to that staff.

RACE RELATIONS

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I'm very pleased today to announce, as the minister responsible -- jointly with the Attorney General -- for responding to the Stephen Lewis report on race relations, that this government is launching two initiatives directly related to the report's recommendations.

As the minister responsible for human rights in Ontario, I'm especially pleased I can make this announcement on International Human Rights Day.

As Mr Lewis pointed out in his report to the Premier, people who have been trained or educated outside Ontario are often barred from working at their chosen occupations because their qualifications are not recognized in this province. Accordingly, the government is launching an initiative to address the systemic barriers that have led to this problem.

1350

The Ministry of Citizenship will be the lead ministry in this initiative, but this is very much a cooperative effort, a corporate strategy among the relevant ministries to address the barriers that prevent access. As Lewis recognized in his report, there are special issues related to physicians and they are not covered in this particular initiative.

The ministries will work with the licensing and certification bodies to ensure that they incorporate access principles into their policies and practices. We understand that many foreign-trained individuals will have equality of opportunity to seek licensure and certification to return to their original professions. We will assess the effectiveness of this approach and the progress made after a two-year period.

It is crucial that we recognize this issue as more than one of social justice. When professionals and tradespersons trained or educated outside of Ontario do not face such barriers, they will be able to contribute to Ontario society and the economy to their fullest potential.

We recognize the rights of licence and certification bodies to govern themselves and set standards for their professions and trades, and we want to enlist these organizations as our partners as we conduct the necessary reforms. We are already seeing some encouraging initiatives from vocational bodies working with us on demonstration projects.

I'm pleased to announce that as part of our strategy we will be spending $2 million over a two-year period to create 10 to 15 demonstration projects a year. As well, I would like to inform the House that I will be assisted in the implementation of our strategy by a community advisory group.

What happened last May in downtown Toronto was no accident. It was a desperate call for our attention from a group that has been consistently discriminated against and excluded. Hateful incidents such as the desecration of synagogues, and more recently the vandalism at the Toronto Native Canadian Centre, further remind us of how much alive and well racism is and how fragile and precious our protection of human rights really is.

I'm also very pleased to announce on behalf of the Premier that this government will be forming a Cabinet Round Table on Anti-Racism. This will consist of a group of ministers, the Premier's parliamentary assistant with responsibility for youth employment programs and the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat, together with a consultative group of representatives from aboriginal and racial minority communities and regions.

The new round table on anti-racism will focus on several tasks: first, to build partnerships between government and racial minority communities for joint dialogue, problem-solving and advice to the cabinet; second, to provide an ongoing feedback and monitoring process for government initiatives of interest to racial minority communities; third, to make recommendations to cabinet regarding the effect of implementation of anti-racism initiatives.

The round table will convene four times a year in locations across the province. In order to ensure access and participation by a diversity of groups and regional interests, the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat will work with round table members to arrange presentations from local and regional community groups.

We have a long way to go before we can claim that this province has achieved full equality, but with these new initiatives, we are taking significant steps towards enhancing access and equity for everyone in this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? Responses, the official opposition, the member for Etobicoke-Humber.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): Nobody is going to quibble with this announcement of $1.1 million to community information centres. It's obviously a good idea. But Madam Minister, I want to ask, through you, Mr Speaker, why was it left so long? Why did the minister make an announcement several months ago that she was going to be pulling the funding for these community information centres, then begin to look around to find whether some funding could be made available? Why did the minister make so many excellent people squirm in the course of making up her mind about this?

The minister announces $1.1 million in increased funding as a long-term commitment. How long? Is that a permanent increase to base funding? The minister announces that more CICs can hope for equitable access to this funding, but that's a statement of hope. It doesn't promise them anything. The minister says that centres will be brought into the automated information system, Online Ontario. But the centres are already in that information system. How many more will be brought in? Will they all be brought in, or will there be some proportion or some fraction?

This announcement leaves many questions unanswered. How many community information centres in Ontario will benefit from this? We don't know. Will all of them receive some assistance with their funding needs? We don't know. Will they all have access to the automated information system, Online Ontario? We don't know. The minister concludes her statement by saying that she is contributing immeasurably to the quality of life of all Ontarians. Perhaps it's immeasurable because it really doesn't amount to very much.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Madam Minister, your response is not a response. I'm extremely disappointed about that. The Lewis report had specific recommendations. It had specific deadlines. You have missed them all. I thought that today you would come, after waiting so long, and would have had those responses and those recommendations implemented. I see nothing here. Madam Minister, I think you and your government should stop playing games with the people of Ontario.

You and your government promised to eradicate racism in 10 years. What we had in the streets within two years were riots. The Premier promised implementation of the access to professions and trade. What you have done today is announce a demonstration project. It took you two years, and the job was already done by the previous government with those recommendations. It took you two years to recommend a demonstration project. You and the government have done nothing in the announcement. Announcements are just excuses for action.

Today is International Human Rights Day. I thought that your government or you, yourself, would come out with some sort of announcement, something that would bring highlight what a very important day this is. Your government has demonstrated wearing a lot of ribbons around the place; there are brown ribbons and yellow ribbons and green ribbons. Today, all we're asking is, what are these ribbons about? What are the programs you've put in place about human rights? None.

There's no action on the promised reform by the Human Rights Commission. The inquiry chaired by Mary Cornish was established with so much fanfare. However, since the report was published and submitted to the Minister of Citizenship -- you, Madam Minister -- the government has failed to act on the recommendations. They have been very silent on this issue.

Earlier this year, you, Madam Minister, assured the Legislature that the backlog at the Human Rights Commission would be cleared up by this December. It is December now, but the backlog still remains and the people of this province are not confident that allegations of discrimination can be dealt with expeditiously by the commission. The government has failed to live up to its commitment to give the Human Rights Commission the resources necessary to effectively fight systemic discrimination and other human rights violations in this province.

Madam Minister, I think basically you're a good person. I think your government has failed miserably on these matters. I am shocked today by the fact of knowing that we have done nothing. You sent us a joint announcement by the Attorney General and yourself. Justice has failed the people of this province. I thought really that you'd have gotten together and made your case at the cabinet table. If you are making your case at the cabinet table and it's not heard, it is worse than I thought, then.

Maybe you are making your case and all these people are deaf to all of this and have closed their ears to all of this. I'm surprised that your Premier advocates all these human rights and nothing is done for International Human Rights Day. It's a failure.

1400

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm happy that the Minister of Culture and Communications made a statement today because it gives me an opportunity to rise and wish all three of my ministers, Ms Ziemba and Ms Gigantes as well, the best wishes of the season.

I would simply like to say to the minister on her announcement about the community information centres that I'm glad she has finally read our letters. Certainly, I have colleagues in my caucus who have, along with myself, written you a number of letters. I know you've just shown me some of the replies you have now brought in the House with you. I know for a fact that the member for Simcoe West, Mr Jim Wilson, has written eight letters to you about the community information centres in his riding.

In fact, Jim Wilson uses the community information centres in Alliston and Collingwood for his constituency office appointments in order to communicate, on behalf of all the government agencies, with his constituents. Also, Mr Allan McLean, the member for Simcoe East, has a community information centre in Orillia, so he's very grateful that you've made this announcement. On behalf of those in the region of Peel for whom I've been writing to you, I appreciate the announcement as well.

The only comment I would like to make is that you mention you want to help reduce costly duplication of information services among government ministries, so would you please speak to the Minister of Health and encourage her to perhaps use your community information centres instead of setting up these 40-odd multiservice organizations she has announced as part of Bill 101 in the long-term care redirection. I think it would be great if the Minister of Health could use these existing centres, which do a superb job with excellent staff, and we don't need to set up another tier of multiservice organizations, as she has announced.

In closing, Madam Minister, I can't help but say to you, now that we know that both the Art Gallery of Ontario and Prince Charles are going to be available in the new year, we hope you will be able to revisit the friendship you established with him at the time you dropped your slipper and he so graciously picked it up. He's obviously been distracted ever since that event, and I hope you'll be able to renew that relationship with him. Happy Christmas.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The two issues from the minister responsible for human rights on access to professions and trades are a noble goal, a noble gesture, but also very worrisome. You have to beware of a government that says it's going to try to work with the organizations as partners. When you look at what happened with the police regulations, where there was no consultation and we ended up seeing such a massive breakdown in relations between the government and the police forces, this could happen if the government doesn't truly consult and meet with the trade associations to work out a way for integration of those who come from other countries and want to integrate more fully into professions and trades in Canada. I challenge the minister to maintain that trust. Don't break it the way you've done it in other parts of your government.

