Journal des débats 1993-oct-27 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Tomorrow, just about this time, we say goodbye to a true human being, an individual who fought for the rights of human beings who are struggling for equity.

Harry Gairey died at 98. He was a mentor not only to me but to many, many people in this country. Mr Gairey arrived in Canada in 1914 and has been a true what we call a Marcus Garveyite and has struggled and fought for the rights of the people. He was also the individual who formed the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters of Canada in 1950. He also founded the Negro Citizenship Association.

Not only is he regarded as the godfather for all of us here in the black community, but he was also recognized by Canada. The Order of Canada was bestowed upon him, the Order of Ontario, the Order of Jamaica and the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship.

Mr Gairey is survived by his wife, Amy, her son Carl and his son Harry Jr. He was such a wonderful individual. I remember him advising me the first time I ran and telling me how important it was for me to stand tall in the cause that I do and to believe in what I do.

He'll be missed individually, but I tell you his work will be continued and felt among all of us, regardless of what colour we are. We hope God rests his soul.

RAIL SERVICE IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I direct this statement to the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like to express my support, Minister, for your opposition at the National Transportation Agency of Canada hearings to the CN and CP rail line consolidation through Algonquin Park. The consolidation of these lines will serve to increase train traffic through the park and at the same time will abandon an existing CP line that is required to serve the scenic Ottawa Valley.

As a result of this consolidation, the drastic increase in rail traffic through Algonquin Park will significantly change the character of this park. As I stated earlier this year, this will have a very negative impact upon the ecosystem and aesthetics of Ontario's oldest provincial park. From an environmental perspective, more wildlife will be killed on the tracks, and the possibility of chemical spills will increase in an area where a cleanup would be extremely difficult due to isolation from major highways.

The increase in rail service through the park may also reduce the number of park visitors in the long term. Noise pollution levels will ruin the natural wilderness experience for many visitors. In this year of the 100th anniversary of Algonquin Provincial Park, it is essential that we work to protect the natural heritage and resources which this wilderness sanctuary is designed to preserve.

FEDERAL ELECTION

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): I'm appalled at the behaviour of Her Majesty's loyal opposition basking in the election victory of Monday. By doing this, they are denying political history. In 1984, if the campaign had lasted just one more week, the Liberal Party would probably have suffered the same fate as the Progressive Conservatives did on Monday.

This defeat is one that the major parties seem to think will never happen to them. I know that my party has had its share of times when it seemingly has been wiped off the election map. Each time New Democrats have banded together behind their firm commitment to a social democracy system, gotten off the ground and, like a phoenix, they have risen again.

In spite of the comments yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, the New Democrats are not a party divided by factions, or a party searching for a way, or a party that is continually lusting for power, but people who believe that social programs are sacred, that assisting people when they need help is critical and that fairness must be maintained.

My federal leader will take this program to Ottawa, and even though party status has been lost, the message will still be spoken. I am proud of the candidates who carried the banner, either successfully or unsuccessfully, because I know Canadians want their caring to continue.

To the people on the other side of the House who continually write the obituaries of the NDP: You'd better prepare for the election battle to continue.

TOURISM

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Residents in my area are shaking their heads over the provincial government's apparent lack of interest in tourism in eastern Ontario.

The St Lawrence Parks Commission made a decision in 1990 to close five parks in the system, and two more have been closed since then. The Premier and the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation have indicated no interest in meeting with municipal councils to discuss possible leasing agreements.

I have told this House many times that I believe the government and the parks commission should be working more closely with municipalities and private interests to boost tourism in the area and improve cooperation between the commission and the private sector. I have also raised a number of incidents which underline the need for a review of the parks commission's outlook on private sector participation in tourism.

I have now written to the minister three times requesting that Charlottenburgh township be granted a meeting with her to discuss the reopening of the Raisin River and Charlottenburgh parks, and still no answer. The Premier told me to deal directly with the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

I can only call upon the minister one more time to meet with the Charlottenburgh township in good faith and consider all options to reopen the parks. Eastern Ontario already possesses the natural charm to attract tourists. It now deserves a little cooperation from this government.

1340

GREY SAUBLE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Members of the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority wrote to the Minister of Natural Resources in August to advise him of their concern with his apparent lack of commitment to the partnership which has existed for many years between his ministry and the conservation authorities of Ontario. They have received no response.

Over one year ago, I raised the issue of a memorandum of agreement signed by the MNR and Grey Sauble which entitled the ministry to harvest and sell the authority's trees. Traditionally, MNR keeps the proceeds from these sales but gives any surplus funds back to the authority when asked. However, when Grey Sauble requested money on March 31, 1992, they were told, with no consultation, that the ministry was reconsidering the process of returning funds even though there was in excess of $40,000 in the account belonging to Grey Sauble. They still do not have their money.

The minister knows full well that the conservation authority relies on the sale of these trees to carry out its programs, especially now when funding is being slashed. Grey Sauble is concerned that a system of arbitrary decision-making is now in place and the previously effective method of consultation has become a thing of the past.

I believe Grey Sauble's concerns are well founded. The decision to ask conservation authorities to pay property taxes while at the same time cutting their operating grants was also made with no prior discussion. The ministry cannot continue to operate in this fashion, and I would ask the minister to listen to the community. As the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority says in its letter, unilateral decisions without consultation are no longer acceptable in today's society or in government.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the people of Ontario and those watching of the importance of our mining sector in the provincial economy of Ontario.

You would know, Mr Speaker, that because of the ongoing work of groups like Save Our North, based out of northeastern Ontario, in regard to trying to assist mining and to develop the kinds of strategies that we need to be able to encourage mining, a number of things have been developed in partnership with the Save Our North group, the mining industry and the government through the Minister of Mines, Shelley Martel, the Premier and other people.

Some of the things we've managed to accomplish are very amazing. We've managed to be able to develop a good system of databases by which to be able to develop a system of information for prospectors so that they can better have the tools to do their jobs. We amended Bill 220, the Environmental Protection Act that was developed by the Liberal government, which impeded mining. We were able to make some changes in that act in order to be able to clear up the question of liability when it came to that.

We were able to develop a one-window approach to permitting in order to assist mining operators to be able to go out and to work on property. We were able to develop some land use planning policy that we're doing right now with my colleagues Mr Hampton and Mr Wood in regard to land use planning.

But there is a part missing. One of those is the question of incentives. We had an election on October 25. The Liberal Party of Canada was elected to the House of Commons in Canada. They have talked in their campaign about being able to bring forward flow-through shares back into the economy so that we can get mining going. I want to say that we're waiting for it; we're waiting with bated breath for the Liberal government of Canada to work with the province of Ontario to develop flow-through shares once again so we can get mining back to work. We look forward to the Liberals fulfilling that commitment.

LAYOFFS

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Today Ontario's recovery was dealt another body blow with Dofasco's announcement on an involuntary, indefinite laying off of 750 workers by next April. That is almost 10% of its remaining workforce.

The implications of this announcement are staggering. Here we are two years into an economic recovery and economic conditions are still so bad that one of Ontario's largest employers is forced to cut its staff by an additional 10%. Now another 750 people are on the unemployment lines. With Ontario's high unemployment rate, many of these former steelworkers could end up on welfare.

Economists say that times are tough, but in Ontario they are tougher. Here, employment is not likely to reach the pre-recession peak until 1995. Ontario used to have the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Now we are fifth. Our economy is performing worse than four other provinces. The government likes to blame global restructuring for its problems, but that's only part of it. We are performing worse than four other provinces, all of which face the same global pressures as Ontario.

The reason that Ontario's recovery is almost non-existent and the reason that these 750 people at Dofasco find themselves on the unemployment line is because of this government's inability to generate any type of workable plan for getting Ontario growing again.

On Monday, Ontarians sent the federal Conservatives the message that they want jobs, and it is apparent that this government will get the same message in another 18 months.

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and concerns his decision to move his ministry office out of Orillia. I'm pleased the Premier is here today; I ask you to listen closely to this statement, Mr Premier.

When I first raised this matter in the Legislature on September 28, I told you about a resolution that was passed and sent to the minister from the Clerks and Treasurers Association of Simcoe County objecting to the closure of the Orillia office and requesting that your government reconsider this decision. You claimed you had not seen a copy of this resolution that had been mailed to you on September 17. Instead of responding to their legitimate concerns, you suggested the closure of the Orillia office is your way of economizing and delivering services more efficiently.

I warned you that closing the Orillia office would not be cost-efficient nor efficient for taxpayers because of the remaining $48,000 annual rent for three more years, recent renovations and new furnishings that cost $70,000, the need to rent more space in Toronto at a higher square-footage rate, the estimated minimum $25,000 cost per person to move, and the increased travel and accommodation expenses for staff from Toronto to serve Simcoe county. As well, I pointed out that the reports from both the Sewell commission and your own ministry recommended maintaining a presence in the city of Orillia.

You claimed that your studies indicate closing the Orillia office would result in substantial savings of close to $500,000. Mr Premier, I want the minister to give us the studies now. I would like to see the breakdown so that we know what the true cost is.

RED HILL VALLEY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I rise today to offer a very special invitation, an invitation to Liberal leader Lyn McLeod and her Liberal colleagues to attend the Red Hill Valley Exhibition, a part of the On The Edge art-environmental project which focuses on distinctive natural environments in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

As I mentioned in this House on an earlier date, Liberal leader Lyn McLeod and some of her party hopefuls came to Hamilton and promised expressway proponents to vote for the Liberals and they would provide money to pave over the Red Hill Creek Valley with an expressway.

The Red Hill Creek Valley is the only remaining large green space in the industrial east end of Hamilton. The predominantly wooded 1,600 acres of the valley reduce air pollution and provide cooling in the summer. The valley is an important remnant of the once-existing Carolinian forest. The areas of the Niagara Escarpment which the valley encompasses are recognized by UNESCO as a world biosphere reserve, and it provides links with natural areas stretching over 700 kilometres.

At the two intersections of the wooded corridors, the Red Hill Valley exhibits a great degree of biological diversity. There are migrating songbirds, and variation in moisture and topography contribute to the creation of a number of microclimates which sustain over 36 species of butterflies, 11 types of reptiles and amphibians and 340 plant classifications.

The exhibition runs until November 25 in Hamilton. I strongly urge you, Mrs McLeod, and others wishing to pave over the Red Hill Creek Valley to come out and find out what the Red Hill Creek Valley is all about.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Last week we raised our concerns about the growing problem of welfare fraud in one specific community. The Premier dismissed out of hand the concerns that were raised in a question by the member for Bruce; in fact, he challenged us to produce evidence. If you need to be reminded of the way in which you responded to the question from the member for Bruce, I will send you a copy of the Hansard which I have in front of me, in which you challenged the member for Bruce to produce evidence of whether or not there was any problem.

Premier, earlier today I gave notice that I would be raising this issue in the House this afternoon and I forwarded to you and to the Minister of Community and Social Services copies of a federal government internal report regarding investigations that deal specifically with refugees who are applying for welfare under up to 20 names and who are then sending that welfare money to their home country, in this case Somalia.

The reports allege that an individual enrolling in our welfare system under multiple names can easily receive over $100,000 a year in welfare funding and sometimes receive up to $300,000. The report states that the fraud is over tens of millions of dollars annually.

Premier, as this particular report refers to investigations that took place earlier this year, I assume you have been fully briefed on the issue since the member for Bruce raised the question earlier. What involvement did your government have in these past investigations and what did you do as a result of these investigations to prevent fraudulent multiple welfare claims?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I'll refer that to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I appreciate her having sent the material she referred to, although I also want to note for her that it arrived in my office at 1:15 this afternoon, so I haven't made my way entirely through the package she sent.

To address very specifically her question, the report indicates very clearly the high level of cooperation there has been between the federal authorities and, in the cases referred to, the people locally responsible for the social assistance system, in both cases people at the municipal level. I think it's important that this also be underscored.

I can't say to her exactly, not having had the chance to go through the exact report, what the level of involvement at the ministry level has been on this issue, but certainly on the issues raised by her colleague last week I know the people at our area office were also aware of the investigations under way, and there has been full cooperation between the federal authorities on this and the local people involved in running the social assistance system in addressing what is obviously an important issue that needs to be addressed.

Mrs McLeod: I'm somewhat confused by the minister's response. He indicates, as I would have hoped he would, that his ministry was working cooperatively with the federal government in carrying out this investigation. I sent a copy of the report so that the minister and the Premier would be aware that I had a copy of it and was going to be raising the issue in the House today. I had assumed that the minister, having been involved with his ministry in the investigation, would be aware of the results of the investigation and would be prepared to tell us today exactly what action his government has taken, as a result of that investigation, to deal with the concerns that were clearly outlined in that report. I was not expecting that the minister would have to have time to read the report itself.

Let me, for the minister's sake, cite one part of that report. "This group is importing refugees to systematically pillage our vulnerable and exposed social welfare systems in an attempt to raise funds to support clan interests in the struggle for power in Somalia." The report notes that a few key organizers are compelling other Somalians to move to Canada for the sole purpose of accessing welfare funds through multiple applications.

Minister, this whole process appears to be designed to send welfare money back to Somalia to fund the purchase of weapons and arms for fighting in that country. Again, I remind you that according to this report these kinds of activities are costing Ontario taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year. Our purpose in raising the question again today is to say: How can this happen in Ontario?

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

Mrs McLeod: Can you tell us the extent of this problem? Can you tell us whether you are continuing to work with the federal government on further investigations and what investigations you have initiated through your ministry to assess the extent of the problem and to deal with it?

Hon Mr Silipo: There are a lot of questions in that supplementary, so let me try quickly to address as many as I can. We are absolutely addressing this issue. We are continuing to work with the federal authorities; in fact, we are in the process of adding to the efforts that have been under way by developing a joint information system, an information-sharing agreement with the federal authorities which will allow us to be able to cover the exchange of information between the immigration systems and the social assistance systems.

The Leader of the Opposition would be the first to remind us that in doing that we have to, on the one hand, be very clear about what can be done and should be done in terms of that sharing of information and, on the other hand, balance the interests and the protection for individuals' freedoms. That's what we are doing. But that process is happening, and I can tell her that it will continue in earnest.

Also, and we were able to outline some of these in answers to earlier questions, we have taken this issue quite seriously and have demonstrated that commitment by putting more people into the system at the staff level both to be able to do case reviews of people who are on social assistance and also just to be able to add more people to deal with the increasing case load that our income maintenance workers have to deal with, which sometimes leads to some of these problems developing. Simply by oversight is how they sometimes also happen.

This is an issue that we take quite seriously. While the member may be looking for very detailed answers on every little piece of the puzzle, I think she will also appreciate that those are not always answers that can be given. I can tell her that this is an issue that is being looked at and is being addressed quite seriously, and I'd be happy to be able to provide further information as the situation warrants and as the situation allows.

Mrs McLeod: I do want to emphasize the fact that we raise this as an issue which is within provincial jurisdiction. The Premier himself, in responding to the member for Bruce last week, did say that if there was any evidence that there was fraud or allegations of fraud, it was the provincial government that had an obligation to monitor, to investigate the instances of fraud, to charge those who are responsible for fraud, and to deal with it on that basis. Because that was clearly a provincial responsibility acknowledged by the Premier, I was concerned to read in these reports that the province is doing almost nothing to monitor and control this kind of organized and systematic fraud.

The reports do suggest some very specific steps that you as minister should be taking and that your government should be taking to control welfare fraud. Two of those recommendations: One is that there be a linking of local welfare databases to catch the duplicate applications; the other is that you establish formal investigation procedures with federal officials under memorandums of understanding.

I ask whether or not you are aware of those specific recommendations and whether or not you are taking any action on those two specific recommendations: the establishment of linkages between local welfare databases and the establishment of memorandums of agreement with the federal government. I'm asking you specifically, what are you doing to follow up on these kinds of solutions to prevent these millions of dollars in welfare fraud?

Hon Mr Silipo: As I think the honourable Leader of the Opposition would know, the development of a more systematic database is one of the fundamental pillars of the new system we think we need to bring about. In fact, the collapsing of the two systems we have now in the province, as I think she would also know and would be ready to admit, is also the basis of to what extent the provincial government is directly involved in the details of these investigations and to what extent it's the municipal authorities that are involved, where they are the deliverers in terms of the general welfare assistance system.

But I can say to her very clearly that the issue of the development of the database is certainly something we have acknowledged and have agreed is something that needs to be done, and a lot of work is happening on that as part of bringing together the new system. With that, the point I made earlier in answer to the earlier supplementary I think will also help us address the issue of more formal investigations.

I would end by saying that I think it is also helpful, when these issues are raised, if in fact the honourable Leader of the Opposition expects me to be able to answer in detail some of the issues she raises, that there is an onus to bring the specifics to my attention a little earlier than 15 minutes before the beginning of question period.

Notwithstanding that, the issues, I can tell her very clearly, are being addressed, and I have every confidence that they are being addressed in the most effective manner.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I hope you will consider it a point of privilege when I say I really do take offence at the suggestion from the minister that we're not working hard enough to do his job for him. I felt it was responsible opposition to give this minister and the Premier a copy of the report --

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition will know that she does not have a point of privilege. However, she does now have an opportunity to place a new question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition with her second question.

1400

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Premier. Yesterday we raised a question about the comments Brian King, the vice-chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, had made on the credibility of the Provincial Auditor.

What we have here, Premier, is a senior official of the Workers' Compensation Board, and again, I remind you, as I did yesterday, that Mr King is a senior officer appointed by you. This senior official has deliberately misled a legislative committee. He has attempted to undermine the credibility and the integrity of the Provincial Auditor in order to protect himself and to deflect attention from the financial mismanagement of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Mr King has now offered a rather lukewarm apology to the auditor for any misunderstandings that may have resulted because of his comments. This kind of apology, Premier, is simply unacceptable. I would ask if you are now prepared to demand that Mr King offer a complete withdrawal of his remarks and a full and unqualified apology to the Provincial Auditor and to this House for misleading a legislative committee.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I will refer the question to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I take exception to "deliberately misleading the committee." I think the leader of the official opposition also knows that a letter was sent to the Chairman of the committee which states in part --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): We take exception to him doing that as well. That's why we raised the question.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for York Centre knows that he should not use unparliamentary language and I would ask him to withdraw the remark.

Mr Sorbara: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker; I'm not sure what -- I mentioned that the allegation was that the vice-chair of the board deliberately misled the committee. That's on the public record. I didn't refer to the minister deliberately misleading anyone. I talked about a public official.

The Speaker: What I heard the member say was that he was accusing the minister of misleading.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I invite you to check Hansard. I at no time said that the minister was misleading. What I said was that the vice-chair of the Workers' Compensation Board was deliberately misleading the committee.

