Journal des débats 1993-déc-09 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, since there is playground equipment being purchased by municipalities, school boards, day care centres, and other provincially funded agencies that are frequented by children which does not have to meet any mandatory safety requirements; and

Since the Canadian Standards Association has developed a national standard of Canada for children's play spaces and equipment which is widely supported among Canadian manufacturers in the playground equipment industry and which is the only such safety standard in Canada; and

Since several Canadian manufacturers have spent considerable time and money to adhere to the standard; and

Since many foreign companies can and are selling their playground equipment products which do not meet the CSA standard; and

Since the number of children admitted to hospitals with playground-related injuries has been rising in recent years;

Therefore, this House urges the government of Ontario to recognize the Canadian Standards Association's national standard CAN/CSA-Z614-M90 as the appropriate safety standard for playground equipment that is bought and sold in Ontario; and

To urge all Ontario municipalities, schools boards, day care centres, and other provincially funded agencies that use playground equipment to adhere to the national standard when buying playground equipment.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation. Following that, everyone will have a chance to debate, in rotation, for a total of 15 minutes for each party.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): It's with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this resolution, because I'm sure that it will get unanimous consent, approval, by all members of this House because of the importance of it.

I think that Canada is very well served in having a technical committee on children's play spaces and equipment, a committee of 22 members. At this time, I would advise that Mr Mike Jones, an official with the Toronto Board of Education who serves as chair of the committee, is present in the gallery and also another member of the committee, representing a manufacturer, Mike Hayward, is present.

There were 22 members who developed this standard, entitled A Guideline on Children's Playspaces and Equipment. It is being followed by some manufacturers and indeed required by some purchasers of playground equipment. But of course I want to draw attention that it goes much further than providing standards for equipment; it also provides standards for the assembly of equipment and structures in playgrounds and the construction thereof, and that is also most important.

I want to at this time too stress that nothing replaces adult supervision of children playing on playground equipment. However, kids will get hurt from time to time when they play, and this is a fact, as we are all aware. What we must do is to ensure that the chances of children getting seriously injured are reduced as much as possible, and certainly this is one way. I believe that the playground equipment that meets the CSA national standard for children's play spaces and equipment goes a long way to reduce the chance of injury, and therefore I'm appreciative of the fact that some manufacturers do follow it.

Last year in Mississauga, for instance, a tragic accident occurred when a young boy was strangled to death while playing on playground equipment in a condominium corporation complex. A loop in a rope that was affixed to the equipment was placed around his neck, which caused asphyxiation. The coroner's report recommended that all manufacturers of playground equipment sold and/or purchased for use in Canada meet the standards of the CSA guideline. I have a copy of that coroner's report for anyone who is interested in reading it at any time.

The statistics from Health and Welfare Canada indicate that 2,427 children to date have had playground-equipment-related injuries. This number comes from the Canadian hospitals injury reporting and prevention program, known commonly as CHIRP. This database began collecting information regarding these matters in April 1990. It collects and analyses data from emergency rooms of the 10 paediatric hospitals in Canada and five general hospitals and states that a majority of injuries occur in the five-to-nine age group. Indeed, that is not surprising to any of us when we know the activity of that particular age group of children.

Some 53% of injuries occur at public playgrounds, 42% occur at school playgrounds and the remaining 5% at day care and kindergarten playgrounds. I'm sure the operators of these playgrounds are most anxious to reduce injuries in playgrounds and on playground equipment, to the greatest possible extent.

With respect to the severity of injuries, the overall hospital admission rate for injuries reported in the CHIRP program is 4.2%. However, the admission rate for playground-related injuries is 8.9%. Therefore, the admission rate for playground-equipment-related injuries is more than double the CHIRP average.

Now, 55.8% of the injuries were caused by the ground. Therefore, the section of the standard regarding the surface materials for use under playground equipment is of particular importance, and that's no surprise to anyone who's here.

The equipment that was most commonly associated with injuries is climbing equipment, slides and swings. The important thing to keep in mind is not the sheer number of injuries but rather the patterns associated with these injuries. For example, there's a very serious pattern which indicates that the number of children admitted to hospital with playground-equipment-related injuries is more than double the average of cases reported by the federal government.

To give another example of the type of patterns we find, from April 1990 to May 1991 there were 59,520 injuries to children under 20 years old; 8,358, or 14%, occurred in playgrounds. Of the 8,358 injuries, there were 1,366, or 16.3%, kids who were injured as a direct result of the equipment on the playgrounds.

We've also been in contact with the Ontario trauma registry, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health. This organization collects patient discharge information on approximately 85% of all acute care discharges in Canada. This data shows that from 1989 to March 31, 1993, there have been 4,337 admissions, rather than actual patients, to acute care hospitals in Ontario. Children treated in emergency rooms and then released are not covered by the data from the Ontario trauma registry.

I realize there are quite a few numbers there, but they're given to have members realize the large numbers who are affected across Canada.

An important thing to keep in mind is that this CSA standard, a national standard for Canada, that has been developed relates to the entire equipment industry and not just manufacturers of playground equipment.

The technical committee that worked on and produced this report and standard, that was formed to develop a standard, consists of representatives from the education system, the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the federal government, two provincial governments, the Ontario and Canadian parks associations, various playground manufacturers, the engineering industry, municipalities, hospitals and the Canadian Standards Association. There was very wide representation on the committee, there's no doubt about that. Therefore, the manufacturing sector is a small part of the ambit of the CSA.

With the recognition of this CSA standard comes the responsibility of the purchaser to recognize the upkeep and maintenance associated with CSA-approved materials. I can't overstress that; that's awfully important. We know every vehicle, every piece of equipment purchased does need maintenance or it does not continue to operate or be operated in the safe manner that it would be when it was originally purchased.