On the issue of the round table on anti-racism, which comes out as well from the Lewis report, I would like to remind the government that this is another one of those tired and old recommendations to come from this government. May I remind everybody who wants to listen in this noisy House that the cabinet committee on race relations was first chaired by the Attorney General under the premiership of William Davis, and this committee was responsible for the first policy statement on race relations produced by any government in Canada. It was released by the Premier on June 14, 1983.

Since then we have seen the Liberals in power and now you, and at last we're going around again to having a cabinet committee, a round table on race relations. I support this, indeed I do, but don't come into this House and pretend you've got something new. We were doing this well over 10 years ago and at last you're getting back to the way it should be.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding, I invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Ms Kathleen Morenski, the vice-consul of the United States of America. Welcome to our assembly.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES BILL

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have been informed recently that the member for Middlesex is telling her constituents that she has collected a petition, which she has placed before the Premier, of 28 NDP members who oppose Bill 75, the London-Middlesex Act, 1992. This document has not been made public.

As the government House leader is calling this bill for third reading today, I feel it is imperative that the Speaker ensure that every NDP member who signed the petition be here to vote against the legislation in the House this afternoon. Twenty-eight NDP members voting against the legislation would be enough to vote the legislation down.

Mr Speaker, the NDP's attempt to tell the public that they oppose the legislation, while forcing the bill through the House, makes a mockery of this Legislature, and I ask you to review this issue and report back to the House before the bill proceeds to third reading.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Brant-Haldimand, I appreciate his alleged point of order. I trust that the member does not want the Speaker to direct people as to how they should vote. I remind the member, of course, that we traditionally have a saying here that "Every vote is a free vote."

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS / DÉCLARATIONS MINISTÉRIELLES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise on a point of order under sections 32(a), (c), (d) and (e). Mr Speaker, those sections relate to ministerial statements. Over the last 10 years -- and I have the Hansards here -- before the House completed its work at this session, the Minister of Community and Social Services or the Treasurer would rise in this House and tell us and, more particularly, tell social assistance recipients what the increase in the rate would be for January 1.

That has been done in each of the previous 10 years. Today would appear to be the last day of the session, and it has not happened. I would therefore request unanimous consent to allow the Minister of Community and Social Services or the Treasurer to rise and to tell us -- but more importantly, to tell those who are on social assistance -- what the increase in their rates will be. This is shocking and appalling. This is the first time in 10 years.

Je me lève aujourd'hui pour poser une question importante de Règlement que je mets sous les articles 31, 32, 32(a), (b), (d) et (e). J'ai dans la main les déclarations faites en Chambre depuis 1982 par les ministres des Services sociaux et communautaires ou des trésoriers qui ont annoncé le taux d'augmentation des monnaies payées aux gens qui reçoivent de l'aide sociale.

Je demande qu'on donne l'unanimité soit au ministre des services sociaux ou au trésorier de faire dans cette Chambre, aujourd'hui, la déclaration qui va donner ces nouvelles.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for York North brought a matter to my attention. The member asked for unanimous consent that the Treasurer or the Minister of Community and Social Services make a statement. Is there unanimous consent for the Treasurer to make a statement? No.

1410

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you are aware, the social development committee sat last year -- last week and this week; it just felt like a year -- on the market value hearings on Bill 94. When the hearings were abruptly terminated this Tuesday, something was not said on the record that should have been said, and that is the tremendous contribution of the Legislative Assembly staff during those committee hearings.

I think most members are aware that the committee sat day and night, nine days straight, including Saturday and Sunday: 60 hours of hearings.

I can tell you that our clerk, Doug Arnott, and his assistant, Rosemarie Singh, who did all the scheduling, did an absolutely tremendous job. They had to schedule over 200 witnesses on very short notice. We actually had witnesses come and say, "We got a call from your clerk on Friday night to appear Saturday."

I just want to acknowledge what they have done and the tremendous contribution of our clerk, Hansard, the research staff and all the recording staff. They really made our job much easier.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Indeed, while not strictly a point of order, the member's point is well taken. I, of course, and members as well, are very proud of the staff who serve this House with diligence and with dedication. Her remarks are deeply appreciated.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We approach the end of this session and the beginning of a Christmas break that I know we're all looking forward to. But the reality is, this will not be a particularly merry Christmas for many people in this province, certainly not for the 553,000 without work in this province; not for the 1.2 million Ontarians on social assistance; not in Hastings county, for example, where there has been a record increase in the number of welfare cases this year, from 3,100 in January to 4,300 by September; not for the 1,100 General Motors workers in St Catharines and Windsor who've just found out they will lose their jobs; not for workers at the 104 plants in Ontario that have closed so far this year.

Given that 1992 was an abject disaster for Ontario's workers, can the Premier tell these people whether 1993 will be any better?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think one of the things we've all learned is that there's very little point in losing sight of the fact that when all is said and done, often more is said than done.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't think it's going to provide any particular comfort in 1992 for me to make some blanket statement with respect to 1993, except to say this: The signs with respect to the developments in the economy to the south of us -- which is our most important trading partner; 30% of our gross domestic product depends on that trade -- are more positive than they have been for the last two and a half years. That's a fact.

The other fact is that the government and the private sector and, I think it even fair to say, others, are very much committed to producing the conditions which will create more jobs in 1993 than was the case in 1992 and in which we will continue to see more openness and activity in the economy.

It's also fair to say -- and the honourable member knows this -- that some of our major companies and institutions are still facing quite significant change. That's a fact, too, that there's no point in underestimating.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: But it's also important to stress that there are many things being done and many more things that can be done. It's crucial for us to work together in 1993 to see that there's as much job creation as is humanly possible and that all sectors of our society -- the private sector, the cooperative sector and the public sector -- are working hard to see that jobs are created as quickly as is humanly possible, and that's what we're committed to doing.

Mrs McLeod: It's notable that on this last day of this last session of the year the Premier has said something with which I can agree. He is absolutely right that this government's economic record over 1992 is one in which much more has been said than has been done.

That's exactly why, day after day throughout this session, we have kept trying to drive home to this Premier, who said economic renewal would be his number one priority, the realities of the economic disaster his policies have brought about.

At the beginning of 1992 the unemployment rate for this province stood at 9.7%. In Ontario, 488,000 people were without jobs in January. By the beginning of December the unemployment rate was 10.9%, 1.2 percentage points higher than January. By December, 553,000 people were unemployed. There were 65,000 more people on the jobless lines at the end of the year than at the beginning. In Ottawa, welfare rolls were up almost 2,200. In London, there were 1,600 more welfare cases by September.

Clearly, Premier, whatever you thought you were doing with economic policy, whatever you said you were going to do, did not work. Ontario was worse off at the end of 1992 than it was at the beginning.

You know that Ontario has borne the brunt of this recession. You can blame Ottawa, you can blame the worldwide recession, but we all know the greatest share of the blame for Ontario's economic performance lies with your government.

Premier, why won't you admit that the fundamental reason for the record unemployment in this province is your government's failed policies? Why will you not understand what you are doing to make things worse and what you could be doing to make things better?

Hon Mr Rae: Only because I think that to engage in the kind of cheap rhetoric which the honourable member seems to want to indulge in as Leader of the Opposition -- that's fine. I don't think any of us is particularly surprised at that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't see anything particularly surprising in what her statements are. Of course she's going to maintain that every single increase in the level of unemployment in the province is due exclusively to the policies of this government.

I only want to say to the honourable member, I assume then that the fact that the unemployment rate in the last month went down in the province of Ontario is also to be ascribed to the successes of this government, because if that's the level of analysis and that's the kind of analysis we're going to have from the Liberal Party of Ontario, then I say to the honourable member, we honestly believe, and we have every reason to believe in terms of what we see happening in the rest of North America, in the rest of the world, in Canada, that unemployment can start to come down in Ontario, as it should do in the rest of the country.

But I want to say to the honourable member that we are not about to stand around and make idle promises. We are investing more as a government than any other government in the history of the province of Ontario. On the capital side, we are putting more money into the economy. We're putting more money into training. We're putting nearly $1 billion into training, more than any government in the history of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: Will the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: We have announced already a number of very creative partnerships with the private sector which have saved jobs and produced new jobs.

So I say to the honourable member, that is what we are going to continue to do, in the face of the most major downsizing that has been seen --

The Speaker: Will the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- in the case of many industries in their history. If she would say, for example, that the fact that General Motors is lopping off tens of thousands of jobs across North America --

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: Quite clearly, as you have just recognized, Mr Speaker, the real rhetoric in this House is the constant reiteration by this Premier of all the good things his government is supposedly doing to help the economy, when all of us know that it is those same policies he talks about that have scared off investment in this province and when all of us know that this government has been completely paralysed by scandals that have happened this year, from Shelley Martel to John Piper.