The Speaker: I will accept that. The Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Mr King has sent a letter to the auditor apologizing for any misunderstandings about the objectivity and factual content of your report. The auditor has sent a letter back to the Chairman of the committee in which he states in part, "In my opinion, this would put the matter to rest and would enable all of us to carry on the important work of improving the accountability framework in which the WCB operates." I don't see that as a deliberate misrepresentation and I think that we should get on with the job of trying to make the corrections that we know have to be made at the board.

Mrs McLeod: This is not just a misunderstanding. Mr King can't simply respond by saying he apologizes for a misunderstanding. It was quite clear in the auditor's response, and we raised this yesterday, that Mr King indicated that he'd asked the auditor for a legal opinion, which the auditor was precluded from providing, and that he claimed that the auditor had given a go-ahead to the WCB building through a previous audit when the auditor said he had no knowledge of the plans for that building so could not possibly have given the go-ahead for it. How can that be considered a misunderstanding? Those are factually incorrect statements made to a legislative committee of this House, and that is why we characterize them as deliberately misleading.

I simply don't believe that the kind of apology that Mr King has offered settles the matter. I am concerned about this kind of behaviour, given the fact that we are all concerned with the financial crisis that the Workers' Compensation Board is facing. You surely know, Minister, that with a financial crisis that sees an unfunded liability growing by more than $1 million a day, the liability of the Workers' Compensation Board could soon rival the liability of the provincial debt.

It is absolutely essential that all of the energies of the officials of the Workers' Compensation Board be devoted to dealing with the very real problems of workers' compensation and that liability. I ask the Premier, although he refers the question, as I ask you: How can you possibly continue to condone this kind of irresponsible behaviour from officials of the Workers' Compensation Board who should be concentrating their energies on solving the WCB problems?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't condone any irresponsible activity, but I don't see it here. I don't know anybody who's working harder than Mr King and the current board, trying to deal with some of the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board. His letter seems to have satisfied the auditor.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): He didn't tell the committee the facts. Is that okay with you?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would also like to state again for the record that the ministry and the WCB are complying with all of the original recommendations in the auditor's report about the WCB building.

Mrs McLeod: Mr King's halfhearted apology, an apology for creating misunderstandings, has not satisfied the members of this caucus. I don't believe it has satisfied the members of the public who are concerned about what this says to their confidence in the management of the Workers' Compensation Board. Mr King has not acknowledged that he in any way misled the committee. He has not admitted that it was absolutely irresponsible to cast aspersions on the Provincial Auditor. He has not taken responsibility for the damage that he himself has done by attempting to undermine the auditor.

Minister, I would suggest to you that if we're to have confidence in Mr King, the confidence which you express today, and if we are ultimately to have confidence in the Workers' Compensation Board, Mr King has to acknowledge the full consequences of his irresponsible remarks. He has to apologize without qualification. I ask you, and in turn ask you to ask the Premier of this province, will you ask Mr King to apologize fully, completely and without qualification, and if you will not do so in a way that removes any question about the Provincial Auditor's integrity, will you ask for Mr King's resignation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think Mr King has apologized for any misunderstanding and I notice that he's also to appear before the committee again in two or three weeks' time. I can't understand the kind of hatchet job I see going on here today by the member of the opposition.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier concerning the same matter. This morning, Premier, WCB vice-chair Brian King wrote to the Provincial Auditor in response to allegations that he had misled a legislative committee. Mr King said in the letter, "I apologize for any misunderstandings," ie, "I'm sorry that you were so stupid, Auditor, to misunderstand what I said." That's not an apology, number one.

Secondly, it's not about misunderstandings. This is about a senior civil servant of a crown corporation misleading a committee of elected representatives, and by misleading elected representatives, he is misleading the public. The only role the auditor had in this was to point out that he had misled the committee, but the serious matter before us is, he did mislead the committee, and that is not in dispute.

Premier, given that he has not denied the auditor's allegations that he misled the committee, he has not apologized to the committee, two months have gone by, he's made no attempt to set the record straight on the misinformation that was given, will you today insist on his resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I'll refer that to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It would seem to me that the place to get the answers to some of the questions the leader of the third party is raising is before the committee when Mr King appears before it again in a few weeks' time. That makes sense to me, rather than the kind of comments that are being made here, because he has sent a letter apologizing for any misunderstanding. I really don't know what else the member wants.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary, it makes no sense to me that two months after he misled the committee, and it has now been acknowledged and the auditor has pointed that out, he made no attempt to apologize to the committee, to correct the record, to give the right information. Yes, he's coming before the committee, because the committee demanded that he appear. He didn't volunteer. He didn't ask to come.

Minister of Labour, now that I'm on to you, you personally wrote to the CFIB and you said this: "In my view, the auditor's report confirms that the WCB made a sound investment when it decided to relocate its head office to Simcoe Place." From this letter, Minister, it is clear that you have bought into Mr King's misleading information as well, and you now, as a minister of the crown, are disseminating that information erroneously to the public, to CFIB, to everybody that you're writing to and we now know from the auditor that this was misleading information.

1410

I ask you this: If you'll not sack this guy for misleading the public in a committee of the Legislature, will you not sack him for misleading you?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It would be interesting to maybe make the comment that the first briefing that we had on this issue was from a previous chair of the board, Mr Elgie, and another one of the board members who made this recommendation almost three years ago. I did not think he was misleading us at the time, and I reject the allegation, that I have bought into any misleading information, from the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: I'm not interested in what happened three years ago; I'm interested in this: A senior civil servant misled a committee of the Legislature two months ago. No apology, no acknowledgement of that; an acknowledgement to the auditor in a backhanded kind of way. This goes to the very heart, the very core of democracy. This is what the election was about two days ago, how politics is done, how arrogant majority governments do whatever they want, cover up things they want, get the majority of the committee members to mug the committee, prevent any further discussion.

If you're defending Mr King, it begs the question that you were involved as well. You are clearly disseminating information out to CFIB based upon a false premise. This mess stinks.

Can you explain to me, given all the information that is out there, why you have attempted to block any discussion of this with your committee members, why it took the auditor to finally come public and point out that the committee had been misled, and in light of all this information, why this man you have confidence in gave you misleading information in your correspondence, why there's been no apology to you, to the committee, to the Legislature, to the public and no attempt to set the record straight? Is that acceptable behaviour for you?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I do want to say that I noticed that the government members supported the motion to have Mr King back before the committee and I think that's the time and place for the member to raise his questions.

Mr Harris: I don't think you get it. I don't think your Premier, your cabinet have got what the public of this province are saying about the way you and your administration are doing politics in this province.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question to the Minister of Housing. Two weeks ago today, I asked you about a housing project at 10 Ashdale Avenue in Toronto. In case you forgot the picture, here it is, so everybody can see 10 Ashdale Avenue. That was two weeks ago. The province is shelling out $1,418 per month per apartment, in an area where you can rent a comparable two-bedroom apartment for roughly half that amount.

Since this project was approved by the Liberals, as you keep pointing out, you said you needed time to report to the House. Can you, then, tell me today, two weeks later, whether you think, regardless of who started this policy and this project, it makes sense to spend twice as much for this type of government housing project when we could help twice as many families by providing that amount of money as shelter subsidies in existing apartments?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): In the absence of the leader of the third party last week, I did table all the background information from the file on this project. As he mentioned, he had raised the question about the cost of the project. It was one which was completed in the late 1980s and it was one in fact where two old units were purchased and converted into two-family units. It was an expensive project and in fact in today's housing market, it's not the kind of project which would be undertaken.

Mr Harris: I know all the facts; I've got all the information. I'm asking you whether you think it makes sense.

Minister, let me give you another example today. This time the property is just off Murray Street in Brampton. The portion of the monthly rent for each of these six townhouses that the taxpayers pay is $1,635 per month; that's the taxpayer rent payment. According to the managers of this property, there are no special amenities, no assistance for people who live here, no special housing for the handicapped.

Now, listen to what we can rent in Brampton today. For $875 a month we can rent a three-bedroom upper semi, four appliances. We can rent a four-bedroom semi, two baths, four appliances, finished basement, not row housing but a semi; that's for $1,150 a month. We can rent a three-bedroom finished apartment with appliances, near schools, for $995 a month.

At a time when there is so little money available to help needy families, why are you wasting far more money on this type of housing when we could be helping twice as many families? Why are you continuing to do this?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I will be glad to examine the file on the particular project the member is looking at. He will know that there are hundreds, indeed thousands, of non-profit housing developments across this province, so I'll not necessarily be familiar with all the details of any particular project. I would suggest to him that if he were to compare the purchase of a home with the rental of a home in any major urban centre in this province, he would be paying more for the purchase of a home.

I want him to understand -- if I keep repeating it to him, eventually I'm sure it'll come through -- that the investment made in non-profit housing is, over time, an enormously cost-effective investment on behalf of the public of Ontario. The asset that represents is one which will remain available to the use of the public of Ontario and assist us in dealing with a very serious housing problem among people in Ontario.

Mr Harris: All the figures we give you, you know, come from your ministry. You can check with your ministry for the figures. You'll find that they're the same ones they give me. I assume they don't send out misleading information, as does WCB. One example might be a fluke; two could be a coincidence; I've raised three in the last month alone. I raised examples last year in Wawa before they were built and you had a chance to stop the waste. This is a trend. The policy of government-owned housing that you took over from the Liberals is costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

Now you tell me long-term. You know that respected studies estimate that the existing units, either built and that you inherited or planned by you, will cost, after averaging in over 50 years, even after the mortgage is paid off, $2 billion a year more than if you simply provided shelter subsidies on existing units. Over a 50-year period $100 billion more will be spent following your policy long-term than following what we are telling you that you should be doing.

1420

How many more examples do I have to bring to your attention of an absolutely wasteful, failed Liberal housing policy that is leading to the bankruptcy of this province and destroying the opportunity for many more families to get the kind of assistance we could provide? How much longer?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The leader of the third party can make what comments he wishes about the Liberal administration of the non-profit housing program; the administration by this government is a good deal different. In fact, the non-profit housing program is operating in quite different circumstances, because costs have gone down. The capital costs of investments in non-profit housing have gone down significantly.

The report on which the leader of the third party is basing his allegations that in the long term the non-profit housing program is not an effective or cost-efficient kind of program for us to be carrying on in the province of Ontario is based on assumptions which are just absolutely not acceptable. If he would like to sit down with the Ministry of Housing and discuss how we use the same assumptions and come to different conclusions, quite reasonably, we'd be glad to provide him with that information.

What he is suggesting is that we stop all non-profit housing programs in this province, like the government in Ottawa to which he was related did. We reject that. We find now that in the private rental market in Ontario about 37% of the households are already paying their rent bills with social assistance money. How much more does he want to put into paying private landlords when we don't get access to a public asset which can go on for decades in terms of providing cost-effective housing in Ontario?

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. At the beginning of my question I want to express what I can only call outrage that the minister did not make a statement in this House today with respect to the whole question of user fees. He chose instead to drop on my desk, and presumably that of the critic of the Progressive Conservative Party, a change in the government's position on this important issue on a day when we have had groups representing children's services organizations here giving a press conference and when there will be a debate this afternoon. This letter should have been a ministerial statement in this House so that we could have had an appropriate amount of time to respond to it. Frankly, I am surprised that the minister chose that approach to take. I think it was wrong.

My question remains the same because, Minister, your letter, carefully couched as you have tried to make it, does not respond to the fundamental issues. Let me remind the minister that earlier today representatives from a broad coalition of children's services organizations held a news conference to protest this minister's plan to impose user fees, starting next Monday, November 1, on the most vulnerable in our society: children. Later today, we are sponsoring an opposition day motion which is also directed against the plan.

Minister, despite this letter which you have belatedly deposited, will you commit here and now in this House to the children of this province that you will completely withdraw your plan to impose user fees on essential and legislatively mandated children's services?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): We'll have a chance later this afternoon to debate this more fully given that, as the member has indicated, there is an opposition day motion on this issue. I'll be happy to get into more details then than the time allows during the question and answer period.

But let me just say to the member that what I think we have done as a result of the discussions that have taken place with the associations is, on the one hand, clarify that we are not talking about imposing user fees, that what we are talking about is in fact trying to sort out some greater consistency in the policy that is now being applied by some agencies, to have parental contributions in both the non-residential and residential areas of services, and making it very clear that those are where parents can contribute, and very clearly not at the basis of service being provided; in other words, that service is not being tied to the provision of those contributions.

Secondly, we have responded to the issue and the concern about the time lines by suggesting that the dollar target that had been set for this year will be reduced and that the implementation time line will start on January 1 of next year.

Mr Beer: All I can say is bafflegab is bafflegab. A user fee is a user fee is a user fee is a user fee. That's what this government's policy is.

Minister, at the press conference this morning, Mary McConville, who is the executive director of the children's aid organizations in Ontario, quoted directly from your own Premier's Council report on user fees as follows:

"The healthy rich thus stand to gain the most from the introduction of user charges and the sick poor stand to lose the most. Viewed this way, well-intentioned advocates of user charges seem more like the Sheriff of Nottingham than Robin Hood."

Minister, you have an opportunity to put on the mantle of Robin Hood and to say today that this whole nonsensical plan, which was brought in without any consultation whatsoever with those who are providing children's services and the young people themselves, will not go forward. Use the opportunity I am giving you here and now and say: "We are not going forward with this plan. We are going to sit down with the children's services organizations and try to see in a cooperative way how in fact we can resolve the issue."

I cannot believe that the New Democratic Party is saying that the way to go in children's services is to bring in and impose user fees, because that's what you mean by parental contributions: user fees. Minister, will you withdraw?

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me say first that however one might want to categorize the issue of user fees and parental contributions, and we can get into that again, I think the member across would probably be the last person in this Legislature who should be dictating to me and to others in this House on the issue of user fees.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): What a weasel. I don't believe them. You've got class.

Hon Mr Silipo: If I may be permitted to just read back a few words that might be familiar to the member, they go as follows:

"The reform of long-term care is an opportunity to develop a consumer charging policy that is both compatible with service objectives and contributes to the cost of providing services. People will continue to pay all or part of the cost of some services."

That's in a document entitled Strategies for Change, which went out in 1990, dealing with comprehensive reform of Ontario's long-term care services, signed among others by Charles Beer, the then Minister of Community and Social Services, so he's the last person I'm going to take lessons from on this issue of parental contribution.

What we are doing in this area is trying to implement not a system of user fees, which as I understand it is tying the provision of a service to the payment of a fee, but saying that if in the range of ways in which we are trying to look at how we can use the dollars most effectively there is a way parents can contribute to some extent to some services and that contribution is not tied to the delivery of service, in fact that thing can be done.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: Where that is impossible, we will be very clearly saying to the agencies that those dollar savings can come from other areas. That's what we're saying to them now.

Mr Beer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: What the minister's just referred to has nothing to do with the provision of children's services and he knows it. He is attacking the most vulnerable --

The Speaker: The honourable member knows that he does not have a point of order. New question.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Will you ask the Minister of Transportation to withdraw his characterization of the member for York North as a weasel?

The Speaker: Order. To the honourable member for Halton Centre, indeed, if I had heard the word which she claims was used, I would have asked the member for Lake Nipigon to withdraw.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I will take responsibility for the excess in terms of language with a great deal of pleasure, if you only knew, for I have too much respect for the members in this House. Therefore, I will withdraw the word "weasel."

1430

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Attorney General. It's related to a man who was before a bail hearing with a justice of the peace in Hamilton on August 17, 1993, charged with sexual interference with a 13-year-old boy, anal intercourse, forcible confinement and also breach of probation. Probation dealt with a previous conviction involving sex with a minor.

Minister, your crown referred this individual to the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, which is a minimum-security hospital, for psychiatric assessment prior to his day in court. Subsequent to that referral, he walked out into the public and the very next day was charged with the sexual assault of a six-year-old boy in a Hamilton public school.

Minister, why would your crown send a man, a convicted paedophile whom the police didn't want out on bail, why would your crown send such an individual to a minimum-security hospital where he simply walked out and once again attacked an innocent young child?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I have been made aware of the case and I share the member's concern. I do not know why the referral was not to a more secure forensic unit such as that at the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, and I have asked the ministry to look into the matter and advise me as to what we can do to ensure that there is due care always exercised in these cases.

I believe, however, very firmly that in this matter, as in others, there was certainly a belief that there was a secure enough situation and a real concern for the individual that psychiatric assessment was a required part of the case.

Mr Runciman: The minister and her colleagues the Solicitor General and the Premier frequently talk a good game when it comes to concern about public safety, but the facts don't bear them out. Witness the Ontario parole board's revolving-door operation.

I want to say that the minister can do something very clearly in respect to this situation. We had a convicted paedophile placed in a unit which is primarily used to assess people for depression in a minimum-security facility when the Queen Street 16-bed secure facility is available 45 minutes away. St Thomas, as she mentioned, is an hour away. Under the Mental Health Act, the minister will know that any psychiatric facility can be ordered by the courts to assess patients in respect to their fitness to stand trial. Her crown could have done that.

We are told that OPSEU, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, put in a grievance two years ago complaining about these kinds of individuals being referred to the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. This isn't something new, this has been around for a while and your government should have been aware of it.

I ask the minister, if she wants to do something, will she today commit herself to directing crowns to specify that violent or sexual offenders be delivered only to secure facilities for psychiatric assessment, facilities where there are at least some locked doors between such people and their potential victims?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have no hesitation in saying to the member that that is certainly appropriate. However, each case is different, and it is important in each case that in directives that are given by the Attorney General to crowns, the particular circumstances and the particular issues at hand are also taken into account, as they would be by the court itself. The court accepts recommendations from the crown, but the court also makes decisions, and it is really important that we be aware that whatever the directives that might go to the crown, it does not bind the court. We need to be very clear about that.

However, I can be very, very clear with the member that I have no problem in saying to him that I share his concern and that this is a matter that the ministry is aware of and is committed to dealing with as rapidly and as completely as possible.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, I've been approached by several pharmacists in my riding concerned about the provisions in Bill 81 which will make permanent amendments to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act.

On July 26 of this year, you assured this House that pharmacists would be fully consulted prior to any changes being made to the dispensing fees. Could you please inform the House how far those consultations have gone and give us an update?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say to the member that I certainly know that members of the Ontario Pharmacists' Association are concerned about Bill 81, which is a treasury bill and a bill designed to help us meet some of our fiscal targets.

With respect to his specific question about consultations around dispensing fees, those discussions have been ongoing. The difficulty has been that earlier this year the pharmacists requested a 3% increase in their fees, and at a time when we were looking to hold the line, if not reduce the payments to people who receive their remuneration from the taxpayers, that was inappropriate. The change to the dispensing fee occurred after the pharmacists' association had decided that it did not want to sign the social contract.