The costs of inspection and maintenance should be incorporated into the budget at the time of design, purchase of equipment and installation. The maintenance schedule must be strictly followed and a checklist is included in the standard.

I also want to bring into the debate the proposal of the city of North York. North York is recommending that the Ontario government develop mandatory requirements based on the Canadian standard for inclusion in the Ontario Building Code. This would include all public and private new and existing programs. I know many of us are concerned about the increasing number of restrictions, but it's in the name of safety, it's in the name of reducing injuries to children, so I think it's very important and I look forward to debate some time in the future.

At the present time, this resolution of course is requesting that the government adopt the standard and then see that all purchasers include the standard that affects at least the playground equipment in their tenders. I believe this is an important step in the prevention of injuries to children. Just because playground equipment is CSA-approved does not mean that parents should become too comfortable with allowing their kids to play, and of course that should never happen. The standard will not be effective if parents are not educated as to the potential dangers of leaving their kids unsupervised.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for the time that's been allotted to me on this important matter, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased this morning to rise and participate in the debate with regard to ballot item number 41, this resolution with regard to the standards of playground equipment. I don't know anybody who would not support this resolution. I would have thought the ministry and the government could make these standards available by regulation, and I don't know of anybody who wouldn't agree with this resolution.

What the resolution really does is urge the government "to recognize the Canadian Standards Association's national standard CAN/CSA-Z614-M90 as the appropriate safety standard for playground equipment that is bought and sold in Ontario; and to urge all Ontario municipalities, school boards, day care centres and other provincially funded agencies that use playground equipment to adhere to the national standard when buying equipment."

This resolution focuses on the issue of the safety of our children, our youth, and I don't think anyone in this Legislature in good conscience could vote against an issue like that. But I certainly believe I want to get to the core of safety in our schools, and particularly this matter should be taken a step further. Really, what we should be dealing with is the violence in the Ontario school system when we look at the injuries.

The Metropolitan Toronto Police crime squad's estimate of 2,784 incidents of school violence logged last year may represent only half the actual number because so many go unreported. This resolution is bringing forward the very issue of the percentages the member has raised with regard to the public playground accidents and the percentages in the school playground accidents. I don't know of anybody who wouldn't support this.

But I want to talk a little bit about what my constituents have been telling me, that the time for action is long past when fully eight in 10 children tell surveys they've been exposed to some form of violence at school.

Everyone involved in education -- the administration, the teachers, the students, the trustees, the parents -- has the right to expect that the educational environment is safe.

I recently tabulated the results of a survey of my constituents and I'd like to share this information with you now because I believe it relates to the issue of safety in our schools. It's not directly related to what the member has brought forward, but it is safety in the schools with regard to what my constituents are telling me. The questionnaire I sent out had over 1,000 replies. These people took the time to respond to the questionnaire. The results suggest that our schools are not immune to what is happening elsewhere in society.

1020

With respect to the Young Offenders Act, when I asked if there should be any differences between the treatment of adults and young criminals, 59% said no, 35% said yes and 6% were undecided.

When I asked the question, should there be changes made to the Young Offenders Act that would make it easier to transfer youth cases to adult court, 94% said yes and 6% said no.

When I asked if the age category of the Young Offenders Act should be changed, 42% said change to 10 years and under, 33% said change to 13 to 16 years and 25% said change to 11 to 13 years.

I asked the people if they feel as safe in their communities as they did five years ago: 65% said no, 35% said yes.

I asked if more resources should be devoted to policing in Ontario: 59% said yes, 12% said no and 29% were undecided.

I asked if the people believe the Crime Stoppers program is an effective tool to assist police in solving crimes: 94% said yes and 6% said no.

I asked if teachers should be given more authority to discipline students. Guess what the survey said to that question: 95% said yes and 5% said no.

I asked if standards should be set within the curriculum and if students in elementary and secondary schools should be regularly tested to make sure they are achieving these standards: 83% said yes, 11% said no and 6% were undecided.

As I said earlier, I believe my constituency survey indicates that our schools are not immune to what is happening elsewhere in society. It would not be fair to our trustees or to our teaching staff to suggest that we can or should take on this tremendous responsibility without the support of the parents, community leaders, law enforcement agencies and the whole network of social agencies.

I personally support in principle the policy statement of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, which adopts a zero tolerance policy towards violence in schools. This policy statement commits school boards, trustees, parents, staff, students, social and law enforcement agencies, colleges and universities, municipalities, community organizations and teacher organizations to enforce zero tolerance towards violence in schools. We should join with those involved in education to deal quickly and firmly with acts of violence and provide preventive programs to thwart the escalation of violence in schools. We all agree with the Minister of Education and Training when he said schools in Ontario should be safe places, places where students need only be concerned about learning.

This resolution this morning is dealing with safety in the school yard with regard to the equipment those students are allowed to use. As I said earlier, I don't think there's anybody here who wouldn't agree with the standard that's set and wouldn't agree that this government should adopt that standard. I don't think the resolution has to indicate to the government, I think the government can do it be regulation without having to debate this resolution here this morning.

I would sooner this morning if the member for Brant-Haldimand was talking about what's happening with GATT. Some of us are from the farming community. Some of us know what's happening in the country. Some of us know what's happening and is going to happen to our family farms.

When we look at the government of the day, the Minister for International Trade, Mr MacLaren, said this week that Canada has found no support for its position to preserve and strengthen the import quotas and may have to look at alternatives. I think that's a weak position to take to save the background and the agricultural community of this province.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member if he would relate his comments to this resolution, please.