Premier, the major piece -- I would dare say the only piece -- of legislation your government has passed this fall is Bill 40, which even its supporters admit will not create any new jobs in this province. Your training and adjustment board legislation has business and labour already fighting with each other. The worker ownership is certainly not stimulating new economic development. The Jobs Ontario Training program, which was supposed to train 10,000 people, had trained only 675 by mid-November. Your revenues are collapsing, they will fall even more in 1993, and the Treasurer promises only higher taxes to make up the difference.

I ask you, Premier, is this the best economic renewal package your government has to offer the unemployed in Ontario and those who are on welfare? Are you going to stick to your failed policies, or are you going to come forward with a new economic plan that may give people some hope in 1993?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question and I say to the honourable member that her statement, for example that the Labour Relations Act is the only piece of legislation passed in the last year, is nonsense. She knows it full well. It's the kind of comment that simply can't be left to stand.

1420

It's certainly one of a number of things we've done, and it's something which, when placed in the context of all else that is taking place in the economy and the other kinds of investments that we're making, we're convinced is going to help to lead to a more positive recovery for the whole province, one that will certainly ensure that all the people will be able to benefit from the kind of recovery that needs to take place in the 1990s, just as it did in the 1980s. As opposed to the recovery that took place in the 1980s, we want to see that this is a recovery that benefits everyone and not just a few people in terms of the impacts it has.

We will be responding -- and the Treasurer and the government are going to be working obviously on the estimates and the budget for 1993 -- to that in a very positive, constructive way with emphasis on training, with emphasis on job creation, with emphasis on partnership in the private sector. That's precisely the direction we're taking.

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will turn to the Premier on another set of issues which we believe have caused the paralysis of this government, to everyone's loss.

Premier, you have absolutely refused to answer even the most basic questions about Carl Masters because you claim it would be a violation of confidentiality laws to do so. You won't even discuss what the investigation cost the public of Ontario. But in this morning's press, the minister responsible for women's issues stated that the furore over the Masters issue "tells us very clearly that people aren't prepared to tolerate this sort of thing." Premier, the minister's words can lead us to only one conclusion -- that is, that her words are a clear statement of Carl Masters's guilt in being charged with sexual harassment.

Obviously, Premier, the issue of confidentiality is now irrelevant. I would ask, in light of your minister's comments, and in fairness to all the people who've been affected by this, will you not now break the silence and tell all those who are affected by this matter what deserves to be known?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I have nothing to add to the answers that I gave yesterday to the honourable member.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, despite all of your rhetoric -- and I do say in sadness that it is proven to be rhetoric -- about integrity and public confidence, the truth of the matter is that your government consistently works to silence everyone who opposes you or who embarrasses you.

You tried to neutralize all the business opposition to the labour law reforms. You changed the rules governing this House to cut short debate on any issue. A private citizen who vocally opposed your government was smeared by one of your ministers, and she remains in your cabinet. You suppress the Grandview report, despite the ruling of the freedom of information commissioner that its release would not hamper investigations. You placed a gag order on Al Holt and the Hydro board members, even though the commissioner had ruled that our questions were acceptable. Your communications adviser, John Piper, tried to smear a woman who opposed your government and made allegations about one of your ministers. And now you refuse to answer even the most basic questions surrounding the Masters investigation.

Premier, will you not admit that silencing anyone who disagrees with you or who embarrasses you has become the overriding principle of your government? Will you not try to undo the damage that has already been done, order the release of the report on Grandview, take the gag order off the Hydro board, order an inquiry into the John Piper affair and break the silence on Carl Masters?

Hon Mr Rae: Since I don't and can't accept -- and I don't think any reasonable person would accept -- either the characterization of any of the issues that has been given by the honourable member or indeed by the steps that have been taken by this government, I can't answer the rest of the question in the affirmative either.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, over the course of this last session we have simply seen more and more evidence that your government has truly failed to understand the nature of its responsibility to the people of this province. I can tell you that people are increasingly reluctant to engage in debate with your government for fear that they will be smeared like Judi Harris was. People like Judi Harris, or the women who accused Carl Masters of sexual harassment, are increasingly reluctant to come forward with their complaints for fear that this cloak of silence will be dropped on them, because your government can't handle being embarrassed.

Premier, right now the OPP is investigating at least two other scandals in which your government has been embroiled. I ask you today, before this session ends, before we leave this Legislature, will you assure the people of Ontario that the results of these investigations, the John Piper investigation and the Bell Cairn investigation, will be made public? Will you now undertake not to suppress the findings of these investigations, or do you intend to drop the cloak of silence over these reports too?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, if there is any reluctance on the part of any citizen in the province to debate this government, I must confess I haven't noticed that reluctance in terms of my experiences over the last while. It certainly hasn't been my experience, and I think that's a good thing. I think there's a very lively spirit of debate and discussion that's going on, both in this assembly and outside with respect to issues.

With respect to the OPP investigation, I have no comment to make on the investigation and wouldn't want to make any comment on it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Next question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): There's not a discussion going on. There are some questions, and a complete stonewall on behalf of the government.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: My question then, the first one, would flow to the Premier.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "Through you."

Mr Harris: Through you, of course, Mr Speaker, in the spirit of complete cooperation close to Christmas.

Premier, by cutting a deal with Carl Masters to remain silent on his resignation, by stonewalling, you are clearly sending out a signal that your government is not willing to stand up for women who are victims. The women in the Ontario public service know that. Judi Harris knows that. The other survivors of Grandview know that. Bonnie Seguin knows that. Victims of Bell Cairn know that. Will you finally break the silence, as section 21(2)(a) of the freedom of information act allows you to do, and tell us today why Carl Masters resigned?

Hon Mr Rae: No. As I said earlier in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I have nothing to add to the answers I've already given the honourable member.

Mr Harris: Premier, the minister responsible for women's issues said yesterday that indignation over this issue is "not a negative thing." Your minister responsible for issues affecting women in this province doesn't seem to understand that the indignation surrounding this issue is not just about sexual harassment. That is a given. In this case, it is indignation directed at you, the Premier, your government, for stonewalling. The people are disgusted at a Premier who doesn't have the conviction to answer questions about this very serious issue. That's what they're indignant about: a Premier who is hiding behind legislation to save his political behind, a Premier who is using legislation designed to allow matters of public interest to come forward to save his own political backside.

Will you do us all a favour today, particularly all women working in the province of Ontario, and break this silence today?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member that the steps that we've taken overall as a government I think are very clear, and I would say, with respect to the particular questions he's been asking me, that I don't feel I can answer in any way other than what I already have done.

Mr Harris: The rhetoric is very clear. The steps you are taking are what is causing the problem. The inaction is what is causing the problem. The stonewalling is what is causing the problem.

Premier, section 21(2)(a) of the freedom of information act allows information to be disclosed when "the disclosure is desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the government of Ontario and its agencies to public scrutiny." As far as the freedom of information act goes, you owe it to every woman in this province to disclose the details of Mr Masters's resignation.

Do you not think, Premier, that when sexual harassment in the offices of the Ontario government is involved, this is exactly why that phrase was put into the freedom of information act? Would you not agree as well, Premier, that it would be irresponsible for any official of your government, including you, to voluntarily sign an agreement to refuse to discuss this issue when a public revelation of it will assist the prevention of further sexual harassment of women in the province of Ontario? Do you not understand those two realities?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I'm very much aware of a lot of realities and I would say to the honourable member that we obviously have to take into account the whole of the act as well as the overall obligations we have with respect to the rights of individuals, and that's the basis upon which we've made our decision.

1430

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have another question as well to the Premier. I know, much to the regret of the Premier and the NDP cabinet and government, this is likely the last day of the House until next March. I know how anxious you are to be here through January and February and March and have the scrutiny of what you're doing.

There is an issue, Premier, that I feel very strongly about that your government has done nothing about for over two years, namely, nutrition programs in our schools. You and I are both fathers. You know as well as I do that if our children are hungry for whatever reason, they don't concentrate well and they don't learn well, and you and your government and your ministers have stalled over two years now, certainly far long enough.

Mr Premier, given I think what you would understand, my obvious frustration with your government inaction on this, will you now, today, after wasting 1991 and wasting 1992 and instead of wasting 1993, personally set aside partisan politics and will you now give your support and your endorsement to me to go out and set up for 1993 a volunteer-based, no-cost-to-the-government nutrition program in the schools of this province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member will know that I have taken a keen interest in this, and both the Minister of Education and the Minister of Community and Social Services are now working at this. There are a number of programs which are already in place in a number of school boards. There are a number of boards which are already undertaking programs and a number of schools which are already undertaking programs. Both ministers have been asked by me and by cabinet to see what more the provincial government can do in a way that will be most effective, that will not be too bureaucratic, that will not create a huge number of rules and regulations and that will in fact address this issue. That's the approach we've been taking.