I certainly have met with them. I am aware of their concern, and I remain optimistic that the pharmacists' association may well decide that for the last two years of the social contract it would like to be part of that arrangement with the government.

Mr Hayes: The Ontario Pharmacists' Association has proposed three amendments to section 5 of Bill 81, and the pharmacists in my riding and I'm sure all the members' ridings would like to know whether or not you accept these amendments and will therefore make changes to Bill 81.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm glad to tell the member that I met about a week ago with the representatives of the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. They of course raised this question with me, and I indicated to them that I was certainly aware of their proposed amendments and would look at them with an open mind when the Treasurer came to call Bill 81 before the House.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a question to the Minister of Labour, and it concerns the much-talked-of workplace health and safety organization. I was surprised the other night to be at a meeting in my part of eastern Ontario with various representatives from the Forest Products Accident Prevention Association, an organization that has now been subsumed under the Ontario Natural Resources Safety Association.

These men and women, representing hundreds of people in my part of eastern Ontario, were very, very angry, and in my view justifiably so, because on the orders of Paul Forder and others at the Ontario head office of the workplace health and safety organization, any one of those employers in the forestry sector who did not have an organized business was summarily dismissed from any position on the board of directors of that sectoral safety organization.

Minister, is it the policy of your government that you cannot be a member of any board of directors in any sector in this province if you do not represent an organized shop?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): It's a bipartite board and it's made up on recommendations of both labour and management at the workers' health and safety agency.

Mr Conway: That's a very skilful non-answer. Two years ago, my colleague the member for Mississauga North in the Ministry of Labour estimates specifically questioned the then and the now Minister of Labour for Ontario, the member for Hamilton East, on this very sensitive question. Two years ago -- it was June 26, 1991 -- someone named Bob Mackenzie said it was not the policy of the Rae government to disqualify non-union representatives from those positions.

I repeat, members of the Ottawa Valley lumber representatives have been dismissed from their positions on that sectoral safety association on the specific direction of Paul Forder, who said it is now government policy that you cannot sit on any board of directors if you do not represent a unionized, organized shop. Bob Mackenzie said two years ago that government policy would contemplate both union and non-union representatives.

What is current government policy, and what am I to say to those men and women in my part of eastern Ontario who are very committed to workplace health and safety as to whether or not they can return to those leadership positions?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Once again, I will repeat what I said earlier, and that is that it's a bipartite agency and the recommendations to the board come from management and from labour.

1440

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question as well is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. My leader, Mike Harris, raised the question with you two weeks ago and we've raised several questions in the interim with respect to your expenditure control plan and its impact on children's services in Ontario.

As you know, there has been quite a lot of concern and in fact outrage from families who are learning for the first time that they were being called upon to expand user fees for essential services to children. An additional concern is the wholesale seizure by your government of the family allowance, or the baby bonus for want of another word, moneys that are earmarked as a trust for children, and especially vulnerable children, in this province.

Minister, I asked you on October 14 if you would get some answers to some legal questions and in your meetings subsequent to October 14 with the user groups who are advocating on behalf of children to clarify these issues. When I read your memo today, you offer no legal clarifications. You said you would undertake to clarify them for the House. Are you ready to do that today, if not in question period in the debate this afternoon?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm certainly prepared to provide some information now, and we can get into more detail in the debate this afternoon.

On the question of the family allowance, the children's special allowance, what we indicate in the letter, and this is the course that we intend to pursue, is that we will be calculating the differential in the increase, the $33 increase in the allowance that agencies are entitled to collect.

The important thing that has to be underscored is that what we are doing here is not introducing a new practice, that agencies have been able to collect these allowances for as long as they have existed. The problem has been that some agencies have collected them and others have not. But those that have collected them have reported that amount to the ministry and each year in their budget have had deducted a similar amount. So it's not introducing a new phenomenon.

The only issue that's left on that front with respect to the expenditure control plan measure is the fact that we had very clearly overestimated the amount of money that was being collected. In other words, more was being collected than we thought. So we had to make some adjustments on that front in terms of the calculations that we would put in place. This is what we would be planning to work out with the agencies involved in terms of finding other ways in which we could make up the difference in the constraint.

Mr Jackson: We're talking about the seizure of $7 million which these agencies have been collecting from the federal government on behalf of children because of their special needs and in being cared for in this province. What your government proposes to do is to say that you're going to take that money away from the agencies who pass it on directly to the children. Your intention in your expenditure plan shortfalls these agencies by $7 million in this year, and more money next year.

You have not retracted from that position and your response today only complicates the matter, does not clarify it for these families. Your government, when in opposition with the Liberal government of the day, had some strong words about user fees and the Canada Health Act. The government insisted that, in Canada, the provinces were not to tamper with the intention of the legislation.

I'll ask you one more time for your legal understanding of the Children's Special Allowances Act, federal moneys that flow to children in need. You're about to capture those dollars and shortfall those budgets.

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

Mr Jackson: When will you give a proper legal answer to the questions we've raised? Frankly, Minister, I think it's illegal what you're attempting to do -- and God knows it's immoral -- to the children and families affected, the way you're stealing this money.

Hon Mr Silipo: I would find it very odd, if what we are doing is continuing a practice that's been in place for many years, probably even going back to the time the Conservatives were in power, that no agency would have, up until now, said this was something that was inappropriate or, to use the word the honourable member has used, even illegal.

There is nothing illegal, as far as we are aware, on this issue. What we are talking about is a way of calculating some allowances that agencies are entitled to collect from the federal government, which in some cases they have collected and in other cases they have not.

The honourable member also made a point about these allowances being passed on to children. Let me be clear that I think he must be mixing up a couple of different things, because these allowances are not passed on to children. These allowances are used by the agencies as part of their budget. That's why we require and want them to collect them. I think the issue of children's allowances that he's referring to is the issue of crown wards, which is another problem we are trying to deal with.

One final word: I know the member likes to continue to harp, as others have done, on the question of user fees. In my view, what we are doing is not instituting a user fee, because a user fee ties the provision of a service to a fee that people have to pay. What we are talking about here is looking at instances -- again, this is happening now -- where parents can contribute in some small way --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- to some of the services that are provided. That's very different from a user fee.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Madam Minister, the Alexandra Park community is one of more than 100 Ontario Housing Corp communities in Metro Toronto which house about 110,000 people. This housing stock is aging. Repairs take too long, and residents still lack meaningful input in how their housing is run.

Mr Sonny Atkinson, the president of the Alexandra Park Residents' Association, a 20-year community member, and many other residents of Alexandra Park have long advocated tenant self-management in response to these deep-seated problems. Last week I attended a meeting with residents where they voted to explore self-management. My question to the minister is, will you support them in their call for self-management?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member for Fort York mentions Mr Sonny Atkinson, whom I've had the pleasure of meeting myself, and the fine work that's been going on in the Alexandra Park community. In fact, the Planning Together process, which we initiated just about a year ago in Ontario Housing Corp communities across the province, is one which is intended to support tenants' involvement in decision-making within their own communities, and we are indeed extremely supportive and offer every encouragement possible to have tenants involved in the decision-making.

Mr Marchese: The Ontario Housing Corp is currently reviewing its governance, and I understand that self-management will be considered under a new governance strategy. Minister, what will you do to ensure that self-management will be one of those options available to tenants and local housing authorities, and will you ensure that this option will be placed on the table soon?

Hon Ms Gigantes: There are many levels of involvement by tenants that are possible within Ontario Housing Corp communities. They range from advisory committees to committees which would actually be given a budget and allowed to make all the decisions for the operation of the community, right through to some suggestions we've had that in fact the ownership of the community could change, for example, in the formation of a co-op group.

As I understand it, the Alexandra Park proposal is in the middle range in which tenants would be looking for control of their own budget and decision-making of their own budget. I understand also they have received approval in principle from Metro Toronto Housing Corp to do that, in which case they have all the clearance they need to go right ahead, work with the Metro Toronto Housing Corp and go ahead and move to the kind of self-management they're talking about.

1450

PETITIONS

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas tenants suffer undue hardship when landlords break an obligation to provide vital services such as electricity, gas and hot water; and

"Whereas most municipalities are not fully empowered to compel such landlords to rectify the matter;

"We, the undersigned, hereby request that the government of Ontario enact David Turnbull's private member's bill, An Act to amend the Municipal Act in respect of Vital Services Bylaws, to give Ontario municipalities the authority to quickly restore vital services to occupants of rented premises when landlords fail to do so."

This is signed by hundreds of people from my constituency. I too affix my signature to it.

TUITION FEES

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition.

"To the honourable provincial Parliament of Ontario, in Parliament assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned students of Sir Sandford Fleming College, Frost campus, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly showeth:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has decided to increase post-secondary tuition;

"Whereas Ontario residents deserve high-quality, affordable and accessible education;

"Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament to urge the government of Ontario to repeal its decision to increase tuition, or at the very least freeze tuition at current levels.

"As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray."

This petition is signed by over 300 students of the Frost campus. I am presenting it in the absence of a member for Victoria-Haliburton.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by a number of people here. I don't know if Steve Langdon's name is on it, but I'll read it anyway. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I affix my signature to this petition, since I agree with its contents.

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas museums are an essential part of the community, serving to preserve heritage and educate the public; and

"Whereas municipal governments should be empowered to provide automatic support for museums by enabling them to pass a bylaw exempting particular museums from municipal and school board taxes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Leo Jordan's private Bill 46, An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

DENTURE THERAPISTS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition here to the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario and respectfully submit that a denture therapist should be allowed to supply, repair and adjust partial dentures and deal directly with the public without the necessity of supervision by a dentist.

"We, the undersigned, petition the honourable members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support and pass the appropriate bill in its entirety."

I've signed the petition. There are almost 700 names here.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Last Friday, four members of the student council of St Mary's high school and one of the teachers came into my office and presented me with a petition. The petition has 270 names on it. It says:

"We, the undersigned, are requesting that the Oxford County Roman Catholic Separate School Board approach the Ministry of Education to secure an allocation for a new site and facility for our students. The present facility is inadequate."

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas museums are an essential part of the community, serving to preserve heritage and educate the public; and

"Whereas municipal governments should be empowered to provide automatic support for museums by enabling them to pass a bylaw exempting particular museums from municipal and school board taxes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support" the able-minded honourable member "Leo Jordan's private Bill 46, An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

I will put my name to this and give full support to the able-minded and honourable member, Mr Leo Jordan.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'm bringing this petition forward on behalf of my constituents who are concerned about the preservation of law and order in their community. The residents are concerned about an article which appeared in the September 14 issue of a local newspaper in Brock which threatened that the residents of Brock might lose their local OPP station.

"Whereas the Beaverton OPP station has been a long-standing integral part of the Beaverton area; and

"Whereas many officers have established permanent homes in the Beaverton area and have become a strong voice in their community, volunteer and non-profit groups; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides an economic benefit to the Beaverton community; and

"Whereas the OPP station provides a much-needed policing presence;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario maintain the OPP station in Beaverton, as closure would be detrimental to the interests of the security, safety and wellbeing of all Brock township residents."

I fully support this and affix my signature to it as well.

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas museums are an essential part of the community, serving to preserve heritage and educate the public; and

"Whereas municipal governments should be empowered to provide automatic support for museums by enabling them to pass a bylaw exempting particular museums from municipal and school board taxes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Leo Jordan's private Bill 46, An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

I would like to point out to you that the people, the taxpayers, have gone around and collected 256 signatures on this petition because they feel so strongly about protection for the museums.

OPPOSITION DAY

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Beer moved opposition day motion number 2:

Recognizing that, since taking office, the NDP government has consistently mismanaged the delivery of children's services and is now downloading the province's financial problems on to the most vulnerable in our society, children, through the lack of any clear direction for children's services including child care and the introduction of user fees for non-residential children's services delivered under the Child and Family Services Act;

And whereas we have yet to see a comprehensive plan for the delivery and integration of children's services including child care, and those services funded through the Child and Family Services Act;

And whereas this government promised to reform our existing child care system and better integrate services needed by children and their families;

And whereas this government has not presented any plan regarding children's services;

And whereas the government has not presented a plan that provides a clear direction for child care;

And whereas those who deliver services funded through the Child and Family Services Act were not consulted prior to the decision to generate revenue through user fees for children's services funded under the Child and Family Services Act;

And whereas parents and children who will be affected were not involved in consultation prior to the NDP government's decision to introduce user fees for children's services;

And whereas no attempt was made by the Ministry of Community and Social Services to collect information from the agencies involved regarding their ability to generate and collect such fees;

1500

And whereas it has been determined that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has in fact miscalculated the ability of the agencies affected to generate the expected revenue;

And whereas MCSS officials have indicated that no specific formula was used to arrive at the figures of $4.3 million for the year 1993-94 and $6.7 million thereafter;

And whereas the NDP government has not established a province-wide policy regarding user fees for similar services obtained by adults through any other ministry;

And whereas the NDP government acknowledged during the social contract negotiations that the agencies funded under the Ministry of Community and Social Services should be allowed certain exemptions due to the essential nature of their services;

And whereas the NDP government acknowledged during the social contract negotiations that the agencies funded under the Ministry of Community and Social Services (including child care and children's services) are vulnerable agencies in light of the increased demand for services and the low wages of staff;

And whereas it is known that the families and individuals needing the services funded under the CFSA are those least able to pay and also those who will be most intimidated by an application process;

And whereas it is estimated that over 80% of those affected presently live under the poverty line;

And whereas the services are essential,

Therefore the Liberal caucus calls upon the government to immediately table in this House a comprehensive plan for the delivery and integration of children's services, withdraw from the decision to introduce user fees for children's services funded under the CFSA immediately, and present a plan for the reform of our existing child care system.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): All recognized parties within the Legislature will share the time evenly.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm happy to rise today to participate in this important debate on the opposition day motion brought forward by my leader, Lyn McLeod. In my role as opposition critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, I am confronted almost daily with examples of this government's continued mismanagement of the social assistance system in this province. Parents, family members, care givers, front-line workers and care recipients have all shared their growing frustration as they try to cope with the personal difficulties in the face of government cutbacks which are arbitrary and often considered punitive.

The agencies' figures tell us that there are 13,000 children in care in Ontario, 10,000 of whom are in children's aid ward situations. In this press conference this morning, Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies executive director Mary McConville said, "The application of user fees on citizens who need the public services offered by the Association for Community Living, young offender services, children's mental health centres, maternity homes, children's aid societies and others will at best be a regressive taxation of Ontario's poor." Those associations -- community living, young offenders, children's mental health centres, children's aid societies -- are the people we are talking about this afternoon.

"These people are the most vulnerable of our citizens," Mary continues, "who are facing serious and sometimes life-threatening crises, severe unemployment and financial stress." She went on to quote the Premier's Council on Health, Wellbeing and Social Justice, as the member for York North stated during question period: "The healthy rich thus stand to gain the most from the introduction of user charges and the sick poor stand to lose the most," and this is at the hands of an NDP government.

We are here today to talk about the latest policy initiative of a very important portfolio, the introduction of user fees for non-residential children's services which are delivered under the Child and Family Services Act, an initiative undertaken without research and with no input from the public. These measures will have a very serious impact on one sector of one ministry, a very focused group of agencies that serve the most vulnerable children in our society.

I have to ask myself, as others are asking themselves, why this government would take these punitive measures against children. Parents and front-line workers are asking: "Why target children's services in the Ministry of Community and Social Services? Why target counselling? Why target services for youth in secure custody? Why target parental support in the care of disabled children?"

I've been a teacher and a school trustee. I'm the mother of three and the grandmother of one. I spent much of my life living with and learning about children. It's an oft-repeated truism that our children are our best investment for the future, indeed for the future of our country, for the future of our families, for the future of our world. In fact, it has become almost a cliché in the statements of this government. This policy proves, however, that once again the words and music do not match.

I'd like to quote from a long-respected document and one of my favourites, To Herald a Child. In this wonderful report, Mr LaPierre shares his joy as he enters the world of children. He said:

"It was a marvellous discovery -- the discovery of the universe of children.... I was dazzled by the variety of activities and endeavours of children. Their creativity and concerns both enchanted and humbled me. The vibrations of affection they sent my way filled me with joy, while the complexity of their tasks made heroes out of them.

"Slowly and gradually I began to sense, to feel, to know a world the simplicity of which I had taken for granted all these years. I thank the children."

Mr LaPierre goes on to talk about Ontario's "other" children:

"There are children in Ontario who have particular needs beyond those characteristic of all children.... They are my special children...who could be mentally retarded, physically handicapped, or have learning difficulties.... [They have] the same rights as any other child but [they have] special needs: the need for an early identification of difficulties, the need for uninterrupted educational experience, the need for special assistance to carry out personal tasks, the need to be with...peers in a child's regular environment should his" or her "handicap or disability permit."

It is from these "special children" we have just heard described so eloquently and their parents that the NDP government wants to collect user fees to solve the problems created by three years of fiscal mismanagement. The minister has not yet, even with today's letter in hand, given the parents or the front-line workers of this province or indeed the members of this Legislature any idea of what services will have to be paid for by the parents. Will it be children's protective services or mental health counselling? Who knows?

The fact that parents and care givers were not consulted prior to the decision to generate revenues through user fees for children's services is simply inexcusable. This government's record on consultation continues to deteriorate. In fact, I think the better word is "disappear."

The agencies which serve these children are only now being asked to provide data on what is possible, and yet we're told and we know by today's letter that these targets have already been established and the policy has already been determined. A front-line worker compared this to an employer asking that $10,000 be taken from the employee's salary, and then asking the employee, "How should I do that?"

Again today, with this last-minute letter that was dropped on our desks as question period began, agencies are being asked to assist in a process that from the very beginning, in the middle of the summer, has been disorganized, inconsistent, unsatisfying, lacking in framework and, may I say, particularly lacking in leadership and focus.

1510

Parents and agencies are telling us that there is simply no money in their pockets and no money in their budgets to generate and collect user fees to bail out this Treasurer. They further tell us that collecting the federal child benefits to make up the extra money is not feasible because in most cases that is already being done.

If the government takes the time to really investigate, not just collect data on a form that's been recently distributed, if the government really takes the time to involve the people who deliver these important services on the front line, if the government takes the time to really talk to the parents and children who use them, the minister will be able to make an informed judgement.

I challenge the minister to do that today, not to shuffle off his responsibility as he's been doing for the last few months to the bureaucracy and the ministry, but to apply his time to this important issue. The minister then would be able to hold his information up to the scrutiny of those who provide the service and to the children and parents and families who depend on these crucial services on a day-to-day basis.