Mr McLean: I think this time in the morning I could relate my comments directly to the resolution and I can talk about some of the other issues that are pertaining to the resolution, and I think I am. If there's something I'm not saying that I should be saying, I wish the Speaker could maybe tell me what it should be, because this is a free time in the morning that we debate resolutions.

I've already spoken of what I think of the resolution. I said I'm supporting the resolution. I think it could have been done by the government. So what more do you want me to talk about, other than the issues I'm raising here, and talking about some of the issues that affect my riding and the violence in schools that is related to violence in the playground areas of the schools? The member has given the statistics and some of the points of view relating to it, which I agree with. Do you want me to repeat them or not? I think this morning my 15 minutes are allotted to deal with the issues that are before the people of this province and I believe I am doing that.

We all know the minister's recent school violence initiatives sometimes, we think, lack real teeth. There must be ministry order and enforced rules for province-wide violence in schools, and we also must realize the problem we have with regard to the playground equipment that is not up to standard, and we support that.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): First of all, I would like to say that the government appreciates the honourable member's concerns over safety in relation to playground equipment found in parks and school yards and day care centres and co-ops and non-profit housing. Anywhere you look in this province, you'll find playground equipment throughout Ontario.

Public safety is always a very important issue and priority for this government. Nowhere is it more evident, in my opinion, than the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As parliamentary assistant to MCCR, I can tell you that the ministry's technical standards division has an international reputation for promoting the highest standards in safety in the areas it regulates, whether it's from elevators all the way to pressure vessels. Very recently, we just signed an agreement with the People's Republic of China on that issue, and we are recognized internationally for it.

I know the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand is well aware that playground equipment is not regulated by MCCR, nor by any other government body in Canada. It becomes very difficult to regulate something that's not regulated anywhere else in Canada.

We believe the voluntary guidelines covering children's play spaces and equipment recently developed by the Canadian Standards Association significantly enhance the safety of children using that playground equipment. I would draw the member's attention to a letter written by the minister to the honourable member, dated August 10 of this year, which states:

"The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has developed voluntary guidelines which significantly enhance the safety of children using playground equipment. MCCR supports the guidelines and would encourage all purchasers of playground equipment to obtain a copy from the CSA. Schools, municipalities, day care centres and consumers should be made aware of the inherent dangers of poorly designed and constructed equipment."

Historically, the CSA has developed some of the world's most stringent codes and standards, including those for elevating devices. This widely respected standard-setting body has long been a major force in ensuring safe products for all Canadians. When you think about it at this time of year, when a lot of the major purchasing is done as we lead up to the Christmas season, we don't have to look any farther than, for example, your indoor lights or your outdoor lights for Christmas or even in fact your children's toys during the holiday season to gauge the impact the CSA has made on product safety. The CSA tests and certifies many of the electrical items you might choose as a present or for decorations in your home over this holiday time. A wide range of products, from electrical trains to race car sets to microwave ovens, TVs, VCRs etc, as well as the lights you use at Christmas time that dress up your Christmas tree etc all bear the mark of the CSA standard. This famous CSA logo means that a manufacturer has submitted samples of the products for testing and the products have met its safety standard and/or the performance requirements of that standard.

The ministry respects the CSA's commitment to high standards for safety and supports its national standard for playground equipment, a safety standard which is widely supported by manufacturers of this equipment in Canada. Again I draw the honourable members' attention to the same letter, written August 10, which states:

"You state in your letter that Paris Playground Equipment Inc" -- and I'm very familiar with this particular company, as I had dealings with it in my former life -- "is manufacturing its products to CSA standards and I believe this presents the company with a terrific marketing opportunity. I would encourage your constituent to work with the Canadian Standards Association in marketing his products through the education of consumers on the importance of purchasing goods meeting CSA standards.

We encourage everyone looking to purchase playground equipment to obtain a copy of these guidelines from the CSA. Everyone, whether you're a teacher looking to buy equipment for a day care centre or a parent shopping for a swing set for your children at Christmas, should be aware of the dangers of very poorly designed and constructed equipment.

I know the CSA has launched a very effective information campaign on this subject and published a very helpful booklet that will help guide anyone considering the purchase of playground equipment. I believe it's entitled the CSA and The Consumer: Making Playgrounds Safer.

The problem in developing standards is that when you look at the number of playgrounds that already exist in Ontario today -- and there are literally thousands of them across this province, whether they're in the parks here in Toronto or the parks in your home community or whether it's in a co-op or non-profit or wherever -- the cost to government and to industry and to the consumers themselves to establish these standards and this undertaking would certainly be very punitive and lead to very high costs.

1030

Also, I believe it would be virtually unenforceable, as there are too many variables in this particular field such as equipment and the supervision of that equipment and the children involved in it. I mean, what would you have to do? Would you have to fence off all the various playgrounds you have in Toronto or in your home community make sure that before children can play on this playground equipment, you have to have supervision of that equipment?

In summary, we believe that an informed and educated public is the most effective way to ensure the safety of our children when using playground equipment. The educated public has led to the high standards of the CSA, because the consumer is a very educated person when going out to purchase equipment, whether it's a VCR or a television or indeed playground equipment. If that product doesn't meet standards, they are quick to let the manufacturer know that. That's what has led to the high standards of the CSA.

I support and appreciate the honourable member bringing forward this resolution today, but we believe the most effective way of dealing with this issue is through the voluntary guidelines established by the CSA over the years for this product and indeed a range of products across this country.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to at the outset congratulate heartily my colleague the member for Brant-Haldimand for bringing forward what I feel is a very important resolution.

The element that I find particularly attractive to this resolution is that it is inherently a pro-children resolution. I find that all too often, children, notwithstanding the words that we utter in this House on a regular basis, really are left behind. I have personally introduced a couple of bills which I contended were pro-children. One was the children's anti-smoking bill; another was one which would have reduced the amount of time which we evict our children from our schools when adults fight over money.