Mr Harris: No, you've really been taking a stonewall "put it off for two and a half years" approach. Premier, school boards, teachers, nutritionists, corporate sponsors are all ready, they're all willing and they're all able to participate at no cost to the taxpayer. We have examples in Burlington set up by the member for Burlington South. We have other examples around the province where it's happening in spite of you and in spite of the fact that many of them are saying, "We're waiting for the government." They believed you when you said you were committed to the program. They've been waiting, many of them, for a chance to participate for over two years now.

Premier, we can make this happen in 1993 in virtually every school in this province. You know I can't just walk into school board offices or into schools without authorization from you. I need a formal mandate to get this moving. I tried to give it to you. I asked you to join with me for the last two and a half years.

Given your government's obvious indifference to hungry children in the schools, I'm asking you today to give me that authorization, to give me that authority and I, on behalf of you, on behalf of the 130 members of the Legislature, on behalf of the government will volunteer my time, will volunteer everything that needs to be involved at no cost to the taxpayer. Will you give me that authorization? I'll get it up and running for you next year. Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member doesn't need my permission to be a volunteer. He has always got my permission to be a volunteer, and I want him to know that. There appears to be a contradiction in what the member is suggesting, because what he's saying is that he wants to have a voluntary program which is based in the community and which doesn't have a lot of bureaucracy attached to it but he wants us to do it.

I would say to the honourable member that what we're looking at is how we as a government can respond with school boards, but I want to tell the honourable member a lot of school boards are already responding, a lot of schools are already responding, a lot of neighbourhoods and communities are already responding.

I would say to the honourable member that there is a contradiction at the very heart of his approach. What he really wants to do is attack this government for not having a province-wide program, and all I want to say to the member is, we are looking at how that can be done without duplicating or creating a bureaucracy at the centre which will end up costing a lot of money and not delivering the kind of program I'm sure both the honourable member and I would like to see.

Mr Harris: With respect, Premier, you haven't listened to the 12 questions I've now asked you on this over two and a half years. I asked you not to set up a bureaucracy. I asked you not to involve taxpayers' dollars. I asked you not to involve civil servants. I asked you personally to make a commitment as the Premier of the province to endorse and go out, outside of government, no cost to the taxpayer, to set up a program.

We don't need more bureaucracy. We don't need more rhetoric. Your government has not been a solution; you've been a problem. You've identified today, as I have, that there are already some programs in place in spite of your government, in spite of the fact many are saying, "We're waiting to see what the government's going to do." These programs don't cost taxpayers' money. They don't require a huge bureaucracy.

Premier, you obviously haven't understood the message over the last two and a half years. All you need do is authorize me, on behalf of you, on behalf of the government of Ontario, in a non-partisan way; give me that authority and I will go out and for September 1993 have a program across the province: voluntary, no cost, no more effort on your part. I'll invite you in September to whichever school you want to go to, if you like, for the formal launch of the program.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader place his question, please.

Mr Harris: That's all you need do. Will you give that authorization, that authority, that power today, if you like, to speak on behalf of the government of Ontario and put in place a no-cost, fully volunteer program across the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member doesn't need my authority to empower himself.

Mr Harris: Yes, I do.

Hon Mr Rae: No, he doesn't.

Mr Harris: I'm sorry, but I do.

Hon Mr Rae: No, you don't. You don't need my permission to run a voluntary program. What is this, Monty Python, the argument show? No, you don't. I say to the honourable member, you empower yourself. You're a volunteer. Go and do it. Multiply. Partnership. We're doing all those things and all that's happening.

Mr Harris: You're stonewalling and preventing others from doing it.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm preventing no one from doing anything on this. I am not. I wouldn't prevent the honourable member encouraging such a program for a second. That's absolutely preposterous. We are encouraging others to go forward. In terms of what we can do as a government, our experience is that usually when people want the government to do something, it involves a question of our resources and how we share those resources and how we expend those resources, and I would say to the honourable member that's obviously something we are now looking at.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): The Minister of Agriculture and Food will be aware that this has been one of the worst years, certainly in my recollection. A fellow more senior in the agricultural community might recall worse years, but farmers have had a tremendously difficult time salvaging very much of their corn and soybean crop. The crop insurance adjusters have been telling farmers to wait and wait and try and salvage as much of the crop as possible, but he will know that in order to do that, the farmers are going to incur extremely high costs, in fact much more elevated costs of that salvage operation for more expense in drying and using extra equipment to harvest.

I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider assisting farmers who are intent on salvaging their crops, actually aiding the crop insurance commission in its payouts by assisting it in covering at least some of the additional costs associated with salvaging the poor crops that are out there.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Yes, the member is quite right. The corn crop is currently in a disaster state of affairs. We are examining some of the options the member suggests as to whether or not we can assist with the drying cost using the crop insurance plan. It requires a fairly liberal, if I might say, interpretation of the act. I understand that the agents and the adjusters met yesterday to discuss this option. My staff are looking into the various regulations to see whether or not we can do it under existing regulations, and if we can do it and provide some assistance, we're certainly willing to take a look at it and do the best we can.

1440

Mr Elston: The minister will know he has also promised a $30-million agricultural investment strategy program to the farmers. He promised that last spring and he knows most of it is not available.

While I'm pleased he's examining other options, I would like to figure out whether the minister would not agree that his inability to get his own farm assistance programs working is really causing severe dislocation in the farming community this fall.

If he is unable to find flexibility in the regulations, will the minister advocate to the crop insurance people that farmers -- if he's not going to be paying costs of salvage -- be able to plow down their crops straightaway and not have to wait until next spring or even later for cash flow to come through to them, so they may be able to receive some cash crop assistance payments before Christmas?

Hon Mr Buchanan: A couple of points: One is we're looking at providing, basically, what would amount to interim crop insurance payments, so we'll allow some of the crop insurance cheques to go out now before there's an assessment done on the amount of damage.

The other thing I would mention -- because I know there's a cash flow crisis in the farm community and that, I think, is what the member is trying to address -- is that next week we've called a meeting with bankers and financial lending institutions along with farm leaders, and especially the corn producers, to come into my office and we're going to sit down and discuss the problems and see if we can't have a little flexibility from the financial institutions as well, because they're the ones who currently hold the debt of the farmers. We're going to try to work with the farmers and the lending institutions to see if we can't be flexible all the way around on this issue.

LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier about the Ontario Lottery Corp's new sports betting game called Pro Line. This is the brochure that's in the stores. This is a lottery your government brought in over the objections of professional and amateur sports organizations and others, quite frankly, who saw it as a way to legitimize a form of gambling long associated with organized crime.

I've learned today, Premier, that your government has lifted another page from the mob in connection with this game and it involves the intimidation of retailers who carry this booklet, available for $2 -- if there's a page here I'd be happy to send the booklet over -- put out, distributed and printed by enterprising Ontarians to help those who wish to play the game in making their picks.

Mr Premier, apparently retailers who carry this booklet called the Original Pro-Picks were visited over the last few days, and I ask if you could explain why agents of the Ontario Lottery Corp visited them, threatened those retailers who were selling this perfectly legal document with disconnection of their terminals, with removal from their being allowed to participate in the government's lottery if they continued to sell this tip sheet. Quite frankly, Premier, I assume the reason is that this tip sheet has a 70% success rate and you're not making enough money on the lottery if they actually have access to this.

Can you explain why these intimidation tactics were used on the retailers selling this $2 tip sheet as well as your lottery game?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm delighted to be able not to answer the question in the sense that the allegations the member has made today are news. As he will appreciate, sometimes questions are news to me. I just checked with the acting minister and they're news to him as well.

If you have any details of these allegations with names or indeed with examples of places where this has taken place, then I would be more than pleased, obviously, to pass that information along to the minister and to try to get some kind of an answer from him. I'm sure he does have some documentation, but I'd like to have a chance to look at that.

Mr Harris: Premier, I do have some information which I'm happy to share with you. You will acknowledge that this new sports lottery is not so much a game of chance as it is a game of knowledge, a game of skill, a game of knowing which players on which team are likely to win on that particular day.

I think you will agree with me that for the Ontario Lottery Corp to threaten punishment to retailers selling a perfectly legal, legitimate source of information to help them have the skill to play the game, is really to reach for the tactics of the mob when these types of games were provided by the underworld.

Premier, I will provide you with the information and I would ask you then, upon verification of the information, to do a couple of things too.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: Will you immediately put an end to what can only be described as strong-arm tactics by the Ontario Lottery Corp and will you insist that the Ontario Lottery Corp apologize to those retailers who were threatened, and inform those retailers that it is perfectly legal for them to purchase this pamphlet that will assist them to have the skills to play the game that you want them to play? Will you undertake to do that, Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate all the questions I'm being asked on a full range of issues today by the leader of the third party. I'd love to be in their question period meetings.