We have no idea where the government numbers come from; absolutely none. Today we're told the target is going to be lowered. Lowered to what? Beginning from what? At the moment, we're presented with the following figures: $4.3 million for the rest of this fiscal year; $6.7 million on an annualized basis in cash contributions to be made by parents -- by parents, I repeat -- towards non-residential services for their children in need. The memorandum from the deputy minister indicates that the plan is to retrieve, through user fees, some $11 million over the course of the next two years.

Agencies are being asked, after the fact, to help the government decide which of the essential services to cut. Then with the implementation date now being deferred perhaps to January 1, perhaps later, they're being asked to prepare to administer this whole process of user fees in which they have absolutely no experience.

This new revenue source is to come from all children and family service categories, including young offender services, including services to children with developmental disabilities. These user fees target vulnerable children. Vulnerable children are targets of user fees.

During the social contract process, the NDP government acknowledged that the people served by the Ministry of Community and Social Services were indeed different, were indeed increasing more rapidly than other needs within our system, and there were daily demands on services, services of a very important and crucial nature.

Very early on, I may say, this sector was recognized as the most underfunded, poorly resourced and poorly paid sector in the whole social contract process. Their expected contribution to the social contract was lowered almost immediately from $30 million to $10 million in recognition of the very real limitation to the cuts that could be made in services that were provided by this sector.

We are told that even this reduced contribution has resulted in the reduction of staff and services in many, many of the agencies, and I'm sure most members of the Legislature have in one way or another been made aware of that fact. Now this government, in its routinely contradictory manner, has returned to this sector that it recognized as being vulnerable. They have returned to get blood from a stone.

We have been told by the agencies involved that the impact of this user fee collection policy will be almost double the impact of the social contract to the sector. How contradictory. How illogical. These families and individuals come to the ministry for assistance because they cannot provide for the special needs of their children. We know in fact that 80% of the parents and families that the government is asking to pay for services are already living below the poverty line. If this was not so sad, it would be almost ridiculous.

Like all other parents, the parents of special-needs children have to provide clothing, food, transportation, school supplies, dental care and all the other ordinary necessities for their children. Even in the case of children in care, many of the parents and families already make in-kind contributions. Whether it is through their OHIP plans or whether it is through providing transportation, they make contributions to the necessities of their children.

The parents of special-needs children, as the phrase itself indicates, often require more transportation to medical appointments, assistive devices, home improvements to accommodate a disability and often greater personal care expenses, and the list goes on.

I ask, what has the minister had to say to these families? On October 7, the minister stated that these "cost-containment" -- isn't that a wonderful phrase? -- measures would make the system both "more accountable and fair." He said, "We are being very sensitive to the comments that people are making to us around this" issue. Sensitive? We don't know where he's going, we don't know his time lines and now today we don't even know what the targets are.

When my leader, Lyn McLeod, asked the minister on October 7, three weeks ago, to share with us some of the details of "exactly what children's services these user fees are going to be imposed on and what guidelines his ministry has now put in place in order to establish user fees for such services as counselling abused children, therapy for children with learning disabilities and a host of other services that are needed by children across this province," the minister could only say in response, "The decision about what types of services this fee will affect has not been made." Today, weeks later -- and we don't know how close the implementation is as of today -- we still have no answer to the basic question, even though today we have communication from that minister in our hands.

How can the parents, who are understandably apprehensive about this whole situation, and indeed the care givers, the front-line workers, trust the minister when he will not explain what he is talking about, what his real targets are, what his real process will be and indeed what he is talking about? The minister speaks of "voluntary" parental contributions to recreational and transportation costs, but many of the agencies tell us that the cutbacks to preventive programs such as recreation are already very deep and that transportation is in many cases already part of in-kind parental contributions.

I'd like to echo the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and ask the minister, as they asked him this morning, why this government would impose user fees only on children's services and not on adult services. That is a very important question. None of us who are looking at this matter can come up with any answer.

Another question posed this morning: How do these decisions reflect the government's value of children? We look at the policies of this government surrounding children and we certainly can join in with that question: How do these decisions reflect the government's value of children? What priority does this government give to the protection and treatment of children? Another very good question in October 1993.

This children's services user fee policy proves that this government has not given very much of a priority to Ontario's children. It is certainly a back-burner item. Any consideration given to the provision of children's services in the social contract negotiations has been negated, wiped out, obliterated by the imposition of this punitive user fee. The messages are mixed, contradictory and certainly not very comfortable.

1520

If I may now briefly turn to the NDP government's policy on child care, a study in confusion and inefficiency, a policy on which we have had silence for over a year, the people of Ontario, most people, know that this government has budgeted $72 million to convert child care centres from the private sector to the non-private sector. Everyone in this chamber has been presented with that statistic. This very expensive, ideologically driven policy has not created one new child care space in this province $22 million into the project; $72 million the target, $50 million more to go and not one new space. While 34,000 of Ontario's children stand in line for subsidized child care, the government narrows the criteria for subsidies. This unacceptable situation results in vacancies and over 14,000 spaces on a 34,000 waiting list.

NDP child care policy is a major assault on parental choice. The policy direction that we've been talking about here this afternoon is another major assault on parental choice because it's a major assault on parental resources and parental responsibilities.

I once again quote from this morning's press conference: "The minister's financial plan for children's services transfer payment agencies is not responsible. Our safety net services which serve the most vulnerable children in Ontario must have the resources to protect and to heal hurting children and families."

As we were reminded in this House by my colleague the member for York North, last week was the Week of the Child, and this year's motto was, "Cherish the children."

I urge this government to rethink this destructive tax, and that's what it is: a tax on the vulnerable children of Ontario to fill the provincial coffers at the expense of services which are essential to their health and wellbeing. I urge the government to cherish our children.

The Acting Speaker: Being that time is allocated, we do not have questions or comments. Further debate?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'm pleased to join in this debate. It seems outrageous that we even have to debate this. I've found over the years I've run in provincial politics that when I came upon the New Democratic Party it always had this battle cry, "Make the rich pay." I have to say that this initiative and this suggestion fly so contrary to that philosophical statement that if it weren't so sad it would be laughable.

You're attacking the most vulnerable people in this province: young people. More importantly, you're attacking the most vulnerable people who are poor. You expect that by doing this you're going to be cutting back and perhaps reducing the deficit in this province. Certainly, reducing the deficit is commendable, but my God, to do it on the backs of young people, young poor people, is absolutely outrageous. I'm surprised that this government has the audacity and is not totally ashamed by what it's trying to do.

The money that you're saving now on the backs of young people, young poor people, is perhaps going to result in savings monetarily now, but down the line it will result in disaster to these young people. What you're saving now will fill our institutions, our correctional institutions, will perhaps fill the need for mental health care in the future for these young people.

Many of these young people are trapped. They're trapped in abusive families; they're trapped in sexually abusive families; they're trapped because they have a learning disability or they have some mental disability. What in fact you're doing is ensuring that they'll be trapped in there for ever. I find it absolutely outrageous that any government could have a conscience and do something like that. I urge the minister not to look at that. Children are our most precious commodity. What you're doing is denying them any future. I find that absolutely outrageous.

You people over there, for some reason, consider looking into matters, having all sorts of committees to review and discuss; that seems to be the order of the day. I suppose it creates a lot of activity among people who perhaps are looking for some type of employment, perhaps people who are associated with your government. Yet on this particular issue you did very little, if any, consultation. You simply decided, "Well, they'll be treated the same way everybody else is in this province in terms of cost reduction." I suggest to you that was a very foolish act. You didn't take into consideration for one minute whom you were taxing, the nature of that taxation on these young people and the future effects and impacts on the young people in this province.

I find it absolutely impossible that a government that said, "Tax the rich," has now changed its battle cry to "Tax those who can least afford to fight back," the children of this province.

I found it interesting, just as an aside, that children are entitled to be examined by a psychiatrist at a very large amount, sometimes between $100 to $150 an hour. There is no provision under OHIP for psychologists, yet in the final analysis psychologists are sometimes more beneficial to young people in terms of looking after their mental health needs than psychiatrists. I've preached that in this House many times and I don't see that the Minister of Health has changed that at all.

So what do you do? You add insult to injury by taking the children's aid societies of this province, which are mandated, required by law to look after the children who are in need, and saying to them, "On the one hand, you're required by law to do this, but we're going to cut back the money you're entitled to." I say shame; that is absolutely shameful.

Any member of the government who votes for this type of initiative should certainly hang his or her head in shame at the fact that they are doing nothing more than simply deferring the cost to the future of this province. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services will find in the future -- assuming you're still the government in the future, which I doubt, particularly with the insensitivity you're demonstrating in this particular policy procedure -- that you're deferring those costs down the line to be assumed in the budgets of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and minister of corrections, perhaps even the health care system.

I find it interesting that a blue panel, or perhaps it's an orange panel, did an extensive report on user fees for the Premier's Council on Health. Yet what did you do, Minister, in terms of determining whether or not this most sensitive area could afford to take a reduction in cost? If one can say that the Treasurer, in requesting or demanding that of these organizations that deal with the poor children of our province, did it with a decent heart, I have to say to him he's Scrooge. I suggest to you that this is something I don't think the people of this province are going to stand for.

Children's aid societies raise money on their own. I'll be attending a fantasy auction which is put on by the children's aid society. They do their own fund-raising, yet the government is prepared to take away, in a sense, indirectly all of the efforts on the part of these people. There are thousands and thousands of volunteers who are involved with children around this province. You're indirectly taxing them, because what you're saying is, "Keep on collecting, keep on having fund-raisers, but that money will be siphoned off by the Treasurer of this province."

I suggest to the Treasurer that he had better take a good, hard look at this and decide that this is an exception. It's unacceptable to the opposition. It's unacceptable to any sensitive-minded provincial person in this province that they would allow you to get away with this.

1530

So I suggest, Minister, that you do one of two things: Place it on hold and give these people breathing space despite the fact that it may interfere with the social contract and the reductions that the Treasurer has mandated; or take a look at it, try to sit down with these people and determine just how you can do it in a way that will be least offensive and least destructive to these young people.

I find it absolutely outrageous that you would claw back something that the federal government -- indirectly, you're trying to get at the federal government. You're saying, "All right, federal government," and this is always your complaint, perhaps a legitimate one in the past with the former federal government. "You're cutting back on transfer payments. Therefore, we have to make up the shortfall."

I suggest to you, Minister, that that is indirectly taking out of the pockets of the service agencies the moneys that are in fact legally theirs that are provided by the federal government and have always been provided by a sensitive, caring Canadian community to deal with people who can least look after themselves.

As was said this morning, I believe, in one of the questions and perhaps was quoted by one of the presenters at the press conference, you are in fact turning the whole principle of Robin Hood around. You are acting like the Sheriff of Nottingham and you're stealing from these people. I suggest that you look at that closely.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): If you want to be serious, don't bring Robin Hood into it.

Mr Callahan: The member interjects. I don't this is funny at all. I think it's probably one of the most serious debates we've had in this House.

It seems as though the government is just biding its time. They figure that if they bide their time and just listen to the opposition try to indicate to them how they feel and how I think most Ontarians feel, then, "Get on with it. Once it's over, we'll just go ahead and deal with it." I'll tell you, that kind of steamroller activity on the part of any government -- we just saw the results of that in the last federal election. They were decimated because of that attitude, that totally, totally insensitive attitude to the people of this country, and I suggest the same thing will happen to you people.

I don't really believe that has to happen. I believe this is an issue that can be resolved. I believe it's an issue where if you really think about it, you'll recognize that in fact what you're doing is you are treating the least able people in this community to look after themselves -- take the question of their access to perhaps some type of service. If the people cannot afford to pay for that, if there's going to be a user fee, they may very well decide not to take advantage of that particular service. What's the net result of that? The net result of that is there will be children reduced perhaps to the streets, perhaps reduced to the things we see in Toronto with child prostitution.

We'll see children growing up with a bad feeling for themselves because what you've done is you've denied them access at the earliest and the most sensitive times of their lives in terms of receiving that type of treatment and care and sensitivity. You may have doomed them to live in an atmosphere in their homes which is totally counterproductive, that's sexually abusive, violently abusive or whatever type of abusive.

You people seem to have money for all sorts of things, things that many of the Ontarians in this province object to, and here you are denying this money to these children, cutting back from them, cutting back from the agencies, and in fact not seeming to think it's necessary to consult with them to find out what their views are. They are the professionals, Minister.

Your bureaucrats may think when they hear the whip cracked by the Treasurer that they have to respond. Well, I suggest to you that you should be down there in the trenches personally, speaking to these people. It's your responsibility. You're the one who has to go home and live with that responsibility. You have to live with the results of it. You may never see it for 10 or 15 years, but I think you're an intelligent person and I think you can recognize that the money you save now on the backs of the poor youth of this province will in fact come back to be paid probably 10 times over in the future. That's hardly a legacy for the province of Ontario.

So I suggest that you go back to the NDP battle cry of the past: Don't make the poor pay, particularly the youth of this province, our greatest product, people who can perhaps pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they're given the proper support. You're taking those supports away. You're in fact reducing them to the category of "Let them eat cake." That's unsatisfactory.

It's kind of along the lines of one piece of legislation that was brought before this House and then withdrawn, but I understand it may be back on the table: the question of services to the learning-disabled. You'd be amazed at the number of young people in this province who have learning disabilities. Many of them can't even find that out because they can't afford to go to the proper place to have that determination made. In the case of poor children, they in fact will be getting that type of treatment and consultation and investigation through children's aid societies.

Will children's aid societies have to defer and not have that done? Will children's aid societies just have to shut their eyes to the fact that there may be young men and young women out there who will grow up having less than the benefits of you and I because they weren't able to get an examination? Very possibly.

Will there in fact be children whom the children's aid society will not be able to investigate fully? Perhaps. Will there be children who will remain in those atmospheres for which the children's aid society was originally enacted, to take them to a place of safety when they were in need of protection? Are we in fact denying them that, Mr Minister? I suggest we are.

I give the children's aid societies great credit and I give all the other agencies great credit, because they have the tenacity and they have the devotion to try to work this out themselves, even though you're amassing great cutbacks from them. But for God's sake, talk to them. Work out something that's going to be the least offensive and the least oppressive and the least demeaning to the young people of this province. If the minister and the government of the day don't do that, then I suggest that of all the things they've done thus far that they may be proud of, they've failed totally and they've failed with reference to people who can least defend themselves.

Very often there are partisan statements from this side of the House. This is not partisan, Mr Minister. This is the reality that you're creating by not looking at this in a very different way, and by the Treasurer not looking at it in a very different way, than you do with any other organization or any other program that's going on in this province.

I suggest you think twice about it, give some thought to it, recognize that it's the little ones of the world you're in fact condemning, perhaps to a future of poverty, perhaps to a future of incarceration, perhaps to a future of crime, and I suggest you think hard about that. I think if all members of the government think hard about that, you'll urge your cabinet and you'll urge your caucus colleagues to withdraw this foolish measure and return to what I thought was once the battle cry of the NDP, "Make the rich pay." Don't make the poor little girls and boys of this province pay, not just now but for the future.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I would like to add a few comments today, and I know my colleague from Burlington South will be speaking in considerably more detail, but I was most impressed with the statement from Mary McConville earlier. She's the executive director of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and she made a representation on behalf of the children and the young people of this province of Ontario. Those are the people who are the topic of this particular debate this afternoon. She was representing associations such as the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, the Ontario Association of Children's and Youth Institutions, the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centres, the Ontario Association for Community Living, the Ontario Contract Observation and Detention Homes Association and the Provincial Council of Children's Services Coordinating and Advisory Groups.

They are most concerned, and indeed this House should be most concerned, about the mandatory imposition of user fees in the collection of children's special allowance on the most vulnerable people, the children of the province of Ontario. I share and my caucus shares the deep concern that she has expressed in that regard.

She's pointed out that the recession over the last few years has taken its toll in particular on the children and families, and thousands of children indeed are on the waiting lists for children's mental health services and the children's aid societies. Unfortunately, because of the shortage of funds, some doors are having to be closed.

1540

Earlier in a conversation, I've been made aware of children at an early age of two to three years old who unfortunately have witnessed conflict within their families and as a result have behavioural problems, and these are the perhaps 7,000 children who are on the waiting list for some sort of assistance. I think, frankly, the government's initiative should be directed in that regard rather than in terms of collecting the fees.

I would like to speak about one other specific area of services that really concerns me with regard to the young people of the province of Ontario in my period of about 10 minutes, I believe, that I have to speak.

The provision of day care services in Ontario, as with all other services, must be delivered in a well-managed and cost-efficient manner. Unfortunately, today the method of delivery is being shaped by political ideology, and consequently it is not being delivered to meet the needs of the children or the parents or the taxpayers of this province.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): That's easy for you to say.

Mr David Johnson: That's easy for me to say, I know. But the problems are not recent, and I must say, speaking on behalf of Metropolitan Toronto and as a member of the Metropolitan Toronto council, I can remember back to 1987 and 1988 when in Metro Toronto we were attempting to deliver children's services, day care services, at a most efficient rate for the taxpayers of Ontario. We had deputations before us pleading with us to meet the need for day care services within Metropolitan Toronto, and there literally are in the vicinity of 30,000 families waiting today for a subsidy for day care services.

Back in 1987-88, we had those sorts of deputations and we, as a regional council within Metropolitan Toronto, attempted to meet that need. We expanded the services. We worked as closely as we could with the Liberal government of that day, I must say, and yet there was a problem that developed. The problem pertained to the funding of day care in Metropolitan Toronto, and there was an impasse.

That impasse developed around the number of day care spaces that would be funded by the provincial government of that day. They were unwilling to fund the number of spaces that Metro had put into place. They were also unwilling to fund some of the additional administration costs associated with the day care program and they were unwilling to fund some of the pay equity initiatives that Metropolitan Toronto put forward.

As a result, the Metropolitan corporation had to pick up the full tab for $6.5 million worth of day care services that the Liberal government of that day, back in 1988, would not recognize. The municipal property taxpayer had to pick up that tab.

The Liberal motion that's before us talks about downloading. I can tell you as a member of the regional council in that day and age that we felt the severe impact of downloading from that government on to the people of Metropolitan Toronto the shortfall of $6.5 million. What happened was that this shortfall, year in and year out, has carried on to different degrees such that today the accumulated shortfall in the provision of services in day care in Metropolitan Toronto is $12 million.

The $12 million should be shared on a formula basis: 50% from the federal government, 30% from the provincial government and 20% from the property taxpayers of the local council, in this case, Metropolitan Toronto. Instead, the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto are picking up or have picked up that full amount. That didn't start with this current government. That downloading on to the local taxpayer started in 1988 under the Peterson government.