However, I want to focus on my colleague's resolution and why I find it so important. I think that as legislators, the wellbeing and safety of our children in this province ought to be one of our most important concerns, and that when there are competing interests with those children, the children's ought to be given priority.

I have some limited experience in terms of kids and playing. First of all, as one of 10 children, eight children younger than myself, I had the opportunity to witness from an older age all the kinds of things that kids tend to get into.

In one particular experience I recall, we were skiing and my younger sister was on the chair lift, on the chair in front of me. She had a long scarf on. It came time to get off the chair lift and her scarf remained stuck in the chair. She was literally hanging by her neck in the air as the chair lift turned around and started to progress down the hill. Fortunately, these operations are well attended and the chair was stopped and she was removed from that in short order.

Another example, and I have four children of my own: My daughter stuck her head, in some way which I'll never understand, between two metal rungs which form part of a fence. I literally had to pry those bars apart in order to extricate her head from that. Another example: My boys are constantly for some reason throwing a rope over a tree in order to climb up.

You can get carried away in terms of preventing kids from getting into fun, but the point I'm trying to make is it's reasonably foreseeable that children are going to get into all kinds of problems in their effort to have fun and enjoy themselves.

Let's consider this issue of playground equipment. It is specifically designed for children to play on it. It is designed to attract them. It is designed to invite them. It is designed to entertain them. Kids from 18 months and up, a year and a half and older, want to climb up on these darned things; they want to jump down. They want to swing on them. They want to slide down. They want to have fun. Let's recognize that.

There's an element of danger in all of that. I don't think anybody here can reasonably expect that we're going to somehow eliminate all the dangers associated with playground equipment, but what I think the CSA standards do is place some kind of reasonable limitation on the element of risk associated with playground equipment.

For instance, one of the things I learned as a result of reading through my colleague's material, which I must say is very impressive in terms of the amount of work he has put into this, is that there is no standard in place which people who purchase the equipment or manufacturers are required to meet in terms of the surface which is found beneath the equipment. As you might expect, most kids who hurt themselves on the playground equipment do so when they fall, and there is no standard in place governing the surface underneath the playground equipment.

I learned that a child can sustain a fractured skull from a fall of as little as 20 inches on a very hard surface like concrete. I also learned that they can cause the same type of damage if they're only 30 inches off the ground on hard-packed ground. If they fall and their head hits hard-packed ground, they could sustain a very serious injury indeed.

The CSA standards talk specifically about what they call impact-absorbing surfaces, and quite rightly, I think. That goes into things like the kinds of material you can place below the playground equipment. That can be sand, something called pea gravel, wood chips or synthetic material of some kind or another, all of which are designed to ensure that when kids fall, and they surely will, they will sustain, I think, the least amount of injury reasonably possible.

For a resolution of this nature, of course, there will always be opponents. Some will argue that there are going to be additional costs associated with meeting these standards. Some may even argue that somehow there's going to be job loss associated with this kind of resolution if it is indeed passed and implemented by the government. Those are probably to some extent some legitimate concerns, but again, going back to what I said at the outset, I think when we're dealing with interests here which compete with the safety and welfare of our children, we have to give priority to the interests of our children.

Oddly enough, they don't come together and organize and lobby us in this House. I have never had a call, and I'm sure you haven't, from some child representing another group of children asserting the rights of that particular group. I think we have a special obligation as legislators to look out for those who are not able to look out for themselves. That's why I feel this resolution is so very important.

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations suggests that by making these CSA standards voluntary and by publicizing that, that will somehow fill the bill, and that we need not concern ourselves otherwise. I disagree strongly with that. I think, for one thing, that when my kids attend a playground, they're just not going to be able to tell the difference between a CSA-approved structure and one that is not CSA-approved. In fact, I won't know the difference myself. I think that is completely unacceptable.

Again, for the reasons that I've given throughout, when it comes to the interests of our children, they must be given priority. I am generally very concerned about putting into place additional regulations which will further impair the ability of our manufacturers to compete not only internally but without the province as well. However, I make an exception when it comes to the interests of our children.

I want to second something that my colleague said, and I think this is very important as well. At the end of the day, these structures must be supervised either by parents or guardians, whoever has the children in their care. Particularly younger children must be supervised when they're playing on these structures, and it would be irresponsible for me to suggest otherwise.

Unfortunately, we have already had some tragedies associated with the use of playground equipment, and I would submit that many of those are foreseeable. Some have been associated with kids with ropes, having ropes on the structure, and I think others were associated with children's clothing.

1040

There was a coroner's inquest held in the case of one of these tragedies. I have in my prior life acted on coroner's inquests, and people should understand that this is an opportunity for people to receive expert evidence, to properly consider the issues at hand and to come up with some very sound recommendations. So that coroner's jury made some very sound recommendations, I feel, in connection with that particular tragedy, the death of that five-year-old. They specifically recommended that we adopt CSA standards.

Let's remember what it is that my colleague is asking for here. He is merely asking that the government adopt a policy, put in place a policy, that if you are going to do business with this government, you have to abide by the CSA standards. Furthermore, if we're going to fund you, if you're going to receive money from us -- you're one of our transfer partners and you're going to do business with somebody else -- then we're going to attach a certain condition to that, which is that if you're getting into the business of purchasing playground equipment, that it be CSA-approved. I think that is eminently reasonable.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'd like to take this opportunity to join my colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in supporting the Canadian Standards Association's new guidelines for playground equipment. I agree these voluntary guidelines developed by the CSA go a long way in making sure the swings, slides and other playground equipment our children enjoy are well built and safe for use.