I'd just like to say to the honourable leader of the opposition that before I take any action, I'm sure the minister will want to satisfy himself as to the factual basis of the questions which are being put to us today.

LIQUOR STORES

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, you'll recall that some time ago I asked a question about the aspect of privatizing the LCBOs and you confirmed it is not on our agenda. It may be on the agenda of the Liberals and the Conservatives, but it's not on ours. I can tell you that response was well-received by the LCBO workers in my community of Brantford.

You're also aware that my community has been impacted by the layoffs that the LCBO implemented --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Ward: -- over the last few months, and since then there have been two retirements, so obviously things have changed as far as the operations are concerned of my local LCBO.

Minister, could you inform the House if there are going to be ongoing reviews of LCBO operations, not only in Brantford but across Ontario?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): It's with pleasure that I respond to my colleague from Brantford, once again. Yes, I'd like to say there are ongoing reviews of the LCBO operations and there will continue to be. In fact, ongoing reviews of the board's operations have recently produced some positive results. For example, tendering for banking and freight services has resulted in savings of about $3.5 million per year, and more of this has to be done of course.

But as the member knows, the LCBO has experienced a decline in revenue due to the recession and also due to increasing competition, so actions such as ongoing reviews are very important if the LCBO is to remain a major revenue source for the government.

Mr Ward: Thank you for that answer, Madam Minister. To follow up, I'd like to make you aware that I've had some meetings with local employees of the LCBO, as well as representatives from the trade union that represents them. Minister, they feel that they are not part of the process of this review of the operations, that they are not included in any discussions or there's a real lack of communication between management and the employees.

Minister, we know that the management style of the Liberals and the Tories may be not to include employees in any difficult decisions concerning agencies of this government, but we know New Democrats don't operate that way. We encourage employees to be included in the process and that the lines of communication remain open and a two-way street be established.

Minister, can you assure this House that you will actively examine ways in which the Ontario liquor board's employees union shall in the future have the opportunity to be involved in the LCBO's decision-making process, which affects them directly?

Hon Ms Churley: Yes, I'd like to assure the House that I am endeavouring to develop a process whereby a more cooperative and respectful and effective working relationship between the LCBO management and the workers is developed. It needs to be established. I think this is important at all times, but especially in a time of recession, a time of restructuring, that's absolutely necessary. It becomes especially important. I think everybody is committed to trying to establish that kind of relationship that needs to be completed fairly quickly.

1450

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): My question is to the Premier. This is a follow-up on the lead question of the leader of our party. I understand that this morning you did your press wrapup on the accomplishments of your government. But I wonder, Premier, if you are really aware of the heartbreak, the hardship and the human despair that exist throughout many parts of this province.

Each day in my office, and I would imagine in the offices of the other MPPs in this Legislature, we are having people visit us who have lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who have no food for their table and who will have no winter clothing for their children. Premier, as we leave this Legislature today, what am I and others to tell these people to help restore their human dignity?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think that's a good question. Because I've known the honourable member in the 10 or 11 years that I've been in this House with him, I would say to him very directly and very personally that I too have a constituency and I too go to my constituency office and I too talk to people not only there but across the province. I hope that even in the office I have, one never loses sight of what is going on and of the human impact and of the very real difficulties people are facing as a result of the recession in this province.

I would say to the honourable member that together with the private sector and together with every level of government and every group that's out there, we are responding. We are doing what we can in terms of the job situation and we are trying to work with others to see that it improves. I know very well that the opposition will say it's all my fault or that it's all the fault of this government. I understand that. It's their job. That's the honourable member's job, or at least that's how it's interpreted in our modern political system.

I would say to him we are trying to respond. We are trying to break through some of the red tape. We are trying to get more capital projects under way. We're trying to respond in communities across the province. We're trying to make sure we get through a period with a short-term program in terms of what's happening, and as well with a long-term approach that emphasizes training, that emphasizes education and that emphasizes a long-term partnership that we have to create in order to turn things around.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier complete his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: That's what we're trying to do. The honourable member knows that's what we're trying to do even in his own constituency, and that's what we're going to continue to do. But I can assure the honourable member that I don't take the question lightly and I don't take the problem lightly. I think we all recognize how difficult it is.

Mr O'Neil: I can try to appreciate what you're saying, but of course these problems are out there now and something has to be done immediately. We can't wait as you refer it to the next budget. Let me give you an example. I'm going to send over to you some recent statistics released by the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association.

According to this report, and this is just one example as to what exists throughout the province, Hastings county, where many jobs have been lost, has had the single highest increase in the number of welfare cases for the period from January to September 1992. That number is an increase of 32.78%. Your Minister of Agriculture and Food realized this; that's part of his riding. This has meant that the case workers are currently carrying double the recommended number of cases.

We've talked to some of your ministers about this: the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and other ministers. We have to do something right away, not only in my area but in other areas of the province. Premier, I guess what I'm asking you is, what form of economic stimulus of a higher magnitude can you promise us that will be of assistance in these troubled times?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm interested in the letter the member has received, because I'd like to read it out. I've just got it here and I'll read out the full letter.

"Thank you for your requesting information from our department concerning the social assistance statistics for the Quinte area." It then encloses the report which releases the numbers which are there. The member didn't quote this but it then goes on to say:

"We're pleased to have been successful in operating the Jobs Ontario Training fund brokerage in our area and have created 50 new jobs between August 1992 to the present with 83 more positions in the process of being negotiated."

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Fifty jobs? How about the 550 losing their jobs every day?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps the honourable member for Oriole will control herself for a moment.

"We are informed by Jobs Ontario staff in Toronto that our Jobs Ontario Training fund project has been among one of the most successful ones in all of Ontario." He didn't read that out. I don't know why he didn't read that out.

It then goes on to say, and I want to emphasize this as well, "However, with a case load of our size, one can clearly see that some form of economic stimulus of a higher magnitude will be required if we're to return to our normal case load of approximately 1,600."

It then talks about the case load and says, "Recently, changes to UIC legislation" -- and I'm sure the members of the Conservative Party will be interested in hearing this -- "will almost certainly maintain or drive up our case loads to new record levels."

We're struggling against the Tory government, which is increasing the levels. We have a practical program which this worker, in her question to you, says is working, and she says more needs to be done. We agree more needs to be done. We'd like the federal government to do more. We're going to be trying to do more within the means that we have.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I want the honourable member to know that he will be the first one to stand up and denounce the size of whatever deficit is in place because of the borrowing that we have to undertake because our revenues are so weak. I hope we will have his support on the budget, and even before the budget if we were to announce further stimulus measures. I hope we have that support.

Mr O'Neil: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Mr Premier, yes, I sent that whole letter over so you'd be acquainted with it, but if you were on your toes and you knew what was going on from your other ministers and members of the government, you would know that they've created 50 jobs but we've lost over 1,000 jobs within the last month.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Quinte.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. I'm sure the minister has read the article by Paul Palango in Eye magazine today which raises many troubling facts about the Woodgreen community housing project on Pape Avenue.

Some residents of this neighbourhood have also shown me their research. They found out that investment firms flipped properties for large profits by buying them after the project's conception, then selling them to Woodgreen nine months later, once Woodgreen had received approval from the provincial government to buy them. The principal of one of these investment companies is also president of a real estate firm. A realtor from the same firm acted for Woodgreen by offering to buy another property and sought a 5% commission.

It seems that Woodgreen is padding the pockets of this investor realtor. Woodgreen Settlement Corp, the trust arm of Woodgreen, bought a property for $300,000 and sold it on the same day to Woodgreen community housing for $247,500. The trust fund absorbed the loss of $52,500 because Woodgreen was over budget for the project.

There are many other disturbing transactions in Woodgreen's non-profit housing project on Pape Avenue. They should be investigated before the project is allowed to proceed. OMB will resume hearings about the project on January 25, 1993. Will you investigate the matters I refer to you and report back to me before then?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I have not had the benefit of reading Eye magazine today, but I will certainly take care to read it, and I would be glad to provide the member with whatever information she may need to make an assessment of the validity of the project. I want to point out to her that this project is one which was approved before this government came to office. I'd be quite glad to give her whatever follow-up is available through the ministry.

Mrs Marland: This minister has been the Minister of Housing for long enough that she should know what's going on in her non-profit housing project. The auditor seems to know.

As the minister knows, my party requested, through the freedom of information act, financial data on the non-profit housing program. We just received information on more than 500 projects which have been approved for construction in the past 14 months. This information has turned up incredible facts.