This year the Metropolitan Toronto government is estimating that the shortfall will be another $2.5 million, which represents about 500 spaces in Metropolitan Toronto, so there again the problem carries on.

Before my time runs out, I want to comment on the other very unfortunate aspect of the day care situation right across this province, frankly, but I'll highlight it in Metropolitan Toronto. The day care program should be tailored to meet the needs of the parents, the needs of the children, and of course it has to be affordable.

The problem that's happening in Metropolitan Toronto is that because of the philosophy of the current government, the government is attempting to force some of the providers of day care out of business. Those are the commercial operators. There are many commercial operators; about one third of the spaces in Metropolitan Toronto indeed are provided by the commercial operator.

They have provided an excellent service to the taxpayers, and they do so at a minimal cost. They provide all the toys, the equipment. I've been in a number of these commercially operated facilities and they run excellent programs. The parents often choose a commercial operation. The commercial operators are sometimes in areas that are not served by the non-profit sector. They're handy to the residents in many cases.

In this day and age, when we are short of funds to provide services to our young people, we should take maximum advantage of all the different components, including the commercial operators. But what's happening? They're being forced out. This government has determined that private business is to be discouraged, that only the non-profit sector can provide the proper services in day care. Well, of course the parents don't agree with that. The parents willingly accept the commercial operators.

The commercial operators are being forced out in a number of ways. One is that the subsidies are now being directed only towards the non-profit sector, no longer to the commercial sector. Secondly, what they call direct operating grants, grants directly aimed at the employees as a wage subsidy, are only fully eligible for the non-profit sector. In the commercial sector, those in operation before 1987 are eligible for a 50% grant and those after 1987 are not eligible for any grant, so the financial pressure is on.

Other grants for toys and equipment and startup costs are only available to the non-profit sector and are not available to the commercial sector. Pay equity, which is more than likely being forced on the day care operators early next year, will have a tremendous impact on the commercial operators. They are being compared to the non-profit organizations, but the commercial operators pay less in many cases than does the non-profit sector. That's how they keep their costs down, the cost to the parent; they keep it down in that manner.

But what's going to happen with pay equity is that they will be required to put many of their salaries up and it's going to increase their costs and costs to the parents. It's going to put them in an unviable situation; they're going to be forced out of business. By comparison, the non-profit organizations will get a government grant, which is not available to the commercial sector, to assist with the pay equity.

My time has expired. Just to sum up, the treatment by this government of the commercial day care operators is very shortsighted. Not only are they forcing them out of business, but they are spending millions and millions of dollars to do it, and not only will it cost to force the operators out, some $76 million for conversion over the next three years, but the ongoing costs after that will actually be increased, and that'll mean we'll have less money to provide for day care operation in Ontario. To me, that is criminal. It's a waste of taxpayers' money.

1550

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'm pleased to participate in this debate.

I have a hard time understanding where the member Mr Beer is coming from with this resolution; it talks about the consistent mismanagement of delivery of children's services. I've had the pleasure of being in that ministry for three years now, and when I entered that ministry I took a perspective and looked at my own community. They used to have at one time what was called the Beer fund: "Don't worry about what you roll up at the end of the fiscal year. We'll reach into the Beer fund and bail you out, all the agencies in your communities."

I found it very hard to believe that this was going on in a lot of our communities, that staff was being extra-allocated but it wasn't being looked at as part of the operating budgets of those agencies, making sure they were providing services and doing it in a fiscal way.

I guess at that time, when the Liberals were in, we were dealing with good economic times and didn't have to worry about the pressures we are now faced with provincially in dealing with children's services. There have been studies done throughout this province about children's services. How many children are actually on a number of lists versus just one list? The system itself is fragmented and disordered.

I look in my own community. How many of them cooperate and communicate? I look at the agencies that provide children's services in my own community. We have a number of people who are providing services, but none of them integrate their services and work together. The system itself, from a community perspective, is out of whack. They need to work closer together.

Why do we have a director in each of the different agencies? We seem to be, as in good economic times, like firefighters out there trying to find out which one can come up with the best solution for our problem, instead of dealing with the problem at the beginning or trying to find an existing service that was already in the community and expanding its mandate and allowing it to deal with the community perspective.

This government has taken a positive approach in dealing with those initiatives. We're trying to bring those agencies together to work consistently with one another. Why is one agency doing the same as another? This is what the taxpayers have been yelling about. The taxpayers are saying: "Why is there duplication of services, not only federally, provincially and municipally, but municipally and provincially among themselves? Why are you not cooperating?"

In my own community, our children's services council has taken a positive way of trying to reduce its cost. Some of the people in our own communities say there are enough funds in our communities but what we haven't done is learned how to properly utilize those moneys and make them more effective in our communities.

When we talk about the issue being brought forward today about user fees or parental fees, whatever we want to call it, one thing is that some communities have had this in place for a number of years. It's not discrediting anybody from having the services.

I heard the member -- I forget what area it was from -- talking about the vulnerable people, that we're going to totally discard them and make sure they can't get services and we're going to put more and more pressure on them. That is a statement that is not factual. It is a statement that I believe is not in perspective of what we're trying to do. We understand there is financial hardship on people. This is when the services of the Ministry of Community and Social Services are required more, when the economic situation in the province of Ontario has deteriorated.

There is a way of trying to eliminate fees out there. I believe it's a partnership that has to be created by those agencies or developed in our communities (1) to work on preventive ways and (2) to reduce our administrative level and to provide more front-line services. We will find that the moneys that currently exist in our community -- I remember that the region of Peel, and Mr Beer will be able to verify this, has been talking about being discriminated against compared to Metro; that it's not getting its fair share. Then Chatham-Kent is saying, "We're not getting the same as Peel and Metro, so we're being discriminated against."

It's a very serious concern we have, because in Kent county alone we have 600 children on a waiting list for services. That is disheartening to me. That tells me I have to be proactive with those agencies in making sure those agencies (1) work together, (2) cut down administration costs and (3) provide more front-line services, and we'd cut down that list. By those three cooperative efforts, we'd find out that probably the list is only 300 because we have the same individuals on those lists more than once. It's important for us to take that proactive approach.

One of the other areas I heard the member talk about is the child care initiative. He forgot to mention that we used to have a grant called the DOG grant. I could never understand why we used "DOG" for children, but we did; it was a direct operating grant for the children.

I've heard the Conservatives say we cut the private out. In 1987 the Liberals cut the private out; they just didn't have the goal to make sure the child care system in the province was consistent throughout.

Yes, we have preferential treatment for non-profit agencies. In my own community we had the same thing, but now a lot of the private have switched over to non-profit. Our community is taking a proactive approach of putting our child care together to make sure we can comprehensively put a plan together that will deal with the community's interests -- not our own interests, but the interests of our community.

Not everybody needs child care on an institutional basis. They may need children's resource centres to provide parental opportunities for parents to talk with others and at the same time allow children the opportunity. Toy-lending libraries: very positive. As we know, the financial situation faced by a lot of families mean they cannot afford the nice toys that might help advance the learning abilities of young children. A toy-lending library is going to add a more positive approach.

But what we found out is that when we have a number of agencies or a number of private, non-profit and other children's services in effect, it becomes a system that is unmanageable because it's fragmented. What we need to do is get a more comprehensive plan in place, and that comprehensive plan will come through a non-profit agency, where we can make sure the services are going to be provided for a community.

They are community-based, with community participation instead of somebody who has a private interest telling the parents what they need to know. It's the parents advising and playing an active role on the board to make sure those services, whether it's a children's resource centre or the child care centre itself and the opportunities it must provide for the children, are being inputted through the parents and through those who have a parental responsibility for making sure things happen.

In this fiscal situation we're trying to make sure, number one, that services start working together. Agencies must work together. We've tried to do that. We put out a document back in May dealing with the planning to make sure about children's services. It's important that we put in place not only child care but other services in our local planning.

Municipal governments totally forget that when we deal with child care and with subdivisions we should look at opportunities for child care as we do for a park. When municipal planners are in place, they always make sure there's a park there, but they never make sure that the people they're looking at living in those subdivisions have an opportunity to access child care in their own communities. We miss that whole opportunity.

It's important for us to bring those into perspective in making sure of child care. How do you do that? You do that through one-system child care, not through a fragmented system, and that's what the non-profit will provide us. It will also lead us into the education system. Our education system is a non-profit aspect, so what we're doing is teaching them from an early age and helping them to advance themselves in the education system.

When I hear the members say we're playing the Robin Hood approach, which was referred to today, I take exception to that. What we're trying to do is make sure that the fiscal situation we are faced with, the fragmented situation that was put in place when we had good finances in the province of Ontario, when things were good, when people were working -- and then when we suffered the effects of free trade and other things, we're now having to cope with more and more of a problem that is faced not only with our adults but also with our children. This financial situation has to come from a community perspective.

The community must take a proactive approach. They are the ones who have the ability to make sure the services are there, make sure we can be in front and make sure, number one, that if the opportunities are there for parents to contribute and help provide for services, why not? For those who do not have the ability and the financial hardship, then the government must be there to make sure, because if we don't deal with them at the children's age and situation, what we're doing is leading into a larger social problem later on, and we have to stop that.

1600

So to the member opposite with this resolution, I wonder where you're coming from, number one. Number two, you knew the problem was there and the fragmented situation that was there. When you talk about the mismanagement of delivery of services, you knew it was clearly there before you even now are opposition.

When you're talking about the child care system, I believe what we're doing is the most appropriate way. Unfortunately, the Liberals in 1987 didn't have the full gumption of making sure that the system was -- I know they had the intent of promoting non-profit but they just didn't have the gumption to make sure they set the clear direction and take the heat that is there.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Come on, they brought in 33,000 new spaces, Randy. If you are going to hit them, hit them for something they didn't do. They did bring in 33,000 spaces; you have lost 5,000 spaces in the last two years.

Mr Hope: I'm listening to the member opposite from the Conservatives and I'll totally ignore him because he half the time doesn't make sense. But what is important for us here is to provide children with the appropriate services, to provide the families with appropriate services and to make sure that what we're doing is not hurting vulnerable people in our society, but at the same time making sure that we as a government have a responsibility to the citizens of this province, making sure we get our financial house in order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Are there further members who wish to debate this opposition motion? I recognize the minister.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm glad to join in this debate. Let me just say that I will confess I was looking forward to hearing the comments of the critics, but I'll be happy to hear them, none the less, after I've made my comments.

I think one can get very wrought up about this issue because it is an important issue. I understand very much the emotions that surround an issue like this and the kind of strident positions we all take, whether we're trying to explain and defend the position or whether we're trying to advocate for a different approach to be taken.

What I'd like to do, if I may, is to talk a little bit about some of the areas that are raised in the motion before us that deal with other pieces of the children's services area, before getting to some specific comments on what I think is the immediate issue that the motion places before us, which is the effect of some of the expenditure reductions on children's services, particularly the question of the parental contribution issue.

I'll come back to the notion of parental contribution against user fees because I think it's a distinction that is important to make. Whether we agree or disagree on the issue, there is, in my view, a very clear distinction in what we're doing. I feel very comfortable in categorizing what we are doing as saying that one of the ways in which we are looking at dealing with the fiscal problem we've got in the area of children's services is by looking at the potential for some revenue to be generated through a parental contribution, which is very distinct, in my mind, from the question of a user fee.

The motion actually presents a useful opportunity for us to talk a little bit about some of the issues that affect children in this province, because the motion addresses the whole gamut of issues, from child care to the broader issue of children's services and then specifically the issue of parental contributions. I think it's important, therefore, to talk, as various members have done, about some of those issues and to understand more fully where in fact the commitment of this government is on these issues and what in fact we believe we can do and need to do.

First of all, within the area of child care in particular, I know the motion in one of the whereases talks about the fact that, I guess in the writer's mind, we haven't done enough. All I can say is that I feel quite proud of the record we have on the issue of child care, and I feel even more proud knowing some of the work that is going on in the ministry and the potential that is there for even more to be done in the area of child care.

It's important to note that we have in the House today, in addition to myself, both the two former ministers who served in this ministry under this government and indeed the author of this motion, one of the ministers under the previous government.

I think it's fair to say that we have been working on a continuum in terms of the issue of child care development. I think it's important that we note what we as a government have been doing in this area is to work very hard to try to make some sense of where our child care system is going and to go from there, through the consultation process that we have, to be able to address, as I believe we will be able to address, some of the questions the member for Don Mills was raising with respect to the issues of affordability, the question of ensuring that we have a child care system in the province as opposed to simply a series of good child care centres and that we very much recognize in that system the need for a variety of services to be provided, from child care centres to resource centres to a variety of other supports -- home care centres being another option that works for many people -- and that we therefore have a system that takes into account all of those needs and delivers on those needs in a consistent fashion.

I think we also have to be prepared to talk about and deal with the issue of how we educate our children in those early years vis-à-vis the issue of caring for children. So that dichotomy or that meeting between good child care and good early childhood education is also one of the issues that I hope we will be able to respond to as we continue to do the work on the reform piece.

But as important as that work is, we have not simply said that we can't do anything until we have that package together. In fact, far from it. We have done a number of important things in terms of the expansion of the child care system even in the short term. I've had opportunities before, but I think it's useful to remind members of some of the things we have done.

We indicated that we were prepared and wanted to put into the system, over the three-year period that we've been in government and over the next year or so, 20,000 additional child care spaces under the Jobs Ontario initiatives. We've shown our ability to adapt that initiative to the kinds of real needs that are out there by taking 8,400 of those spaces and broadening the criteria under which those have been put into the system. I think it's significant to note that in fact most of those 8,400 spaces are now in the system and being utilized and that we managed to do that in a space of something like six to seven months, which I think is something that is noteworthy and something that clearly demonstrates the kind of commitment we have beyond all of the work that we are continuing to do with the addition of capital dollars to be able to improve and expand the child care spaces that we've got in the province, and therefore with the additional spaces this is also creating and adding to the system.

We've also shown, I think, the support that we believe needs to exist for the non-profit child care centre, and we make no apologies about this issue. I know that the member for Don Mills talked about this issue, in his words, as being something that he doesn't agree with. We believe very strongly that the emphasis needs to continue to be placed on the non-profit system. We believe that child care is not something that should be continued to be encouraged as a for-profit operation, which is why we've put in dollars to assist those commercial operations that wish to convert to continue to convert. That is happening and we are seeing that process working and resulting again in an addition to the service that we provide.

We've also recognized that this is an area in which, on the pay equity front, we have to take some steps, and we are providing some significant dollars to be able to address the issue of low pay and low wages that exist for many workers in the system.

I think that with those and other measures I could go on and on at length about, we are clearly showing our commitment not just in terms of planning for the future but in a real way for the present.

1610

When it comes to the broader issue of planning for children's services, again I think it's important that we distinguish the rhetoric from the facts, because the facts are that not only have we talked about the need for children's services across the province to be in effect better planned and better coordinated, as my parliamentary assistant, the member for Chatham-Kent, was indicating earlier in his comments, but we have taken that notion, which I want to acknowledge was a notion that I think was begun, in fairness, even under the previous government in terms of the Children First report which we then proceeded to act upon and resulted in us being able to issue this document, Children's Services: Policy Framework for Services Funded under the Child and Family Services Act, which sets out a framework for how the issues of children's services need to be addressed and can be addressed in local communities.

This document, rather than simply being a document that just espouses a certain philosophy, is a document that we believe can be used and indeed is being used in local communities. It's certainly being used in the planning work that our ministry officials are doing in conjunction with a variety of agencies and community groups in developing a better sense of the needs that exist out there and how the existing services are addressing the needs that exist and where the gaps might be and what needs to be done.

This document tries to bring together all of the children's services that are funded by the ministry while at the same time providing the kind of flexible strategic planning support that is needed to ensure that children and families do benefit to the greatest extent possible from the resources that we have available so that as we make decisions about where the dollars are to be spent, we have a basis in this framework, which calls for a more cohesive and integrated system of services, again organized to respond effectively to the needs of children and families, which calls for improved access to services, which calls for a higher degree of local planning but involving ministry officials and the various organizations locally so that decisions are made much more in partnership with those who are going to be delivering the services, with the families and the youths who are receiving the services and others in the community, and with a focus on targeting better the resources that we have in the ministry.

Again, I think we could certainly all be agreeing that if we had many more millions of dollars than we do at our disposal to spend in the area of children's services, I would be the first to argue that they could be well spent and that the issue is not whether we are spending too much or not enough. I don't think there's any disagreement that if we had more money to spend, we could spend it and we could spend it well. The issue is, if we don't have more money to spend, how can we best spend the dollars that we do have at our disposal? That is just a reality that, as much as we may want to get away from it, we simply have to be able to deal with.

With those comments, I would like to come more directly to the immediate issue that I know has been troubling a number of the agencies and is the main cause of the motion that has been placed today by the official opposition, and that is to look at what we have been doing under the expenditure control plan and more particularly the question of parental contributions as they apply to non-residential services and to a lesser extent to residential services.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): User fees.

Hon Mr Silipo: The member for Bruce says, "User fees," and I know that he continues to want to impress upon me and others that in fact what we are doing is instituting user fees. I will say to him very clearly that I do not believe that is what we are doing, and I'd like to try to explain why.

Mr Elston: Just define it the way you want and then you're okay.

Mr Jackson: Spoken like a true lawyer.

Hon Mr Silipo: It's not a question of the words that one uses, but I think it's important to know, because as the saying goes, a rose by any other name. But I think the point is, what is a user fee and what isn't a user fee? We have said from the very beginning that what we are talking about is, first of all, starting from the realization that in this area, as unfortunately in other areas, we have to make some decisions and we've had to make some decisions as a government about how we could reduce some of the expenditures in a way that would be least harmful to the programs that are provided.

Our starting point was to, first of all, protect very strongly and to the greatest extent possible the programs that are provided under the umbrella of children's services, because like everyone else in this House, I believe very strongly that whatever we can do and as much as we can do in the area of children's services, in the whole gamut of children's services, is certainly money well spent. So nobody went at this with a view of saying, "We're overspending and we therefore need to cut back." No, the approach was simply one based on, whether we like to look at it or not, the reality of the situation, of saying, "Here's what we have to do within the confines of the overall dollars we have."

I can say to the members opposite and to the people who are here watching and listening that we were very conscious of the situation children's services were in. I think that if people were to compare the kinds of reductions we've made in this area versus others, they would see that we've been very sensitive to those real needs. Again, I don't want to try for a minute to pretend that if we did not make these expenditure cuts, the money could not be well spent. I'm sure it could be; I know it could be. But the issue is that if we don't have that money, what is it that we can do as a government and what is it that we can do together with the agencies?