I'd like for a moment to return to my last sentence, though, and explain the meaning of "voluntary guidelines" somewhat. The CSA has different degrees of standards. I've also worked in an industry, the electrical industry, where it is a mandatory requirement to have a CSA standard, which is their strictest, which means that you cannot sell your product without having a CSA approval sticker on it. Then they have other levels that go right down, and the bottom end of it is the voluntary guidelines, which is asking people to consider the advantages of having CSA-approved equipment, in this case in their playgrounds. But I want to also make very clear that in the information I've managed to get together for this, I have found that CSA does not certify playground equipment. It is strictly a voluntary set of guidelines.

I think everyone in the House is well aware of the fact that all three parties in this House came together on bicycle helmets and all three parties asked for and in fact required not the other two types of certification, but indeed CSA, because we all recognize CSA as being a standard above and beyond when it comes to safety.

Mr Eddy: Mandatory.

Mr Waters: The member for Brant-Haldimand talks about mandatory. Well, it is not mandatory under voluntary guidelines. It is not mandatory. It is only mandatory in certain industries such as electrical equipment. In the bicycle helmets, we are saying mandatory. We are definitely saying that our children's heads are that important, and the brainpower that is going to be protected within those helmets.

I'm also pleased to learn that the manufacturers of this type of equipment support the CSA. I believe it's a win-win situation, for the consumer and for the domestic playground equipment manufacturer. For example, the municipal employee who buys playground equipment from a manufacturer displaying the CSA label can take comfort in the fact that it has met the recognized high standards, as I said before, of CSA.

On the other hand, manufacturers selling playground equipment that meets the guidelines can use the CSA designation as an excellent marketing tool, I believe. As I keep coming back to, it is recognized throughout our society the quality that is meant when you have a CSA stamp of approval on your merchandise.

I know the playground equipment manufacturer in the honourable member's riding home town of Paris is manufacturing his products to those standards. I congratulate them for that and encourage that manufacturer to work with CSA to take advantage of the marketing opportunity that represents.

Marketing one's products by educating consumers on the importance of purchasing goods meeting CSA standards is not only socially responsible but good business as well. I think there's probably more education that has to go on with the buyers from the different organizations about what "CSA" means. Not everyone out there in the buying public for the different agencies or municipalities are aware of what it means, and I think we have to do some more education on the topic. I join my colleague from Halton North in encouraging prospective buyers of playground equipment to obtain those facts on CSA before purchasing these products.

We ask our children to practise safety first when using playground equipment. That must also be our prime consideration when we as consumers buy these products: to ensure that the equipment our kids are playing on is the best and safest possible.

But I would also like to talk a bit about some of the problems. I'm curious, and I would ask the member for Brant-Haldimand if he could answer: What do we do with the existing playground equipment that's out there? I can tell you, in my riding right now there is a small community in a very rural area that is scraping together a few dollars and calling in a lot of favours from people within that community to come together to create a playground. They're not going to go to the formal municipality to get this equipment. So how do we encourage these people to, if not buy the equipment if they can't afford it, ensure that the playground they are creating comes to a certain standard?

I think that happens all over rural Ontario in particular, because we have a problem. It's also in urban Ontario, but we're not as well organized and right now we have a problem of finances.

I'd like to wrap up on three points. Once again, I'd like to go back to the fact that we recognize the important contribution of safety standards in providing safe areas for children to play in. We recognize that CSA is the appropriate organization to determine the content and applicability of safety standards for playground equipment and playscapes, but I think we have a problem. The province is not in a position to enforce compliance or adherence. At the same time, we urge all Ontario providers of playgrounds and playscapes to become familiar with the standard Z614-M90, which is the standard for playground equipment, and to give careful consideration to the guidelines when buying and installing equipment and while operating playgrounds

I also would like to ask the member if there's been any thought given to what happens after the equipment's installed; the upkeep of the equipment and how we're going to deal with that, or, let's say, the ground it's put on, making sure the ground underneath it is safe. Is that going to be something the member also wants us to recognize?

With that, I thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for bringing this forward. I think it's a very important topic. It's a topic about our children.

1050

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I am pleased to join in this very important debate in support of the resolution put forward by the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand. I hope that in the time permitted I'll be able to deal with all the areas that I believe should garner the support of this Legislature.

I think we have to realize that what this resolution is recommending is that the government of Ontario urge municipalities, school boards, day care centres and other provincially funded agencies to comply with the CSA national standard when purchasing playground equipment.

The honourable member for Brant-Haldimand has gone on to say that playground equipment that is bought and sold in Ontario currently does not have to meet any mandatory safety standards. It is surprising that this playground equipment is not required to adhere to the CSA national standard. Speaking as a parent, I believe every parent in this province would be aghast, taken aback, to recognize that the playground equipment their children are using does not have to meet certain national standards. I believe it is something which should warrant the support of this Legislature. I believe -- and as I've indicated, I speak as a parent -- that all who allow their children to play in playgrounds, whether they're municipally run, whether at schools or whatever, just assume that of course this equipment meets some standard and would be extremely surprised that it just isn't the case.

A resolution of this kind sends out a message that in this province that type of equipment should meet some minimum standards; that there should be some regard to the equipment in terms of handrails, in terms of whether there are any head traps, whether there are any dangerous hooks, whether there are any sharp edges, in terms of its condition, the access children have to the particular equipment and maybe some general standards of rules for the kids.