1500

We have former ministry and city employees acting as consultants who expedite non-profit projects for large fees. One consultant guided 37 projects in Metro Toronto alone through the system in the past year. We also have examples of non-profit corporations buying properties for three times what they were recently purchased for. The list goes on and on and on, and as the auditor confirmed, the program is out of hand. There are many people feeding at the trough, making a profit at the expense of Ontario's taxpayers and people who need affordable housing.

Speaking of apparent conflicts of interest, a staffer in the minister's office is married to a key member of the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario, which receives provincial subsidy dollars and loans.

My question is, will the minister hold a public inquiry into the non-profit housing program? Will she conduct a thorough review of this program, remove those players who are in conflict of interest and lay charges where necessary?

Hon Ms Gigantes: This is indeed a florid attack on the non-profit housing program. I'd like the member to remember that the information which she requested under the freedom of information act, and received, is quite different in nature from that reviewed by the auditor, and they are different time periods.

She is also aware, of course, that we have undertaken a total review of our non-profit housing program as we head into the development of the 20,000 units which are part of this year's budget over the next three years.

I would also like to make it very clear that the member of my office who has a marital relationship with a man who works in the co-op housing field has had her situation and any element of possibility of conflict of interest checked very thoroughly, and has declared any potential interest. There is none. That's a very unfair and ungrounded kind of thing for her to be saying.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Scarborough East.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation, and it relates to long-term care.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Why don't you really listen to what's going on? Listen to the auditor if you don't listen to me. It's very clear what's going on.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member for Mississauga South please come to order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: You become accountable for what you are saying.

Mrs Marland: You are accountable.

The Speaker: I am asking the member for Mississauga South to please come to order. If the member continues to be a source of disorder, she will have to be named.

The member for Scarborough East.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): My question is to the Minister of Transportation.

Minister, in discussions of long-term care reform the aspect of transportation has often been raised. My rural colleagues have made me aware of the difficulties that people in their ridings have getting access to health and social services, even in apparently well-serviced areas like Scarborough East. I'm thinking of what I'm told by the users and staff of Pine Tree Senior Centre, for instance. They tell me that the availability of transportation to such things as medical services and day programs can make all the difference in maintaining people in the community.

Can the minister indicate how his ministry will be participating in long-term care reform?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The question is filled with validity indeed; to my knowledge, the first issue-related question today. It deals with the less fortunate, with the people who need the transportation services the most.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Hungry schoolchildren are not very important to you. I understand that.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We intend to play an important part in the discussions --

Mr Harris: Hungry children are not important to you.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party, please come to order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- for we realize fully that transportation is vital as an essential service to the disabled and the elderly. Simply put, sir, we must get the service to them or them to the service.

We will have some encouraging news in the next year because we shall be working in cooperation, fully so, with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Health, and also the Ministry of Citizenship, and our focus is specialized transit, accessible to all, affordable to all, truly the democratic class through the service of transportation.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Premier. Last night in this city, at the St Lawrence Centre, there was a special screening of a film that was prepared by the National Film Board and the CBC called Voices from the Shadows. The film dealt with those who are on social assistance across this country, and it was both an appalling film and also one that was completely captivating because the words came entirely from the mouths of those who were receiving social assistance across this country.

I have in my hand the Hansards going back to 1982, and in every year a minister of the crown, whether for social services or the Treasurer, rose in his or her place and set out what the increase in social assistance rates would be for the next year.

I'm going to make one quote, not from a New Democrat, not from a Liberal, but from a former Conservative Minister of Community and Social Services, and I'm going to provide you with that quote because it comes from the peak of the last recession in 1983. This is what Frank Drea said as he announced an increase of 5% for social assistance recipients. He said this: "I believe as a government we have a responsibility to provide as much help as possible to those in our society who, through no fault of their own, need our support."

What I want to know, but most importantly what those who are receiving social assistance want to know -- the disabled, the children, the single parents -- is, how is it that this government, in this year and at this time, has nothing to say, nothing to say by way of help and assistance for those who are on social assistance? How answer you, Premier?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I would say to the honourable member, first of all, that I know that when the minister has an announcement to make of any kind, of course she will make it. She has the responsibility to do that.

I would say to the honourable member that if you look at what this government has done, in terms of the Back on Track program, which was right off the rails when we took office -- your administration, you were the former minister, you know that -- if you look at the pattern of increases which have taken place in which there have been increases that are ahead of inflation and remain ahead of inflation, of course we would like to do more, and any government would like to be able to do more, but I think everyone recognizes some of the realities and the constraints that we face as a government. He can quote other examples and he can quote other governments.

If you look at the record overall, if you look at the record over the past two years in terms of the increases that have been put in place by this government, in contrast with the situation we found in 1990 when we took office, you will find that the rate increases that have been brought in by this government mean that our rate increases, plus the Back on Track program --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- the $215 million we invested in addition to the money that was already in the program in terms of entitlements, it's not something -- can you say, "More should be done"? Yes. But to suggest somehow, as the member would seem to imply, that this government is doing less than others is quite false, quite untrue, quite inaccurate, quite unfair to the minister and to the government. But then again, on this day I would expect nothing but rhetoric from the other side, and that's what we've had.

1510

Mr Beer: If the Premier wants to talk about rhetoric, he has certainly just provided it. If ever there's been a government that has talked a lot but done little or nothing, it is this one.

If you go back again and you look at this, you will see that every government, Conservative, Liberal, around that cabinet table, in that caucus, laboured every year to say: "Is this something that we should be doing? Is this something that we ought to do?" But at the end of the day, the decision was based simply on this: that you can't wage war on the recession on the backs of those least able to help themselves.

So, Premier, everything you say about what you think you've been doing, those words you would bring to us, you would bring to the Conservatives and always say it was never enough, but no matter what was happening, we always made sure there was an increase in the rates to those least able to help themselves.

So answer the question, Premier. Why are you refusing? Your government is the first government in a decade that is refusing to provide direct assistance to those who are on social assistance. We need to know why, and will you not change that? Speak to the Treasurer, who can speak to the person three rows back to go ahead and provide that assistance.

Premier, your previous answer makes no sense. What are you going to do, and will you act now?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member, and I'll say very directly to him -- and he's somebody whom again I think I know very directly -- his statement in the House, his question, the statement that he put in his question that said we've refused to provide direct assistance is complete nonsense. It's completely contrary to the truth, and the honourable member knows that.

He also knows full well where the Back on Track program was put by the former Treasurer when he was the Minister of Community and Social Services. He knows full well what happened. He knows full well the positions that his government took. He knows full well what the status of the Thomson report was when we took office. It was so far back on the shelf you needed to spend hours finding it. It wasn't even there at all.

That's not true. We've advanced the program. We have put in $215 million in addition to the increases in entitlements.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): They never thought you'd betray them.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, please come to order.

The member for Eglinton.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have handed to you a copy of the routine proceedings sheet from the Liberal caucus. We were notified by the government House leader's office early this afternoon that there would be only two ministers absent from the House today: Bud Wildman and Shelley Wark-Martyn. I had the first member's question, for Marion Boyd, on the list. Because the government House leader had said that she would be here, I waited patiently for her to arrive in the House. We had a matter of urgent public importance.

The Premier had said, regarding the Carlton Masters affair, that he could not comment because of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We had yesterday the Minister of Community and Social Services, the minister for women's issues, very clearly indicating in the newspaper that she believed Mr Masters was guilty.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take her seat.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, I think we have --

The Speaker: No. Would the member for Eglinton take her seat. I ask the member to take her seat. I understand --

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Would the member please take her seat.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Let her finish her point of order.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): How do you know what she's going to say before she finishes?

The Speaker: Order. The member will know that, whatever arrangements are made with respect to question period, notice of who may or may not be here is not something to which the Chair is ever privy, nor should the Chair be privy to that information. Indeed --

Mr Stockwell: How do you know that was her point of order?

The Speaker: I ask the member for Etobicoke West to come to order and stay in order.

If a minister is not present in the chamber, there is no way I can compel that minister's attendance. The member then has an option of either not asking the question or directing the question to some other individual, often to the Premier, if the Premier is present, or to the Deputy Premier, who may respond or take it as notice. I regret that I'm unable to be of assistance to the member in this regard.

The member for Brampton North.

CORONERS' COUNCIL

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Brampton South, Mr Speaker.

I have a point of privilege. I've heard a lot of them in this House over the years and I truly believe this is one. I hope you will listen for a bit, so I can explain it to you. A young man, 19 years of age, in my riding bled to death at York University as a result of having run into a glass that was not shatterproof. I told the Speaker about it yesterday.