What we have done, first of all, is to try to minimize the level of constraint we have talked about here. What we are talking about, I think it's important to note, is that if you look at the overall dollars we are suggesting need to be found in the children's services area, including the dollars that are to come from the social contract, the reduction of 0.75%, which is in and of itself a recognition on our part of the kind of support we need to provide to this service and to many other services that are provided through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, if we look at that in relation to some of the other reductions that were made, I think it should not go unnoticed that we are talking about something less than 3% overall, including the social contract target, and particularly in the area of parental contributions something like 1%, of the overall expenditure that is there.

I use those percentages and those numbers not as a way to turn this into a statistical argument, because it isn't a statistical argument, but because I think it's important that we have that information also on the table. I think we need to try to stay away if we can from the rhetoric of the motivations surrounding this and whether this is decimating children's services. It is not decimating children's services. While it is obviously causing difficulties for the people who have to administer, run and coordinate the programs, I think the issue is, in the kind of situation we find ourselves in is it that unreasonable that we have to look at some of these measures?

Going beyond the issue of the overall dollar cut, what is it that we have said and what is it that we are doing with respect to how this measure is to be applied? We come then to the question of the issue of parental contribution versus user fees as being one of those issues. We have said from the beginning that what we want to do is to work with the agencies to sort out the best way in which this can be implemented. There have been discussions with representatives of the various umbrella agency organizations from across the province since June of this year. Certainly, the complaint has been made that people weren't consulted before we decided to make the cut, and that's true. We did not go out and say to the agencies, "What would you like us to cut?"

I'm not sure, in fairness, whether that is something we ought to have done, because I'm not sure we can expect that agencies that are trying their best to provide services to children should be put, by this government or any other government, in the position of telling us what it is they ought to cut. Their natural, instinctive reaction would be to say: "Nothing. You ought to give us more money so we can do a better job of what we're doing."

I think the important point to note is that having made the decision, we said very clearly that before the decision is implemented, before the details are nailed down, we needed and wanted to work with the agencies to get a much more detailed sense of what the situation was and to be able to assess, as a result of that discussion, what could be done on this front. I've been saying that consistently throughout the process. I think it's important that I remind members of this, because what we have gotten to now in that process of discussion is understanding better what can and can't be done in terms of how the issue of parental contributions can be applied and therefore some changes that need to be made.

1620

We have recognized -- and I have done this for some time publicly in the House and privately in a variety of discussions -- that with respect to this year, because of the time lines involved and the discussions that needed to take place, it's unreasonable for us to expect we can proceed with the same dollar target that was there from the beginning. So I've indicated very clearly, both here in the House and in writing to the agencies, that we will be moving the implementation time line from November 1 to January 1 next year. This will allow for more time before the measure is implemented and also result in a reduction of the dollar target for the 1993-94 fiscal year. We will have to work with the agencies and with our area offices to determine the extent of that reduction in terms of what we can do, but do that we will. I say that with no apologies but simply as a way of recognizing that this is a result of the consultation and discussion process that has taken place.

The other important issue is the recognition we have with respect to the question of parental contribution, an issue that we need to be prepared to address head on. First of all, we have said consistently throughout this process that we are not talking about tying the payment of a fee to a service that an agency is providing. Hence, when I say this is not a user fee, that is what I am talking about. To me, a user fee is exactly that. A user fee is when you say to someone, "In order for you to get this particular service, you are required to pay this particular fee." That is not what we are doing. What we are doing is we are saying that within the whole range of services that are provided, both residential and non-residential services, there are some areas in which a request can be made to parents to see if there's a potential for some contribution to be made. What exactly those services are and what exactly that kind of contribution might be is exactly the kind of work that we need to continue to do with our agencies.

Again, it's important that we put some of the facts on the table. This is not a new notion. This is not something we simply pulled off a shelf and said, "Hey, why don't we try this?" This is something that is happening in our children's services system now, both in the residential area and in the non-residential area.

What we have been saying to the agencies is that we want to work with them to try to sort out how we can develop a more consistent policy, not in terms of how we say to parents, "You have to provide this particular contribution," but rather, "What are the kinds of services that can be provided that aren't among the basic services we want to provide, upon which it is realistic?" based very much on the experience that many of our agencies have now, in which we can say, "Is it reasonable for there to be some form of small contribution that can be made by parents?" whether that's done as a way for parents to continue to be involved in the process of the care for their children or for whatever other reasons.

That's the kind of work we want and need to continue to do, based very much on the experiences that exist now and very clearly on the premise that we would never accept a situation or ask for a situation in which the provision of a service, basic or otherwise, would be dependent upon the payment of a fee by any parent or any other individual. We need to be really clear about that.

Where that leaves us is we have a process that we believe needs to continue. Whether we like it or not, we have to find the dollar savings in this area somewhere, so we believe that by working with the agencies we can identify with them a more consistent policy, we can develop a more consistent policy that helps us to set out what kinds of things it might be reasonable for us to be putting together into a policy around parental contributions, and to then also identify as part of that process of discussions what potential measures there may be to find some other savings.

Again, it's important to note that in the discussions so far there have been suggestions that have been made by the agencies. One deals particularly with the issue of the possibility of looking at some form of contribution or in this issue, I think it would be fair to say, some form of fee on adoption services, which I know has been looked at, been talked about for some time. So we've said: "Fine, let's talk about that. Let's see if there's something there that's possible." There undoubtedly are many other suggestions that either have been made or can be made that we'd be quite prepared to look at.

We have just recently, as some members know, done a survey to determine those areas in which some of these parental contributions are being collected and areas where they are not. Again, what we will be doing is to use the information we have gathered from those surveys to be able to help us to shape the policies in this area.

I know there has been some confusion also, certainly by some of the questions that have been directed to me, around the issue of children's allowances, which is another part of the services. I'm not sure if it's directly addressed in the motion here, but it has certainly been part of the discussion, and so I want to spend a minute or so on that.

We have now in the province of Ontario a system in which agencies that provide residential care for children are able to collect a child's allowance directly from the federal government, which is the same allowance that would be paid to the parent if that child was living at home. What we know is that a number of agencies are already doing that, are already collecting that fee, and some agencies are not. I think it's fair to say that we had underestimated the situation in our initial calculations. As it turns out, more agencies are collecting more of that allowance than we had initially deemed to be the case.

That is going to have some effect in terms of what we say we can find in potential savings through that area and what we have to do in terms of other measures we need to look at. But it's important on this front to point out that this is not a new measure, that this is something that has been happening, and what we have been doing is to say that perhaps more can be done, certainly in terms of those agencies that have not been collecting this allowance from the federal government, and also to look at the differential in terms of an increase that has taken place this year of about $33 in the allowance that was instituted by the federal government. We believe that we can deal with this issue in conjunction with the agencies that provide the service and that we can arrive at a solution that determines what in fact can be realistically found through that particular approach and what then has to be found through the balance of other measures.

I can tell you that in the discussions I've had with some of the agencies one of the things they have said to me is, "Minister, we understand the situation the government is in." What people I think have complained about more, at least to me directly, has been not so much the need for us to try to find these dollar savings in this area but more around what people saw as a much more prescriptive approach to how they were supposed to find those dollars.

What I have continued to direct the ministry to do, and what the ministry has been attempting to do, is to clarify that in fact we are not talking about a prescriptive approach. What we are saying is that we think that in the area of children's allowances there's a potential for some dollars to be found and that we have an obligation to try to see if that can be done. Then, to the extent that it cannot happen in those areas, we have to work with our agencies to see where else the dollars for the out years, for next year and the year after that, can be found. Because as much as I as the minister responsible would like the case to be that we could simply say we're not going to have to find these dollars, it just can't be that way.

It can't be that way not because I or anybody else on this side of the House doesn't want it to be that way; it simply is because I think that as we are all being asked to look at how we can spend the dollars we have more effectively, at what we can do to reduce expenditures in some areas, this is an area where we need to look at some of the things that we can do.

I would say this does not stop the process of discussion. In fact, we need that process of discussion to go on because we know that beyond the issues we've identified here, there are many other issues we have been working on with our agencies.

I could just mention briefly the question of what we do to support crown wards as they move from the care of children's aid societies out into the world and how we deal with that group of young people who need and warrant I think a great deal more support by us. We are looking at that issue.

1630

We also have some issues that apply particularly to children's aid societies around the question of how we deal with exceptional circumstances on a year-to-year basis, and I believe we can make some progress there as well.

I say that simply as a way to indicate that there is not only an understanding on the part of our ministry but also a real commitment to try to address some of these issues. But I think the way they are best addressed, quite honestly, is if people are prepared to sit down and work these things through, and I hope that that process of discussion can continue.

I believe there is in fact a great deal more that as a ministry we need to do to ensure that we rely more and more on the expertise that exists out in the community among the people who are delivering a whole array of services. We've been talking about children's services today, but my comment would certainly apply equally to a number of other services. I think there has been, to some extent, too much of a void between the ministry and the provision of services. I know it's an issue that many of my colleagues as well sometimes feel. I think there are some improvements we need to bring about to that system.

But on this particular issue, on this particular measure, I hope the steps we've taken show that we have taken the consultation and discussion process quite seriously, that it indicates, in fact, the way in which we believe we need to work to try to address this problem and this issue and to try to find solutions that best protect the provision of services for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The Acting Speaker: Going in rotation, are there any further members who wish to participate in the debate on this opposition motion today?

Mr Jackson: I'm pleased to rise on behalf of my caucus and my leader, Mike Harris, and the Progressive Conservative members of this House to participate once again on a motion dealing with support for and an understanding of children's services, especially those services for vulnerable children in Ontario.

I've listened carefully to the debate so far, now from all three political parties, and I have to be struck by several things. First, I want to indicate that we're going to hear a lot of partisan rhetoric this afternoon, and that's somewhat unfortunate. It's probably more helpful and beneficial, to move the yardsticks on improving children's services in this province, if we can build on some fundamental understandings of just how much at risk children are today, how increasing numbers of children in this province are at risk. If we as legislators start with some fundamental understandings here, maybe we can reach a little bit of common ground.

First of all, in this House today are people who have broad and varied backgrounds in terms of children's services, whether it be in education or social services. Each of us has had occasion, outside of our lives as politicians, to draw from that understanding. We also have our own families, our own loved ones, our own extended family to understand that at times in their lives there are conflicts; at times in their lives children misstep the process and need help. We also know that from birth they are handed additional challenges that many of us never have had and never will have to face.

But if we start with some basic understandings in what we can agree on, then surely everything we know about children at risk would indicate to us that the first thing we have to do is to intervene early and provide the necessary supports. I want to go over that, because I think it's the most fundamental part of this whole debate today, that we identify and understand that at-risk child and we intervene early and provide the necessary assistance.

Conservatives and Liberals and socialists then emerge with a whole series of arguments about how best to do it, or how much it will cost society years later for that child, whether it be 10 years later and they are before a judge as a young offender, or five years later in a school classroom where they're struggling to get an education and we begin to pour horrendous amounts of resources at the children who really should have been met at the earliest point to provide those services.

We all participate in those debates. Unfortunately, they get far too partisan. I remember a time when the Liberals were bringing in heritage-language programs, which was, if we think about it, an opportunity to present a third-language access for a child in Ontario, yet within the same week, I was raising the issue of, why do we not have enough psychometrists and speech-language pathologists for children to learn the one language they need to communicate with their families and other children in school, with a therapist, with anyone who is trying to help them? Following the prevailing fashion of the day and getting caught up in the partisan nature of politics, we certainly all got off and captured our turf, but did we have a fundamental understanding of how children's services, as a need in this province, were being met?

The second fundamental understanding, and I'm directing this to the minister and the two ministers -- actually the three ministers; I apologize. Mr Beer, the proposer, has had the privilege of serving in what I believe to be the most important ministry and the most ministerial responsibility in this province. I'm pleased that all three are in the House today. Why do I say that? I say that because under the law we know that children are the most vulnerable. Average children, at-risk children, children generally have fewer rights than anybody else in society. Children have less protection in our courts, less access to services because they can't articulate those demands, and our charter already diminishes to a great degree what rights they do have.

As a humane and caring society, clearly we can accept that there has to be a countervailing set of laws that we in this province can establish to ensure their protection. It's not really the responsibility of the Attorney General, who is present in the House today; it's the responsibility of the Minister of Community and Social Services. If children lose a parent and for a variety of reasons become a crown ward, then, to the Minister of Community and Social Services, they become your direct responsibility. That is it. The extent of the greatest level of protection we'll have for that child rests with your office and your understanding of how vulnerable our children are.

Much in today's debate has been referenced to how much at risk children are and where they're at risk. We know that children are being sexually assaulted in this province in the greatest numbers of our recorded history. We know that children are being abused in increasing numbers, more so than we've ever known before. It's not because it was a hidden crime and it's now exposed. Matters of TV violence and pornography, the breakdown of the family -- there are a whole series of reasons why violence and abuse against children have become so dramatic. Thank God it's come more out into the open so we can deal with it. But that's the key: so that we can deal with it.

The third understanding I want to start with before I get into the substance of my comments is that we as governments use consultation as a means of avoiding confronting the real issue. I've been involved in children's services in elected office for nearly 20 years. I've seen every government consult every aspect of every child's life and I've seen precious little progress, and we're falling into the same trap. I listened very carefully to the minister reference at length the amount of consultation. But 10 minutes later in his speech, he was talking about, "That's the way it's going to be" in terms of the fiscal realities he's faced with.

1640

I say to the minister, if it's meaningful consultation, then you really have to say you're leaving the door open to do certain things. If not, then consultation simply becomes a process and, frankly, an expensive one at that, because people have to leave their direct-line services in their communities and travel to Toronto to be assembled so that you can stand in the House and say, "We're consulting."

To make matters worse, you'll even say, "And there's agreement on some of these fundamental issues that we have to have user fees" -- excuse me, we don't use "user fees" -- "parental contributions" or "copayments" or whatever.

We have to be very careful that if we're going to consult, we'd better meaningfully consult. And if you're going to quote report after report -- I could have used up 20 minutes of my comments this afternoon simply bringing report after report which proposes to do the basic fundamentals: to be more proactive and prevent aspects of problems that affect children who are at risk, that we coordinate better the agencies, which are in a sense almost competing with each other.

This is in every one of the reports we've seen, whether it's Children First, whether it's the Rix Rogers report on abused children, whether it's the Maloney report on children's mental health needs. Reports keep people busy, they arm politicians with arguments, and they end up on shelves collecting dust.

I want to talk about the fourth element of consensus I hope we can reach today, and that is that this province and this government is in some fiscal difficulty. We know that, and everybody in this province knows that, and every Canadian who participated in the national election understood that. But the real challenge for your government is not simply to say that we have an expenditure control plan and it's in place, simply because anybody, either an auditor or an accountant, can take every ministry in succession and impose upon it a restriction on its spending and indicate that that's where you've got to find your savings; the real test and measure of a government is to determine how it sets its priorities within the fiscal environment we're living in today.

As the Chairman of the standing committee on estimates, I'm going to raise these issues because they're the two most current and immediate examples that come to mind.

Yesterday the Minister of Transportation presented his estimates before our committee. He, like all ministers, has the restraint program in place, but he said with great satisfaction that his $15-million bilingual highway signs project was still on the boards and it was still going ahead full steam -- $15 million for a highly symbolic gesture of creating road signs on highways that already have road signs.

I don't want to debate that issue today. I'm just simply saying that there's $15 million that you might have re-examined. There's $15 million you, Minister, might have fought for at the cabinet table. There's $15 million that you could have said to all the agencies in Ontario, "You work with me and help me to understand this issue so that we can get those moneys."

I have to say that all political parties are slaves of their ideology and they're slaves of these economic issues, and our party is no different. The marching orders within our caucus are, "You cannot be spending more money unless you can find out where it's coming from, and it better not come from taxpayers."

You know that's the case. We've tried very hard as a party to maintain that position, and we took that position, I recall, in a debate in this House which I participated in back in April 1990, where we had a motion which asked for an expansion of children's mental health services. My colleague Mr Beer of the Liberals was the minister of the day.

In that debate we had to articulate clearly the areas of government spending we would stop in order that we could get mental health services to 7,000 to 8,000 children who were sitting on waiting lists, who'd been identified, who'd been denied mental health services which were critical if we were to be able to demonstrate that we had a prevention-and-care model of meeting the needs of children.

When members of my caucus, including myself, bring to the attention of the government ways in which to reduce welfare fraud, we're not just saying that this is simply so you'll have more mad money to play with; it's so that when we identify these absolutely crucial services that we have these funds now that we can move and direct to meet that need.

Again, Minister, as I say, if you're not the one demanding at the cabinet table that these expenditures be made and honoured and commitments made and honoured for these children, no one else is prepared to do that at the table.

Just look at the numbers. We've been rising on our feet about the amount of abuse of the tax we collect from tobacco revenues in this province, which estimates are it's close to $1 billion. Just for members of this House to put this in perspective, we only spend $729 million on children's services for all children at risk in this province, and yet nearly $1 billion of revenue, we're told, we're being defrauded out of by people who wilfully break the law, and the government says: "We really can't get a handle on it. We may not have the political will" -- that's my interpretation of it -- but you've only indicated that you think it's probably a federal problem. We don't have the will to pursue it in terms of the collections.

But I ask the minister, for what we spend on children's services and what we're losing in legitimate revenue under the law, surely there has got to be a political will for you to turn to the Minister of Revenue and say: "Can't we go after and get some of this money? What is it that we need to do, as a government, to get that revenue, which we deserve, which the public's aware of?" It's not a new tax; it's just taxes you're not collecting from people who are breaking the law.

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: Within your own ministry, Minister. I've been on my feet on several occasions. I've talked about day care and some of the money you've wasted there, and I really don't want to get into day care, much as I'd dearly love to. I'm sorry that Mr Beer had to throw that one line in on day care, because I understand he wants to talk to that constituency out there, but this is really more about vulnerable children and children's services and not about day care. But I have been on my feet on dozens of occasions to talk to you about expenditures within your own ministry.

I've got to raise a couple for you today. You and I have had difficulty over the issue of our detention centres for young offenders. I've expressed a concern to you about several of the approaches, and without getting into a debate about young offenders, we have young offenders who are ranging from children who are guilty of simply running away from home and we have multiple murderers, and frankly, we treat them almost identically under this legislation brought in by the Liberals.

The public is growing in their concern with how you're spending the money in that ministry. I'll give you one example. The closest facility to my constituency in Burlington -- it's in Halton region -- is the Syl Apps centre. We know that you're about to spend $8.5 million to $9 million on program upgrades and capital expenditures in that facility. I'm told that the in-ground, indoor swimming pool you're building for these young offenders is going to cost taxpayers between $4 million and $4.5 million.