To me, this is a resolution that is founded on some common sense. We are asking the government and, through the government, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, to take some action in this area. We're talking about a ministry that currently has responsibility for something over 80 statutes. They're responsible for birth certificates, they're responsible for marriage certificates, they're responsible for death certificates. They have regulations that deal with stuffed dolls. They have regulations that deal with upholstery and how upholstery should be stuffed. They have regulations that deal with gambling. They have regulations that deal with liquor, beer and wine. They have regulations that deal with bungee cords. They have regulations that deal with amusement parks. The list goes on and on and on. But there is no action, no regulation the ministry will take with respect to the particular equipment that our children play with day in and day out, especially through the summer months.

The commonsense aspect to all of this is that if there is equipment in existence that meets certain nationally recognized standards, then that's the type of equipment that should be in our playgrounds. The government has a responsibility, as it has a responsibility for birth certificates and marriage certificates and death certificates and bungee cording and amusement parks, and the list goes on and on. If they are responsible for dealing with how a sofa is to be stuffed and how a doll is to be created, then surely that responsibility should extend to the types of slides and swings and all those other things that kids play with in amusement parks.

The resolution by the honourable member is founded on common sense. I know the member has done an incredible amount of work; he has documented the terrible tragedies that have occurred because we don't have these types of standards. We are asking in this resolution that the government embrace the CSA standard so that our playgrounds are safe for our children, so that the issues around the safety of that equipment is one which the government has taken charge of. As a parent myself, I believe parents across this province are supportive of this resolution, and I hope that members of the government will stand in their place one by one and support what is an eminently reasonable resolution.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate? I'm afraid the member for Simcoe East has already spoken to this resolution. The member for Brant-Haldimand has two minutes to respond.

Mr Eddy: It's not nearly enough, Madam Speaker, but I appreciate that I have that amount of time.

I won't respond to the various speakers for their comments, but I do appreciate the fact that the members for Simcoe East and Halton North and Ottawa South and Mississauga North, I believe, have spoken to the matter, I think in all cases endorsing the resolution.

The resolution is about as simple as it can be. Really, I would have liked to have gone a lot further. I think it should be mandatory safety guidelines for equipment; it is for most other things. As a farmer, I can assure you how much farmers appreciate the safety features that have been into equipment, and certainly equipment that's there can be upgraded. I don't think we should worry about the cost of upgrading or improving some piece of equipment that's dangerous, if children are using it. I know cost is always a factor, but this is simply urging the government -- I think the government members have said they recognize the standards; I don't think there's a problem there -- to urge all Ontario municipalities, school boards, day care centres and other provincially funded agencies that use playground equipment to adhere to the national standard when buying playground equipment.

Now, there are many other important facets. There's the maintenance of such equipment, there's the installation and assembly of such equipment, and indeed there's the matter of the ground surface, as the member for Ottawa South has mentioned; many other matters to do with the operation of the playground facility. It's also, in addition to the safety of children, to reduce the legal liability that operators of such playgrounds face today. It's becoming a very costly item; insurance is important. So it's liability as well.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The time for this ballot item has expired. It will be dealt with further and decided at 12 noon.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson moved private member's notice of motion number 35:

That, in the opinion of this House, since several patients from the Alliston and Collingwood areas are forced to travel great distances often under treacherous winter road conditions to receive haemodialysis treatments; and

Since the government has known of this problem for the past two years and has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home while others are travelling to Orillia or Toronto; and

Since the wear and tear of travelling to receive haemodialysis treatments is taking a significant physical and emotional toll on Simcoe West patients; and

Since many of these patients have attended meetings involving Ministry of Health officials and hospital administrators arranged with the intention of creating a community-based solution to a local problem, and as these meetings have failed to produce a workable local solution because of the ministry's failure to adequately assess the need and because they want to postpone a decision on this problem until a regional dialysis study is completed in another eight months; and

Since the money for Simcoe West dialysis patients is concentrated in Toronto teaching hospitals; and

Since Simcoe West dialysis patients have already suffered enough physical and emotional trauma in travelling long distances to receive dialysis treatments;

Therefore the government of Ontario should act immediately to embrace a local solution by establishing haemodialysis satellites in both Alliston and Collingwood.

1100

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member has 10 minutes to present his debate and then other members will have up to 15 minutes to debate further.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): The thrust of my private member's resolution is simple: I am calling on the government of Ontario to lend their support to dialysis patients in my Simcoe West riding who are experiencing great hardships in order to receive lifesaving haemodialysis treatments.

Several patients in my riding are forced to travel long distances to either Orillia or Toronto to receive treatment that they must have in order to live. I am asking the government to move towards a local community-based solution by acting immediately to establish dialysis satellites in both Alliston and Collingwood. The establishment of these satellites would also lend coherency and consistency to a dialysis treatment system that is haphazard and discriminatory towards some patients.

Last April, I became aware of the very serious problems being encountered by dialysis patients in the Collingwood area. In fact, there was one patient in particular whose case was brought home to me in a letter from Dr Robert Uldall of the Wellesley Hospital. In his letter to me, Dr Uldall said:

"Our patient, Mr Robert Udall of Collingwood, who has end-stage renal failure, has been travelling to Toronto for haemodialysis three times per week for the past 15 months. This is costing him $1,860 a month of his own money and he is gradually becoming financially destitute. In addition, this is an inhumane ordeal which no elderly gentleman with a bad heart should be asked to undergo.

I am trying to arrange for him to receive his dialysis in a small satellite haemodialysis facility at Collingwood Hospital."

In a letter to me, also last April, my constituent Mr Udall described the difficulties in travelling to Toronto to receive care. He said:

"The essential treatment for my condition is haemodialysis, to obtain which I have to go to the Wellesley Hospital in Toronto three days every week. This attendance is literally a matter of life or death.

"The physical and mental strain of these journeys depletes the little strength that I can build up between trips, so that my condition is gradually deteriorating.

Eight months later we are still waiting for this satellite to be established at the Collingwood Hospital.