The parents sought to have an inquest under the Coroners Act. They have pursued all avenues, including an appeal to the minister. The minister denied their request and there is one further right of appeal or consideration under the act, which is provided for by subsection 6(1) through subsection 6(3) of the Coroners Act, which provides for an appeal to a Coroners' Council.

This Coroners' Council is made up of a justice of the Ontario Court (General Division) and no more than four other members. I know from speaking with the Solicitor General that only one of those appointments has been made and they are the Premier's appointments by order in council. Only one has been made.

My point of privilege is this, Mr Speaker: The appointment that has been made is Mr Justice Then of the Ontario Court (General Division). I am not in a position, as a member of the provincial Legislature, and it would be most inappropriate for me to contact a person who is a member of the judiciary. The net result is that there is no way I can find out whether he intends to convene a hearing for these people to take their final appeal to.

I'm suggesting to you, Mr Speaker, that my rights and my privileges as a member of this Legislature to properly deal with and advise the people in my constituency on this most tragic event have been denied me, because the Premier has failed to make the appropriate appointments to establish that board and thereby deprived a citizen of the province of Ontario of the final right to determine whether or not an inquest can be held.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the member's concern, and no doubt his concern is shared by many in the chamber. But I must disappoint him that he does not have a point of privilege. Any appointments which are to be made by the Premier are the prerogative of the Premier and of course do not involve the assembly, do not involve the Speaker and do not affect your privileges as a member. But I appreciate the matter being brought to my attention.

I now recognize the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, I indicated that because of this injustice of the court my rights were --

The Speaker: To the member for Brampton South, I dealt with this. He does not have a point of privilege. I recognize the member for Leeds-Grenville.

JOHN PIPER

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a point of privilege about which we had an informal discussion last evening, you may recall, and I provided you with a detailed letter in your office earlier today related in some respects to the resignation of Mr John Piper, the special communications adviser to the Premier.

Mr Speaker, as I indicated to you last evening, I remain very concerned about Mr Piper's visit to the Legislature and his office on Sunday, November 22. Through conversations with you and the Sergeant at Arms, I understand that neither you or the Sergeant at Arms would have taken action to seal Mr Piper's office or to prevent Mr Piper's entrance to the Legislative Building unless you were contacted by Mr Piper's superiors. It's also my understanding from speaking with you that neither of these requests were made of your office or the office of the Sergeant at Arms. You've also advised me that it was the Premier's office that sealed Mr Piper's office on Monday, November 23.

1520

Mr Speaker, I find it most disturbing, in light of the advice of your office and the Sergeant at Arms, that neither of you were requested by the Premier's office to seal Mr Piper's office or bar him from entering the Legislative Building. There are a number of questions that must be answered in regard to this affair and, with respect, I would suggest that you, as the chief presiding officer of the Legislative Assembly and the person responsible for operations within the legislative precinct, should conduct an immediate investigation to determine the following:

Why your office or the office of the Sergeant at Arms were not contacted by the Premier's office to bar Mr Piper from entering the Legislative Building, especially in light of Mr Piper being the subject of a police investigation.

Why your office or the office of the Sergeant at Arms were not contacted by the Premier's office to have Mr Piper's office sealed.

Why the principal secretary of the Premier was allowed to accompany Mr Piper to his office late into the night on Sunday, November 22, without advising your office or that of the Sergeant at Arms.

Mr Speaker, there's an additional element to this matter which I believe may require your investigation and assistance. As you may be aware, the Cabinet Office has a duplexing system in its computer network. This system ensures that all computer files of Cabinet Office staff are recorded on a backup computer, which I understand is under the control of the information technology systems and services office located on the fourth floor of the Whitney Block. I appreciate that the legislative precinct is limited to the first three floors of the Whitney Block. However, given the nature of this entire matter, I feel it is appropriate that I direct my concerns to you.

It's my understanding that the backup computer system also records any facsimile transmissions received by Cabinet Office staff when the fax information is accessed on staff computers. I believe this information should be made available to the police as part of their investigation into Mr Piper. I realize there will be information completely unrelated to Mr Piper which the police do not need to review; it is only the information on the backup computer system that was recorded from Mr Piper's computer that the police should be permitted access to.

Given that Mr Piper's office and his computer were within the confines of the legislative precinct, it would appear that you would have the power to order that this information be secured and made available to the police, and I would appreciate hearing your views in this regard.

The actions of Mr Piper have seriously undermined the reputation of and the public's respect for the Premier's office. Whether Mr Piper was acting alone in his actions must be determined, but it's incumbent on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to assure the citizens of Ontario whether this was an isolated incident or a pattern of activity that reaches further.

The integrity of the Premier's office and the government of Ontario cannot be intact if the current investigation into Mr Piper does not address all concerns pertaining to what Mr Piper did, why he did it and whether his actions were approved by anyone else in the government. Mr Speaker, I look forward to your response to the many concerns I've outlined. Should you require any clarification, please contact me.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Leeds-Grenville will appreciate that he has raised a number of questions, and I will be pleased to respond to him as quickly as possible with the details which he seeks and provide him with the explanations which he is searching for. I appreciate the manner in which he has raised the matter and brought it to my attention.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Might I bring it to the attention of the House that a question regarding the cut of old-growth forest in the province was placed on the order paper on April 7 and has yet to be answered. I'm bringing this to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources and the House. Might I register my dissatisfaction with the time that it has taken to answer this question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the point of order which the member for Kenora has brought to my attention. Indeed he is correct. There is an obligation to respond within a specified period of time, and the Minister of Natural Resources is in the chamber and wishes to address this point of order.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr Speaker, I can assure you that I am fully aware of the orders of the House, and if my friend's question has not been answered in a timely fashion, I apologize for that and we will ensure that the answer will be forwarded to him as soon as possible.

The Speaker: Point of order responded to. Time for motions. Petitions.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a motion.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): You can't have motions.

The Speaker: No, no, petitions. Motions are for the government House leader.

PETITIONS

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to do with the General Motors circumstances in St Catharines. It reads as follows:

"General Motors' announcement to close the foundry operations in St Catharines, with the resultant loss of 2,300 jobs, adds to the growing devastation of the vital manufacturing sector in the Canadian economy.

"The spinoff effects will result in four to six lost jobs in other sectors for every job lost in auto. The foundry closure also puts the remainder of General Motors' St Catharines operations in serious jeopardy, which has a total combined employee population of 9,000 hourly and salaried workers.

"I strongly urge the Ontario government to intervene in all possible manners to stop the erosion of jobs and the economic base of our province, and in particular the Niagara region."

I sign my signature to this in agreement with this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is the first time ever that this petition has been read in the House. You're going to hear it so many times you might even get sick of it. Anyway:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on October 24, 1991, the NDP government introduced Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, and tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill before Christmas 1991 without public consultation or notification to affected municipalities and residents, and without naming the candidate landfill sites; and

"Whereas the NDP were forced into five weeks of public hearings and listened to over 200 presenters, all recommending amendments to Bill 143; and

"Whereas the NDP refused to listen or pass any opposition amendments to Bill 143 which would protect and secure individual and municipal rights to full environmental assessment hearings on waste alternatives such as rail haul; and

"Whereas the NDP used their majority to pass Bill 143 on April 23, 1992, with the full support and endorsement of Jim Wiseman, MPP Durham West, Larry O'Connor, MPP Durham York, and Gordon Mills, MPP Durham East; and

"Whereas the NDP named 57 candidate landfill sites on June 4, 1992; and

"Whereas Ruth Grier and the Premier refused to meet with groups opposing the dumps and refused to consider the alternatives, like rail haul, contrary to Mrs Grier's support of rail haul in January 1991; and

"Whereas Mrs Grier refused to meet with the residents and mayor of Kirkland Lake to review the Adams mine proposal and proceeded to ban rail haul without considering the impact on the northern economy; and

"Whereas the NDP government created the Interim Waste Authority to find a solution to GTA waste and operate independently from the Ministry of the Environment, but at the same time the IWA must adhere to Mrs Grier's ideology and her ban of waste alternatives such as rail haul and incineration; and

"Whereas the IWA and NDP government refused to conduct an environmental assessment on the alternatives and remain firm on subjecting communities in the regions of York, Durham and Peel to a process that ignores their fundamental rights to a review of alternatives and employs a system of criteria ranking that defies logic and leads to the selection of dump sites on environmentally sensitive areas, prime agricultural land and sites located near urban areas;

"We, the undersigned, want Bill 143 revoked and replaced with a bill that would allow a full environmental assessment on all waste management options."

It's signed by members of my caucus and affixed with my signature.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in Parliament assembled:

"We, the undersigned, deplore the passing of Bill 75 into law. We ask that the arbitrator's report be set aside because:

"(1) It does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in the arbitration hearings;

"(2) It is not in the best interests of the area and its residents;

"(3) It awards too extensive a territory to the city of London;

"(4) It will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex; and

"(5) It will allow for the progressive development of prime agricultural land."