Minister, if you're not going to listen to any argument today, I want to ask you to listen to this one. You don't have to walk two miles from the location of the Syl Apps centre where you don't land at the doorstep of the Halton children's aid, which is experiencing a 25% increase in children who have been abused, which is experiencing a 40% increase in child sexual abuse, yet you're telling these people there just is no money there.

That's within their own ministry that they are seeing you making those kinds of expenditures. The front-line workers who are dealing with children who have been sexually assaulted and abused, the Community Living staff who are dealing with basic living functions for dignity for children who cannot live at home -- you're telling them that we need, and it's a priority, to have a $4.5-million in-ground swimming pool for young offenders, kids who've broken the law.

1650

I'll go further; I'll find you some more money. We had an inquest into the death of four young people killed in my riding. When the inquest was finished, they found out that while one of these individuals was in the Syl Apps centre, the taxpayers were paying for all of his driver education -- the insurance, a vehicle -- to teach this young offender, at absolutely no cost to the young offender, how to drive a vehicle.

If you want to do something constructive, find out how much money's being wasted on these kinds of programs when law-abiding young people can't get access because they can't afford driver education in this province. But how much money can you save to say that society shouldn't be paying for this stuff? I'm sorry to get into the Syl Apps case in detail because it goes on; I mean, the buffet carts that go around to each of the wards at night to offer the kids whatever they want. Let's get real about where our sense of priorities is here.

We're not talking thousands of dollars here; in the examples I raise we're talking millions of dollars. My colleague Mr Wilson talks about health care fraud. Those dollars should go back into the health care system so that we have those needs. I'm asking you to look at bilingual road signs as a priority for your government, because apparently they still are; for you to re-examine, before a shovel goes into the ground to build the expanded gymnasia facilities, the outdoor baseball diamond and all of those things for the young offenders and when you're going to tell young offender resident facilities, level 2 facilities for less-violent offenders, "Well, you're just going to have to find the money somewhere."

When a family abandons their child, how can you talk to them about a user fee? Where are you going to find that kind of money if you're not even looking in your own backyard?

I was hoping to spend some time today talking about children's mental health services because, frankly, I think that's been a serious problem in this province. First of all, I recall the debate back in April 1990. Mr Beer was the minister. The Liberals were sitting on that side of the House and there was a whole load of them sitting here. That was before the last election. Children's mental health services were, as I said, one of the few policy areas where our party was -- through our caucus we had decided that children had to have interventions early if we were to help children and they did not become a burden financially on their families or society later in life.

So we indicated and we campaigned that this was one of the few areas where we would expand those services, because they had not been attended to for years. The debate of that day was most interesting. What I will remember for ever about that debate is that members from the governing side of the House broke ranks with their own government and voted in favour of the resolution. They fundamentally had understood the notion, first of all, that today's resolution doesn't really mean very much. It's a great opportunity for all of us to get up and debate and to tell whoever's important, "See, we're fighting your good cause."

But what came out of that very important vote, I thought, was that about two thirds of the Liberal caucus voted in favour of that motion that day. Many of them carried that commitment with them into the last election. I don't want to name names, because it would be a bit of an embarrassment, but of the five Liberal members who voted against the children's mental health services, three of them were defeated, two of them are back.

What I think's most important is that they were prepared to set aside whatever their marching orders from their House leader were, whatever was or wasn't going to be done for them by their Minister of Community and Social Services and that they fundamentally understood what the needs were in their community and that they were prepared, whether it was in a symbolic gesture, to stand up in the House in an overt, clear, decisive vote of support for the principle and the practice of defending the right of children at risk to have access to legitimate services.

I think that was an important motion, not because Mr Brandt, my leader of the day, had proposed it, nor that I as the critic had been fighting for it. It was important that the House began to understand that this was going to be our priority as a Parliament.

I'm seeing precious few examples of where we as a Parliament are establishing some mutually agreed-upon priorities, priorities that are arrived at because of a fundamental understanding of how much at risk a certain member of society is and that we must put aside all the other considerations at that time to determine a strategy to save or help that program.

I don't wish to debate how difficult the economic times facing you and your government are. I don't wish to debate how big the deficit's going to be. My colleague from Etobicoke has extensive discussions with the Treasurer on that subject. All I know is that the language you're using today concerns me, the lack of political will to pursue alternatives, finding ways of protecting this part of your ministry, and I want to make that abundantly clear. One of the reasons I don't want to get started on day care is that you're apparently finding money for that. I object to how you're spending it, but I don't object to the fact that you're spending money on day care. You can apparently find money to expand certain services. I hope, Minister, you realize that your proposal as set out in your ministry memo to all the support groups is going to put at risk many of those services.

Today in the press conference Mary McConville was asked a very direct question by the media. She was asked if they thought you were lying and she said, "No, I don't think so." But what she did say was that you seriously miscalculated the impact of this decision on the agencies that are directly responsible under your leadership as the minister. She said she truly believes you do not understand or know the impact of the decision that was made by your senior staff in your ministry as approved by your cabinet.

We know what will happen if you do not listen and take substantive corrective measures with this action that you've taken. It was said today that a child at risk in Windsor may have to be shipped all the way to Sudbury to get that service, because that's where the only bed will be available. When a family member is shipped to Sudbury for cancer treatment, the Red Cross is there to help, and maybe a family member from northern Ontario can fly in, and perhaps a spouse can fly with that adult. But when children are ripped out of their communities and sent that distance, who goes with them? Who's there to ensure that the child's program, and our response as a government, isn't worse than the situation the child is leaving? Not that the care won't be good in Sudbury; it's just that the family who need the counselling, the brothers and sisters, the school, the academic program, the medical supports, all of the aspects that come around a child to help him or her to be whole again are still back in Windsor.

If that is your vision of how that individual child will be served, you cannot expect agencies to cooperate, but rather to fight for what they believe are the most crucial elements of child support, or for members of this Legislature to get up and fight based on everything we've come to know and understand about how to meet the needs of children at risk.

1700

Mary McConville talked about layoffs, Minister, and not just a few layoffs; lots of layoffs. That is what's going to happen here. The front-line staff are not going to be in place for the children. Your colleague the Attorney General is so aware of this whole concept about assisting women who are raped and sexually assaulted, that when they need help they're not sitting being told on a help line, well, maybe eight weeks, maybe 12 weeks.

She was the other minister who was before us in estimates the other day in her capacity as the minister responsible for women's issues. She very clearly told our committee that she was pleased her directorate -- it's not a full ministry; it's the office responsible for women's issues -- had very much been insulated from the effects of the expenditure control plan. She felt that was important. I felt good for the minister. Violence against women is an important challenge that must be met in this province, and I commended the minister for that. But apparently she was in a position to be able to say that and you're not.

I think the children at risk, the most vulnerable children, are just as important if they're growing up in an abusive situation. Everything we've learned about abuse indicates that much of it is a learned response early in childhood when interventions were not forthcoming.

The press conference this morning went on to talk about the memo you've released, which really does not give much comfort to the agencies, as it relates to your removing the dollars with respect to the federal contribution; nor does it give them much comfort as it relates to the implementation of user fees or -- I've got to keep working on the words you use.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Parent contribution.

Mr Jackson: Parent contribution; thank you. It's interesting. First of all, the child better have a parent or there can't be a parent contribution.

Minister, let me ask you a question, and hopefully a member of the media will pick it up. You're parent to quite a few children: crown wards. I hope you appreciate that your government is going to be called upon to make increasing numbers of parental contributions. Are you prepared for the numbers of families that will say: "Look, I can't argue with the children's aid society. We just don't have the money"? Are we then to advise families: "Listen, make application. Surrender your child. Make him a crown ward"?

We've already established in this House, for example, on copayments for senior citizens in nursing homes by virtue of your latest government legislation, which called for increases in user fees for nursing home services or extended care services, that because you examine very rigidly the finances of the person needing care you've left hundreds and maybe thousands of women senior citizens at risk to live independently in their homes. One of the responses is for those women to take voluntary separation from their husband so they can have a half claim on his income, because the government takes a greater portion of the income of the person with the higher income when he or she goes into a nursing home.

I proposed to you, Minister, when we raised this in the House, and it was one of the reasons I wouldn't support the legislation on long-term care, that you may be playing with a similar concept as it relates to the responsibilities that parents have with their children now or those who become the wards of the children's aid or who become, under Lieutenant Governor's orders, a crown ward under your responsibility.

I raise those issues, but really what's underlying that is what Mary McConville and all the others said to you this morning and set out in their letters to you of almost a month ago:

You're bringing in a policy without having adequately researched it.

You're bringing in a policy without meaningful consultation; there were too many surprises associated with it.

You're bringing in a policy without an accurate database on which to build your assumptions.

You're bringing in a policy for which, when challenged on how you arrived at your figures, you aren't able to articulate exactly where you came up with the numbers.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, faceless, nameless bureaucrats were at the bargaining table without the members of these organizations knowing whether they were speaking with the authority of the government or whether this was some sort of behind-closed-doors negotiating move on the part of the government.

Many of us in this House asked for your direct participation, Minister, in these discussions, yet to date we've not had any example of you attending some of these sessions so that someone with direct responsibility and authority in these matters was speaking and working directly with the agencies, even someone at the deputy or assistant deputy minister level. It shouldn't have taken this kind of debate and the press conferences and the treks to Queen's Park simply to get a minister to deal with his issue in a more responsible manner.

Minister, in the scrums after today's session in the House, you indicated that your parental contribution wouldn't be imposed on those families who couldn't afford it, but on the other hand you're saying that regardless, when it is all said and done, these agencies must and will meet their target cuts, period, end of sentence.

Minister, this is too difficult to reconcile in terms of what it is you're actually doing to agencies all across Ontario, and I hope that subsequent to today's debate you're going to provide a little more clarity and understanding. That's really why the agencies want you to participate in a more meaningful way directly with them in terms of these negotiations and not to have members of the media resigned to asking their questions during scrums to determine their future funding fate.

But you've put them into a terrible catch-22. I'm told that some of your district offices, regional offices, have indicated to some agencies that they've been notified of the adjustment downward of the expenditure control plan. We know that has occurred in some ministries, but we're concerned that it is occurring within a ministry where you're stating openly that you're still consulting. You can't have it both ways.

Today in the House you made it abundantly clear that that's the way it has to be, so maybe all of this debate won't amount to any achievement of any changes or moves towards flexibility which everybody seems to be seeking, from this side of the House at least.

Minister, you've put these people in a terrible position. To make matters worse, they're all beating a path to Queen's Park to knock on a door to try and have their concerns listened to when in fact, if you were very clear and frank about this, you should just send them all home and say: "Get ready for it. Make sure you remember our labour laws. Start getting ready for your layoffs. Start looking at how you're going to change the skill level of so many members," whether they're with OPSEU or CUPE or under contract with each and every one of these agencies. "Your primary responsibility, albeit what you were hired for was in terms of counselling and support and programming and assistance to children at risk, is that we also want you to develop this whole new technique of how to screen persons for their income, how to coerce a cheque out of them and how to get their Visa number out of them for their parental contribution."

1710

You haven't told these people; whether they are supposed to withdraw the service if they don't get that Visa number. No, you've refused to give them any direction and that's the third concern they've raised. You want them to do all the dirty work here. It's come out of their mandate and their sense of responsibility to their clients and to the communities they serve that somehow it's their idea.

As I listen to your debates in the House, clearly you're saying, "This is nothing new; they're already doing it." Well, they are doing it in some limited circumstances. I'll agree with you that they're doing it differently in some jurisdictions over others. But what else is new, Minister? Your government is funding into high areas of unemployment and targeting certain sectors for employment and turning its back on some communities that are hit more severely. If you were to ask these agencies, they would tell you, "Yes, we do it in some circumstances where we are able to collect it and we're doing it in areas where there's no public outcry."

But you don't look and build on that concept of where it might work and how it is helpful to direct those funds directly back to the child's needs from a parent who is relying on these services. You didn't take that approach, Minister. The approach you took was: "I'm sitting around a cabinet table and we all got hit with a certain flat amount. I'm going to decide that not only am I not going to apply it evenly across my own ministry; I'm going to apply it to children's services." This isn't going in for adult services. That's the decision you made.

When parents and clients, as we had here today -- Sean Kennedy, a young man who came forward and was very articulate on the kinds of concerns he had and who's been supported and assisted through the children's aid society. Sean said: "I can't go to school if my transportation moneys are cut off. I need certain clothing. My school requires me to buy some of my books, some of my pencils, some of my consumable supplies. I don't argue with them but I've got to find the money somewhere." Yet your ministry said, "We're going to cut this amount of money and you'll find it wherever you can."

I hope that if you take anything out of today's debate and if you take anything out of all the agencies that have come to the Legislature today representing the families, the clients they serve, the staff who work for them: the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, the Ontario Association of Children's and Youth Institutions, the Ontario Association of Children's Mental Health Centres, the Ontario Association for Community Living, the Ontario Contract Observation and Detention Homes Association and the provincial council of children's services coordinating and advisory groups -- they represent between 20,000 and 24,000 children in this province, and they're here today to speak to you, the Minister of Community and Social Services. They want to be assured that you're listening. When your government gave its very first throne speech, it stated that this government of Bob Rae was going to listen to those voices of individuals who've never been heard or represented in this Legislature before, and in so doing, the vulnerable will have a voice in this Parliament. I paraphrase those words.

Mr Silipo, I want you to return to the promise of your throne speech because I believe it forms part of the conscience of your political party and your government. I ask you, please reopen this issue, be flexible and honest with these organizations about the challenges facing them and, above all, look inward to your government to find those savings which we've talked about, instead of always turning to those who call upon government legitimately for your support and your help, because they are relying on you and you alone, sir.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Burlington South for his remarks. I do want to remind the member that when addressing the minister, he should address his remarks through the Chair. Going in rotation, are there further speakers who wish to address the motion?

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I rise today to address this motion, and I must say that I was most interested and very much agree with the previous member, who spoke about the very many influences from which we come, the various things which have happened in our lives and that we have been a part of which influence the way we see things, and how important it is that we bring that information and that background and that experience to this place to discuss issues like these, issues of great concern.

I recognize that and I agree. The member is correct when he says that many families do go through situations which ultimately result in their having to reach out somewhere in the community and get help and get those services for their children which will make them better prepared to continue on and to assist them in their development and in their growth and in making them better, if you accept the theory that it is some kind of illness.

That happens to all of us. But some of us can afford those services and can contribute to them. Some of us do, and some of us should. There are others, of course, who are unable to do that, and it is not the position of this government, and I'm very much supported but not surprised to find that it is not the position of either of the other parties, that we would expect those who cannot afford to pay for the services that they desperately need to pay for them. We are all in this House far too concerned with making sure that children have what they need to grow.

We are all aware that very often that is done within a family context, but where that family does not exist, it becomes the responsibility of agencies, of the minister, of those of us who can, because you know, I come from a culture that believes it takes a community to raise a child. It would not be our feeling, our suggestion, our indication, any policy that would insist on or request a contribution from families who could not afford it or deprive service from those who needed it who did not have that kind of financial ability.

But it is important to know that the contributions of some allow for the services to be shared by all in the best way possible, and I feel that those who can should contribute.

As a matter of fact, many of the agencies within Ontario also feel that way, and that is shown by the fact that many of them do ask for voluntary contributions and get them. So not only do the services and the agencies feel that way, but obviously so too do many of the community members, because they volunteer those contributions willingly.

1720

It's important too for us to recognize that it's not done uniformly, it's not done evenly. Some agencies request contributions for some areas of their programs, some agencies do not, and it is very unevenly done. It is in fact our view that there should be some deeper look at how to make this request for contribution more evenly spread out so that those who can, for those programs where it's necessary, will be requested to and those who cannot will continue to have the services.

I was interested too in some of the discussion and certainly the mention in the motion of a program and how this program is tied to our fiscal difficulties, our economic difficulties. I recall that it was in times of plenty that the then Minister of Community and Social Services, the member, initiated a study, a report, Children First. I recall because I was one of the members of that group and so too was Ms McConville.

We found as we studied and worked with people across this province that indeed there was a duplication of services. In fact, there were families who had a child who was being served by a social worker from the school board, another child who was being served by a social worker from the children's aid and another child who was being served by another agency. Because we recognize that children exist within the context of their families, these parents, and sometimes this parent, were asked to somehow assimilate the advice of these many different perspectives and social workers into some cohesive, sensible program that they could implement for the betterment of their children. I know, because one of my jobs in my previous life was as special education consultant, that we'd sit at meetings where parents said: "I don't know what to do. I'm too confused."

I mention that only to say that integrated services are not an issue that has arisen out of the need for greater fiscal efficiency; it is an idea that has been mentioned in this House before and has been sponsored by a study in times of plenty. As a matter of fact, we were so influenced by what we found from people who met with our committee and came to speak to us at that time that we made it a very important part of the report that the integration of services was an issue, that we must follow up on it.

The time has come. It's an ill wind that blows no good. If it is economic need which has moved us to the point where we say we have to do it and we have to do it well, if our quest for greater efficiency is going to make for more effective programs for children and others, then so be it.

The member suggests that perhaps consultation is often used to avoid action. Would he suggest that we not consult? Would he imply that we know all the answers without asking? Would he accept that we move forward unilaterally? Would he sponsor a program that was designed by us without hearing others' opinions?

Then of course we come to the other situation, about defining "consultation." We often have difficulty with that. Consultation does not mean that I ask you and then I do as you say. Rather, it means that I ask you, I talk to you, I consult with you, I may modify my ideas accordingly -- not to do exactly what you say but to come to some consensus, some suggestion about how we may implement the ideas that both of us share.

I think the consultation around this initiative is extremely important. It does two things, if not more. It makes sure that everyone in the province who is involved in children's services knows the thinking around this issue and it gives them an opportunity to suggest how this program might be better implemented so that no one, no child, is hurt.

I know that my colleagues wish to speak, but I have to tell you before I sit down that there are some concerns that I have. We have said, and I must believe, that this is not a partisan matter, that this is a matter of deep concern for all of us. I believe that. I believe that all of us want the best for all the children and I believe that is exactly what the minister has assured us. But what I am concerned about is that by bringing this situation to a debate which seems confrontational, we will send a message to the public that not all of us are here to assure that every child, every person, who needs and must have that service will get it. That is not true.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): The issues that are brought up in this resolution I think are always timely, should always be brought up. We should always be reminded of how the most vulnerable people, the most vulnerable families, the most vulnerable children in our community are being dealt with, are being served.

There has been a lengthy discussion about the cost of these services. These are, frankly, essential services.

Over the last 20 years I've worked as a child care worker, a child and family youth worker, a social worker, with the children's aid, with children's mental health centres and of course for a number of years as a counsellor. I've had experience within a range of services as those services have changed.