I am pleased to note that as a result of our urgings, Mr Udall is now receiving dialysis treatments in his home. However, he would agree with me that it would be better and fairer for all haemodialysis patients in the Collingwood area if Mr Udall's dialysis machine was placed in the local hospital so that every patient in need could have access to it.

After experiencing the ordeal of travelling three times a week for almost two years, Mr Udall is indeed fortunate to be alive today.

However, other patients in both Alliston and Collingwood continue to make long-distance trips to Orillia or Toronto.

I'd like to quote from a newspaper article that ran in the Alliston Courier-Herald on October 2, 1993. This article poignantly summarizes the ordeal experienced by an Alliston dialysis patient who has no choice but to travel to Wellesley Hospital three times a week. I quote from the article:

"Alvin Hiltz of Alliston is one of those who have to live with the weekly anxiety of trying to find a way to get lifesaving medical treatment.

"'I go to Wellesley Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays,' he said. 'I have to be there by 11:30 am to go on haemodialysis at 12:30.'

"Mr Hiltz, who has a permanent shunt in his neck to facilitate the procedure, has been travelling to Toronto for the past eight years to have his blood cleansed.

"'They pump the blood out, clean it, warm it and put it back in again,' he said. 'It takes about four hours but the driver doesn't have to wait for me.'

"'It takes about one and a half hours to drive to Wellesley,' he said, and his drivers drop him off at the admitting door. His wife, Mae, goes with him and wheels him up to the sixth floor for the dialysis.

"When he is finished, they take a taxi to the bus station to catch a bus back to Alliston. "If they cannot find a driver, they must take the bus both ways, which is exhausting for Alvin.

"'We're having an awful time trying to get drivers,' Mae said. 'When we have to go on the bus, it's pretty hard on him.'"

That's the end of the quote from the newspaper article.

In response to this growing dialysis problem, I arranged a meeting on September 10 in Collingwood to assess the need in the area and to investigate the possibility of establishing a local dialysis satellite. The meeting featured patients, an official from the Ministry of Health, administrators from both the General and Marine Hospital in Collingwood and Soldiers' Memorial Hospital in Orillia, physicians and the executive director of the Simcoe County District Health Council.

The meeting was positive and a commitment was made to approach the Toronto teaching hospitals to see if the moneys currently being spent on these patients could be transferred to help facilitate the creation of a Collingwood dialysis satellite. Around the same time, I became aware of a similar dialysis problem in the Alliston area. I discovered that out of five dialysis patients, four were travelling to Toronto for treatment three times a week and one patient, with my help over that time, had a machine in her home with a paid helper.

Recently, I also became aware that another machine is to be placed in a haemodialysis patient's home in Beeton. This means the Alliston area will have two machines that we know of. These two machines are only serving two people, while three others are travelling three times a week to Toronto or Orillia.

In October, I arranged a follow-up meeting here in Toronto involving everyone who attended the September meeting, plus officials from the Toronto Hospital, Wellesley Hospital and Sunnybrook medical centre. It was agreed at this meeting that funds could be transferred and satellites established in Collingwood and Alliston if it was cost-effective to do so and if the conditions set out by the local hospitals were met.

Officials from the Ministry of Health made a commitment at the October meeting to take a look at the books of the Toronto hospitals and determine whether there were enough funds to facilitate the creation of these two satellites. These Ministry of Health officials were to report their findings back to me within two weeks. After waiting a full six weeks, the ministry finally got around to sharing its findings. The numbers they uncovered showed that only one satellite would be feasible and that the patients from Alliston would have to travel to Collingwood for treatment or vice versa.

A single satellite arrangement in the Collingwood area only is simply unacceptable. Patients from Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham are no better off and perhaps worse off travelling to Collingwood for treatment than they are going to Toronto or Orillia.

I believe that the government has truly bungled this issue. I don't trust the government's findings. Not only did it take ministry officials a month longer than they said it would to find the dollar figures for Simcoe West dialysis patients, but they admitted they had no way of determining the actual need in my riding of Simcoe West. The blame for this, they said, rested with the Toronto hospitals, which refused to release some information on the number of patients in my riding.

When it came time to crunch the numbers, the ministry suddenly said that funds for four Simcoe county dialysis patients had already been transferred to Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, which is the regional dialysis centre for Simcoe county. Officials from the Ministry of Health attended both meetings in September and October and I can tell you, they never excluded these moneys from discussions surrounding satellites.

During our meetings a Ministry of Health dialysis representative told us that four patients are needed to make a satellite feasible. Both the Collingwood and Alliston areas have five patients each. Satellites exist in other areas such as Belleville, Parry Sound, Laurentian and North Bay. It was suggested that the Laurentian satellite indicates that satellites are doable because of the small cost involved.

When I embarked on the process to create local satellites, I did so with the intention of trying to establish them before winter came and driving conditions became hazardous. The government has continually stalled the process, I believe, so that our efforts could be lumped into a dialysis-needs study that is being carried out in the central Ontario region. This study will not be completed until next summer and is costing taxpayers $100,000 to determine what we already know.

Surely these funds could be better spent providing local dialysis care. The public is tired of governments that waste money on studies while somehow hoping that the problem will go away.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you.

Mr Jim Wilson: I'll conclude my remarks on my next round, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

1110

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I listened with great interest to the member for Simcoe West and his comments, although I do have some problems with it. Part of the problem that we face with health care is that with the past two governments we have had a scattergun approach. You want something, out it goes, and there was no proper planning. Whoever screamed the loudest got the health care.

What we're about is planned health care. We know that there are people in Collingwood and in Alliston who have need for dialysis. We also know that people in Alliston and in Collingwood who cannot travel for their dialysis treatment receive it in their homes. We are working on a plan, a plan on which a report is expected in June 1994 on the whole of central Ontario dealing with dialysis.