It's my honour to affix my signature hereunto.

1530

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I have a petition signed by 1,296 residents of Ottawa-Carleton. They are parents, union members, boards of directors, clients receiving services, executive directors of agencies, the Ontario Association for Community Living, members of the Ontario Work and Rehabilitation Council and members of the Employment Coalition of Ottawa-Carleton. Their petition reads as follows:

"The document Reforming Sheltered Workshops: Managing the Constraint and Beyond, is devoid of any plan of action.

"We therefore, the undersigned, are gravely concerned and petition that we re-establish present funding to sheltered workshops with the impetus placed on establishing community options;

"that we flow new moneys as they become available into agencies to further develop community options;

"that the NDP government conduct the proposed analysis and complete this process prior to any further decisions on service direction; and finally;

"that this NDP government ensure that a full range of services remains available."

I have affixed my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposed amendment to the Retail Business Holidays Act.

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

"The amendment 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."

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas today, December 10, is International Human Rights Day as proclaimed by the United Nations; and

"Whereas it is a fundamental and constitutionally protected right in Canada to be able to choose and belong to one's religion of choice without discrimination or bias; and

"Whereas ministers of the Church of Scientology have been recognized and licensed to solemnize marriages in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia; and

"Whereas in Ontario over 50 members of the religious community, representing such diverse faith groups as the Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh communities have written to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in support of the licensing of Scientology ministers; and

"Whereas the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations had approved the licensing of Scientology ministers; and

"Whereas a representative of the minister stated publicly in January of this year that Scientology ministers meet all the criteria of the Marriage Act of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in the spirit of International Human Rights Day, to end this delay and license the ministers of the Church of Scientology to solemnize marriages in the province of Ontario."

There are 89 names, and mine will make it 90.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a large number of petitions signed by parents whose children go to the Blessed Sacrament school on Bedford Park in Eglinton riding. It's addressed 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/OCA; 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 has 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 its 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 education systems are funded not only fully but with equity and equality."

I have signed this petition.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a petition signed by 587 students, 49%, I might add, of the student population of Nipissing University in North Bay, Ontario's newest university. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Due to your government's decision to adopt a stance of grant genocide through OSAP, effectively denying access to post-secondary education in Ontario to many potential students, we must inform you that we cannot tolerate this policy which contradicts existing NDP policy that prompted many to elect you to office, and you will not receive our votes in the next election."

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here representing the concerns of residents from Sutton and Keswick:

"Whereas the town of Georgina has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural, residential and recreation land, these areas would be drastically affected by a megadump; and

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified sites in the town that would consume large tracts of number 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the Interim Waste Authority would disrupt the vibrant agricultural communities. Farm families in the areas have continued to invest large sums of money in their farms, and these communities will be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority's putting in a megadump; and

"Whereas most of the people in Georgina depend on groundwater for their drinking water supply and a dump would threaten their clean supply of water; and

"Whereas Lake Simcoe is the ice-fishing capital of the world; and

"Whereas Lake Simcoe's health provides a strong draw of tourists to fish year-round; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump would destroy the local economies;

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

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land and turn it into Metro's and York's megadump;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly to renew its efforts to seek alternatives like waste processing, to landfill and implement progressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

I sign my name to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

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

"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 the 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."

I affix my signature in agreement.

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition signed by some 3,000 taxpayers of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the present high level of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interests of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and to our province's cross-border shopping crisis; and

"Whereas the punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low- and modest-income citizens;

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

"That Ontario's tobacco taxes should not be increased in 1992 and further that these taxes should be repealed and a new lower and fairer tax be introduced."

I agree with this petition and I have signed it.

1540

GAMBLING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): After Mr Bradley was up there, I didn't think I'd have a chance to read out my petition.

I have a petition from the Pelham Centre United Church, all the members in the church, to the members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. I believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gambling establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular. I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity.

"By my signature here attached, I ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

I've gladly affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In view of the fact that today appears to be the last day the House is going to be sitting and there'll be no opportunities to present petitions for approximately three months, I would like to request unanimous consent that five additional minutes be allocated on the clock for the presentation of petitions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? There is not unanimous consent. Therefore, we will proceed with the next item, which is motions.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is the last day of this session. I got on an austerity kick. I felt that I'd save the taxpayers and not send out Christmas cards, so I'll wish all of you and all of my constituents a Merry Christmas.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If there are five minutes to complete the petitions, five minutes is fine.

The Deputy Speaker: Unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people in the Niagara region. It reads as follows:

"A petition to the members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario re the proposal to licence a permanent gambling establishment in the Niagara Peninsula:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposal to establish and license a permanent gambling enterprise in the Niagara Peninsula. I believe in the need of keeping this area as a place where family and holiday time will be enriched with quality of life. Such gaming establishments will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and in the Niagara region in particular. I believe that licensed gambling will cause increased hardship on many families and will be an invitation for more criminal activity.

"By my signature here attached, I ask you not to license gambling anywhere in the Niagara Peninsula."

I'm going to sign this because I agree with this.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations;

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems, and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

This is signed by approximately 2,700 people from Ontario.

LANDFILL

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition signed by many people from Georgetown, Acton and Fergus, some of them within my riding. It's addressed to the Premier of the province and to the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, support the immediate passage of Mr Noel Duignan's amendment to the Environmental Protection Act. We understand that the change in legislation will prevent any person from operating, establishing, altering, enlarging or extending a waste management system or a waste disposal site in the Niagara Escarpment plan area unless the director has issued a certificate of approval or provisional certificate of approval before the subsection comes into force.

"We urge this bill be made government policy and be passed and proclaimed without delay."

I have affixed my signature to this.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition. It reads:

"Motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada. Statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents. It is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions.

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. In the interests of saving lives, preventing injuries and reducing costs, support graduated licensing for new drivers."

This is signed by many hundreds of people and I too have affixed my signature to it.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): With great thanks to the member for Windsor-Riverside:

"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 in the past has vociferously opposed the raising of moneys of the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos;

"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 means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I'm very happy to affix my signature hereunto.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition in hand which asks that the Legislative Assembly accept this petition and requests that Premier Rae respond to the intervenors from Bruce county who would wish to see, at least, him give a fair assessment of the prospects for the future of the Bruce nuclear power development.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition to the members of the provincial Parliament. 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 of 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 a legal holiday and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I'm filing this.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Introduction of bills.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I beg leave to introduce a bill entitled An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act and that it be read for the first time.

The Deputy Speaker: These are not the proper forms. Until we fix this matter, I'll recognize the member for York Mills.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGISTRATION OF PEDOPHILES ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES PÉDOPHILES

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

Bill 114, An Act to provide for the Registration of Persons who have committed Sexual Offences Against Children / Loi prévoyant l'inscription des personnes qui ont commis des infractions d'ordre sexuel contre les enfants.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The proposed act will require persons convicted of a sexual offence involving a child under the age of 14 to make a report to the police. The failure to make a report will be an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment. The act will provide for the register of sexual offenders to be kept by the police. The public will have access to information in the register and the police will have the power to disseminate the information in the register. It is similar to an act which was passed in Washington state in 1990.

REVISED STATUTES CONFIRMATION AND CORRECTIONS ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 CONFIRMANT ET CORRIGEANT LES LOIS REFONDUES

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

Bill 115, An Act to confirm and correct the Statutes of Ontario as revised by the Statute Revision Commissioners / Loi confirmant et corrigeant les Lois de l'Ontario refondues par les commissaires à la refonte des lois.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I've introduced for first reading the Revised Statutes Confirmation and Corrections Act, 1992. The purpose of this bill is to correct errors in the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, and to confirm the statutes, as amended, as the official law of Ontario. The Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, which were proclaimed in force on December 31, 1991, are a major landmark in Ontario. However, there were a few errors made and this bill will correct those errors in the revised statutes as printed.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE RÉGIME DES OBLIGATIONS ALIMENTAIRES ENVERS LA FAMILLE

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

Bill 116, An Act to amend the Family Support Plan Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Régime des obligations alimentaires envers la famille.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): This bill amends the Family Support Plan Act to prevent the director from enforcing support deduction orders if the parties to the support order consent to the non-enforcement. Any party will be able to withdraw his or her consent by notifying the director.

At this particular time, people who were involved in support and custody orders enforcement are not getting their payments, and when they do come, they're in the wrong amounts. You can't even dial the 1-800 number and get anybody to answer. This will effectively take 25% of all those people presently enrolled in SCOE out of the system so that the bureaucracy has a chance to work.

[Report continues in volume B]