Frankly, while the member opposite was minister, there was a great deal of movement in regard to the integration of children's services, I'm sure; I didn't see it very much on the ground level. Certainly in my area most recently, because of efforts that were made years ago -- and I don't want to suggest this was made only in the latter part of the 1980s or in the earlier part of the 1980s -- there has been some movement.

In my area there has been some effective service coordination. There has been recently an amalgamation of children's mental health services in my area in Durham region. Where we had previously several overlapping services, now there's at least one fewer, and these services have been able to coordinate what they're doing more effectively than ever before.

1730

But that's not the issue. The issue we should be continually reminded of is the situation of these children, the issue behind it all, frankly. My colleague points out that most of the families involved in these situations are not able to pay for those services and that it is a totally inappropriate request to make of most of those families. Most of these families are suffering because of poverty, because of desperation, time and time again.

Yes, we have those services. There are some voluntary fees that have been around for a long time within the Conservative regime, within the Liberal regime, and they haven't changed, they haven't been eradicated recently by our own. The minister has suggested how those have been moderated, how that request has been moderated. But still, the essential issue behind children's mental health issues, behind children's welfare issues, is poverty.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted to the government. Further debate?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I think one of the ends that's been served by the debate today is that this is, I believe, the first time that members of the Legislature, members from all parties, have had an opportunity to share in some detail our concerns around the provision of children's services; some of the things on the government side that they believe they are doing, and on our side things we would like to see them do more of or do better.

Quite frankly, we don't have enough of this kind of debate. It often takes the need to use what's called an opposition day motion to put on the table a subject which then gives us something in the order of -- today I think we'll have had close to three hours -- to talk about an issue that, as the member for St Andrew-St Patrick said, is one we all believe is extremely important.

I recall, and reference has been made to two debates we had in this House during the time I was minister: one brought by the former member for Sarnia, Mr Brandt, with respect to children's mental health issues, and one that the former member for Riverdale for the New Democratic Party, Mr Reville, brought on children and children's rights.

I can recall, as a minister sitting in the place where the present minister is sitting, that there were many things said with passion and with feeling about what we were doing or what we weren't doing, but there was no question that out of it, at the end of that debate it wasn't so much what the motion was or what the result of the vote was, but I think we all had a somewhat better understanding of where we were, what we were thinking, what we were trying to do. I think we've been able to do that today, and I want to say to the minister that I thank him for not only participating but for having sat throughout the debate and listened to the comments.

The other thing, as we know but those watching can't see, is that we have had with us all day long representatives from many of the children's services organizations who came here today because of tremendous concern about a specific public policy issue -- and I'm going to make some comments about that -- who have been here today, who have been talking with members of the Legislature and who have sat through this debate.

If we really want to make children a primary initiative that we as a Parliament believe to be important, and in the words that have been expressed today there would seem to be a good consensus around that, then we have a responsibility not simply to facilitate the discussion with those who are most active in those children's services organizations or even with those who are receiving those services, as important as that is, but we also have to make it a much more public debate.

One of the things that was referred to was the document Children First. The member for St Andrew-St Patrick, also a former Minister of Community and Social Services, served on that committee. When that report came out, and at that time she was the minister, in conversation with her I said, "This is one of the documents that perhaps would be particularly useful to give to a standing committee of this Legislature and take out for broader public discussion."

I don't for a moment suggest that officials within the ministry or people within various children's services organizations are not seized with the kinds of issues that are here, and I think members on both sides of the House today have made some very good points about the need to better integrate services; that we have a history of developing a whole series of responses to different kinds of issues and that we could do a much better job with that and make changes that are not necessarily financial, indeed many that aren't financial at all. But in terms of us as legislators and the public, I think more of that has to happen here and more has to happen in the committees of this Legislature so we can help build a much broader consensus around children's services and making sure we continue to do the things that are most important.

I would hope that one of the things the minister would take back to his officials as well as to his cabinet colleagues is that this is an issue around which I think there is substantial support; that in hard times, when priorities have to be set, there is support for putting those resources behind children's services.

I want to raise within that context the issue of user fees, parental contributions, however one wants to call it, because I think this is a place where process, or what I would say a failure of process, has caused us real difficulty. The minister has said, as have others on the government side, that they don't mean this, that they don't want to deny people who need services those services, and I accept, when they say that, that that's what they mean.

But in all the discussions we've had with the various front-line organizations dealing with children, they've never said, "Look, it is not a legitimate public policy issue to discuss the question of user fees." Indeed, the Premier's Council I think has helped us all by putting out this document from September 1993 talking about user fees. We musn't be afraid of revisiting that as an issue, because there are different kinds of payments we have in parts of the health system in terms of nursing homes, homes for the aged, where that is done, and it may well be that there are some other areas of health and social services where some of those things could be considered.

But that debate needs to be carried out in public and it needs to be carried out before we make the kinds of changes that were proposed by the minister through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, because in talking to the provider organizations, to those on the front lines, so much has been a sense that: "This is what is going to happen. On November 1, 1993, these changes are going to occur in the children's services system, which, in our view, as people who are working with children on the front lines, are going to have a very negative impact, and we don't believe we have been involved in an appropriate way in determining, if there need to be cuts, how they are to be made, or perhaps even more importantly in terms of children's services to be able to say, 'We don't think you can make those changes here. You've got to look elsewhere, whether it's in the ministry or in other functions of the government, before you make those changes.'"

Suddenly, the organizations that are working with children are caught up in a process where they feel all the decisions have been made, or virtually all of them have been made, not only in principle, but decisions made which, in their view, and after talking about many of these issues with them, I think they're correct -- that people have made decisions based on false assumptions and information that is not correct.

I would say to the minister that implicit in the statement he released today is that the discussions and the information he had were in fact not correct; that there really were some problems there. I accept that he is trying to address at least some of them by changing the time frame, although I would still argue that he hasn't dealt with the fundamental issue in terms of whether in fact one ought to be doing the things he's proposing to find the dollars he says he needs.

1740

I don't care who's in government: We all feel at times that we consult and consult and consult to death and people will say, "No, you don't consult." But I think what always has to be looked at is the nature of that consultation, the quality of that consultation, and in this instance on this specific issue, there is a real and extremely strong feeling and belief on the part of those organizations that are dealing in children's services that they were not really involved in this until it was too late and this was going forward.

I understand that with the social contract, with the expenditure controls, to a certain extent these issues were being determined, if you like, elsewhere; that the Minister of Finance was saying things which other ministers were going to have to somehow carry out, or even that within the Ministry of Community and Social Services there were perhaps people on the financial side who were in effect dictating policies on the other side in terms of what was coming out as program.

All that being said, what we are left with is that in this whole question around user fees, what the organizations providing children's services are saying is this: If you go ahead with the user fee, that ensures an inequitable situation where some people who really need the service but can't afford it are not going to be able to get it. If you're saying as well, as the ministry is and as the minister is, that some $4.3 million need to be cut and if we can't do it through some sort of parental contribution, we're still going to take it out in some other way, then you are cutting back on services in a sector where that may cause undue hardship. So when the minister says, "Look, no one will be denied service if they can't pay," that only meets, I believe, half of the concern that has been expressed.

It is laudable. I take the minister at his word if he is saying, "No one who cannot afford a service" -- and remember, under the Child and Family Services Act, we're talking about essential and mandated services. We're not talking about recreational projects; we're talking about statutory, essential services. But the other part of that is that where else then can you be looking for that money?

Within the minister's own ministry, he has a budget of something in the order of $8 or $9 billion. Some of that money is committed; you can't touch it because it's mandated. But when you then go and look at: Well, what is it that we're going to take from the children's services area? We've talked about children's aid, we've talked about children's mental health, child care, community living, all of those young people who, in one way or another, have a need for some form of protection, assistance, guidance, direction, a sector that already is suffering.

As a minister who served during, certainly, times that had more money, even then I think that it was pretty clear that people were telling us, "Look, we're having a real problem meeting the need out there," and that's part of what got us into trying to restructure and rearrange and see if services couldn't be provided in a better, more effective way. The present government has tried to carry that on. It will continue throughout, I suspect, the rest of this decade to be a major issue. But what we're left with is that when the provider organizations, when children's aid and the others are looking at what they are expected to do and looking at the policy that the minister has brought forward and looking at the letter that came out today, their concerns remain, and I want to touch briefly on them.

First of all, I think, Minister, it is their belief that what you have issued today in the form of the statement really is no substantive change in what has been put forward before. There is still, in their view, a clawback of federal money that should rightly stay with the agencies; that the $33, because the payment now has gone from $52 to $85, that they -- especially the children's aid organization -- bank on and use and need; that the time frame that is being put forward to discuss broader changes is not one that is feasible or practical; that there has to be a real need that hasn't come forward as yet to find the shortfall in this sector elsewhere in the ministry or elsewhere within the government; that we should come to an understanding that we can't take more out of the children's services sector, and that most importantly, the financial target that the minister is setting out for the children's service sector for 1994-95 and for 1995-96 remains the same and will result, in their view -- and these are the people who have to provide the service to children -- in service reductions for essential services, for mandated services, that there is no way around that, that they are at the point where there has been so much restructuring that to go any further is going to the bone and means the children at risk will not get the services that they require.

That leads then to the question around this word "voluntary" that the minister has in his letter to the children's services organizations and trying to define it. What is really meant by that and how do we relate the question of user fee, voluntary provision of services to those in need and the reductions, because of the reductions in transfer payments, in the capacity of those organizations to really provide the services that are required? I think, Minister, those are the questions that are still on the table.

I know your ministry is going to continue to meet with the children's services' organizations, but I think the message we would want to take to you on the issue of user fees, of parental contribution, is this: The policy you have put forward should be withdrawn. I don't believe you should be trying to take back the moneys that are coming from the federal government.

We recognize that there are already parental contributions in many areas of children's services that are done through discussions between the agencies and the parents, and those are, I believe, in a much more transparent sense voluntary where in some cases parents are volunteering their time because they don't have funds and in other cases parents are able to provide money. Agencies know how much that is. They have a sense of what that is. But in my discussions with them, they believe very strongly that if this goes from being truly a voluntary system and in effect is mandated, that's going to change the relationship they have with their families, with the parents, with the consumers of the services that they provide and cause a whole host of problems, including that there will be people who will no longer get services that are essential and mandated. So that should be withdrawn.

The second part of the question that we're looking at today is also that of the framework in which children's services are provided, and that is the reason why we made this debate not one only on the question of user fees but more broadly on the question of the strategy around the government's approach to children's services and how it was going to make sure that those were properly integrated. I want to make two points on that.

Firstly, we need to see in a public sense what it is that you and your colleagues, particularly the Minister of Education, are looking at in terms of an integrated framework of services. Children First set out a whole series of proposals. I don't necessarily agree with everything they set out there, but it did try to say, "Look, we need to put children at the top of the agenda. We need to look at what Education does with children, what Community and Social Services does, what Health does, what Recreation does, what Housing does, and bring those together into a meaningful policy that can be the subject of public debate, the development of a real consensus in putting children first," as the report suggests, and then go about implementing it.

That hasn't happened. As I said before, I stand to be corrected, but I believe it's the first time we've had this length of time outside of estimates to really talk, specifically and in a directed sense, about the provision of children's services in this province.

In the motion that we have put forward today we have called upon the government to "table in this House a comprehensive plan for the delivery and integration of children's services." We know that you have been active, your government, in many ways, talking with providers, talking with users of the system in terms of how we make this better, but we have not yet had a document or changes in legislation. Whether it's in terms of child care or the Child and Family Services Act, we haven't had anything come forward to this House that we can deal with, that we can get our teeth into and where we can have that public discussion around how we want to see children's services provided. We need that and we urge you to bring that document forward as soon as possible.

As you are doing that, the second part of our motion is saying we can't bring in user fees without broad public discussion where in fact we look at all of the pros and cons of such a public policy position and determine where that might be applicable and where not. I think what we're saying on this side of the House, and I think what the providers are saying, is that in the children's sector -- and remember, Minister, that one of the problems in what you're doing is that this has been applied in the present context only to the children's sector, and only to the children's sector in Community and Social Services -- we have not had that discussion around how do we want this principle to apply, whether it is in Health, in Community and Social Services, in Education or any other area, and what are the real implications of bringing this in?

Minister, as we close this debate and as I ask for all members to support the motion, I again ask you to withdraw the proposal and to go back to the drawing board, sit down with the major children's services organizations and come up with a plan that is going to make sense, and, secondly, to come back to this House as soon as possible with a comprehensive plan for the integration of children's services so that we can have the kind of public debate I believe will bring about a consensus in this Legislature and make sure that not only are we saying we put children first but that they really are first.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted. Mr Beer, the member for York North, has moved opposition day motion number 2. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1753 to 1758.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Beer, the member for York North, has moved opposition day number 2. All those in favour of Mr Beer's motion will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Harris, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, McClelland, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sorbara, Stockwell, Turnbull.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Beer's motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 27; the nays 59. I declare the motion defeated.

VITAL SERVICES FOR TENANTS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Recently I rose to ask a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs as to whether he would consider accepting a private member's bill that I was introducing to protect my tenants in North York and to extend the ability for any municipality to pass vital services bylaws. The minister commented that North York did not want such a bill.

The next day, the minister requested through his office a copy of my bill to be sent to his office. It was still in the draft stages at that point. My office, still being eager to have the government take over my bill, to be expeditious, to help my tenants, sent over a copy of the bill. A few days later, Mr Mammoliti introduced a virtually identical bill with two small but significant changes.

In introducing this bill as his private member's bill which was to be debated one week before my bill, I believe that --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I am hearing a point of privilege.

Mr Turnbull: In doing this, I believe that my privileges have been violated. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to investigate this violation of my privileges. Further, Mr Speaker, I would ask you to stand down Bill 95, standing in the name of Mr Mammoliti, from debate tomorrow morning until you have reported back to this House.

The Acting Speaker: On the same point of privilege, the member for Bruce.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's an unusual set of circumstances that we hear of today, the allegation having been made that a drafted bill obtained by the Municipal Affairs ministry for the purposes of some kind of review has somehow, coincidentally or otherwise, shown up under the name of another member. The issue is --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Theft of legislation.

Mr Elston: This is an extremely serious charge. I've never had anything like this before. I've had oftentimes suggestions that the government has lifted pieces of other private members' bills, and we sometimes expect that, but it is unusual to have a set of circumstances that have passed in the manner in which this has.

Where you find an allegation like this, Mr Speaker, I think you have no alternative but to hold off the business of private members' hour tomorrow standing in the name of Mr Mammoliti, until such time as a very thorough investigation has been held into the manner of how this legislation and the issue surrounding its drafting has occurred.

Therefore, in support of Mr Turnbull's request, I ask that you do in fact stand down this private member's bill and that we do get a very full report, in writing, with a ruling from you as soon as practicable. I don't see any other way of dealing with the issue to the satisfaction of the House.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Bruce really does not know of what he speaks. In fact, there is quite a difference between the two bills, as I understand it. I have read the bill for the member for Yorkview --

Mr Sorbara: You are going to dig yourself deeper. Anything you say can be held against you in this matter. Be careful.

Hon Mr Philip: If the honourable member for York Centre would listen, I think he would understand the explanation.

What I answered to the honourable member who said he was introducing a private member's bill was that I'd be happy to consider any private member's bill that he introduced. I also suggested to him that our staff had contacted officials at North York and indicated that we would be happy to consider a private bill similar to that introduced by the city of London.

Mr Mammoliti, who also represents a North York riding, as I understand it, introduced a bill that is similar -- in fact, almost a mirror image of the city of London private bill. I consider that quite substantially different.

I also indicated to the honourable member who said he wanted to introduce the more general bill that we would be considering various recommendations in the Sewell commission report and that we would like to consider some general legislation perhaps at a later time, but that I would be happy to consider something and support something specific to North York. He chose not to introduce that.

I think private members' hour is private members' hour and we should deal with any bill as we see fit. It is up to the Legislature to pass whatever bill they wish. They may pass both bills if they wish. At that time, it's up to us to decide which will proceed.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Dealing with the same point of privilege that the member for York Mills has made, I can only speak from my experience in this Legislature. I don't think I have ever seen an experience quite like it in my time here. I think this is a very serious matter and it should be taken that way by every member of the Legislature as well as, with all due respect, sir, by you as the Speaker. I would concur with the member for Bruce and the member for York Mills in their request for the Speaker to look into this matter to see if in fact the member for York Mills's privileges as a member have indeed been somehow violated.

I know that if I put myself in the same circumstance and if, as he alleges the facts to be, the facts are found out to be thus, this is a very serious matter indeed. If he in fact has introduced a private member's bill for discussion during private members' hour, which is supposed to be non-partisan, non-political, and if in fact his bill then reappears in the name of a government member after having been forwarded to a government ministry, it seems like a rather interesting coincidence, to say the least, if the facts are, as I say, as the member for York Mills alleges them.

I regard this to be a very serious matter, and I would ask you just to take this into consideration. I would concur with the member for Bruce that if you are unable to give us an answer by tomorrow morning at 10 am when private members' hour starts, then I would ask you to seriously consider standing down Bill 95 until such time as you've had an opportunity to investigate the facts, to look into the matter and to deliberate and report back to the House.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Yorkview is up first on a point of order.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I was almost out of this place when I listened to the point of privilege by the member across from me, the member for York Mills. I find it to be quite insulting in a way that the member would literally stand up and say that I've stolen his bill. I haven't seen any bill in this place under the name of the member. I haven't read any similar bill by the member. Granted, that might be my fault. Maybe I haven't seen the bill. I don't think there has been a bill or there was a bill introduced before my bill.

If the member were to look in Hansard perhaps over the last three years or even talk to any of my colleagues, including the minister, they will know that this has been an issue in Yorkview for quite some time now and that I have been itching to pass such a piece of legislation for quite some time now.

It's unfortunate that I didn't get an opportunity to pass a bill such as this one previous to the date that I introduced it, but if they were to look at Hansard, they would know that this has nothing to do with the member for Yorkview stealing an idea. It's got absolutely nothing to do with that at all. As a matter of fact, as the member spoke a few weeks ago on this issue, and I did hear him speak on the issue, I appreciated his comments.

I've had my staff working on this for quite some time --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Oh, give me a break.

Mr Mammoliti: I'm hearing, "Give me a break." If he were to talk to even my staff members, they could tell him very clearly that this has been on my plate for quite some time now.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I believe we've had a good airing. The Chair will reserve a ruling. The Chair is not aware of the private member's bill that went in, the private member's bill that's coming forth. The Chair will reserve and have a decision by 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1812.

27 octobre 1993