Coming from central Ontario, and I think my colleague from Simcoe East actually would even recognize that Orillia is somewhat removed from the Collingwood area, as well as from the area of Owen Sound, if we have a problem in Collingwood, I imagine we have the same problem in the Owen Sound area as well. So I think that in the future there will have to be a move to make sure that it's covered more adequately with dialysis treatment.

But when you look at it, there are two patients from the Collingwood area who were unable to travel so they have home dialysis. There is a total of five patients in the Collingwood area who are in need of dialysis at this point in time. I believe it's five and three are travelling and two are having it in their homes.

When you look at the Alliston area, there are three patients who are currently travelling to Toronto and I believe there's one person who has home dialysis in the Alliston area. So it isn't as if these people are being put at risk. It's that we need some time to do some proper planning. We can't afford to go out with the shotgun effect and just put health care facilities up or treatment centres at every member's request in every community across the province. We have to plan it, and it's going to take time to plan it.

Yes, it is difficult. In the biggest part of my riding, in fact, whether it be in Midland in the Simcoe county part of my riding or in Muskoka, we don't have a dialysis unit. We use Parry Sound and Orillia. People from my riding have to travel an hour and a half to two hours to get their dialysis treatment. And it is difficult in winter. I am not going to argue that point, but I think that you have to allow the system time to work, and if you don't, you're going to end up spending money in a way that doesn't give you the maximum benefit or indeed meet the needs of all of the people throughout the province.

I really think that the member just has to work with us instead of working against us to try to resolve this problem.

Mr Jim Wilson: I'm leading you on this issue. You people did nothing.

Mr Waters: And the member rants and raves --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, you have your turn.

Mr Waters: -- from across the way that he's leading us on the issue. The issue did not come into effect in January or in September 1990. This issue has been in effect for a long period of time, and in fact we know and recognize and one of the reasons that we're doing this planning --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Right on. You've got it. You were in charge for four years; what did you do?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham East, you interject from your seat.

Mr Waters: One of the reasons that we're doing this planning is that we recognize that there is a major and a consistent increase in the people needing dialysis, but I have to tell you that dialysis is a stopgap measure.

What we should be looking at, and it's something that we have to do as a government and something that people from all parties have to start doing, is encouraging people to sign those donor cards because the reality is that, if you want to help these people in a permanent way, they have to have donor kidneys and that means transplants, and we have to get those donor cards signed. So I really believe strongly that we have to plan this, first off.

Secondly, it didn't happen with us becoming government, it happened a long time ago. We know that these things have been in, that they've talked about this for years and years, but there's never been a planned approach to dealing with the problem and the need for dialysis. We're working on it and I think that we're doing it in a proper, planned fashion.

I support my Minister of Health in her efforts to do this and make sure that everyone in this province has proper and accessible health care. It doesn't mean you have to have it on your doorstep, we can't afford that. We can have it in the region that will work. Indeed, I think that this is the way to move. Thank you, Mr Speaker, those have been my comments this morning.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on this motion because it gives me an opportunity to expand to my colleague the sort of catchment area that he speaks of, Simcoe area in southern Ontario, and to talk of the problems that certainly happened in my area of northern Ontario.

If you think you have distances to travel for kidney dialysis in the south, I have to tell the members of the House here that, on a day-to-day basis, people who live in northern Ontario have tremendous distances to travel. In fact, on a monthly basis, I get complaints from patients on the lack of service for kidney dialysis, and there are a few points I want to make about that.

First, I asked my staff to pull out an Ontario road map. I know one of the first problems of course, when you look at the Ontario road map, is that the scale on the back side of the map, which shows northern Ontario, is about half the scale of the southern Ontario side. So to somebody just flipping it over it looks like "Well, these distances maybe aren't that great in northern Ontario," but of course the scale is much, much different and the distances are great.

I will tell you how the service that we're trying to deliver in the New Liskeard area, for instance, is working. We don't have the personnel in New Liskeard to cover all the patients that require this dialysis service. For some days of the week patients are able to go to the Timiskaming Hospital in New Liskeard and receive their dialysis. On Saturdays they have to go to Kirkland Lake, which would be about a 70-mile drive from New Liskeard, to get to their dialysis. So there's 140 miles that they have to cover, round trip, on a weekend, and the reason they have to go there is that the nurse who is providing the service for New Liskeard in dialysis can't come from Sudbury, a 225-kilometre drive, as she has to during the weekdays to satisfy these people, so somebody comes down from Timmins. We really are in the resource crunch here. Everybody's sort of tied up by not having enough equipment and enough trained personnel providing the service in small communities.

I guess what complicates this also, besides the great distance is, some of you in southern Ontario might say, "Don't you people in northern Ontario have the northern Ontario health travel grant to assist you in this sort of thing?" Unfortunately, for most of these people the health travel grant does not apply because it has to do with sort of a cap on distances, and it doesn't routinely pick up the cost for trips under 150 kilometres in duration.

These people who have to go three times a week to get their dialysis training are accumulating many more kilometres under their belt, if you will, than somebody maybe having to go one time to Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie or Toronto for some sort of medical service. So these people find that they have a greater burden, obviously, of expense of trying to find the service by having to travel within northern Ontario.

On the staff side, we're wasting the valuable time of highly trained people who have to make those trips from Timmins to the Tri-town area or Kirkland Lake or from Sudbury with those distances that I mentioned before. It's really the improper utilization of resources that a lot of this is about. We need to rationalize our services, make sure that the proper service is located in the communities where the needs are and make sure the equipment and the personnel are there to meet those services.

1120

In the end, if we take that rational approach, it will be much more cost-effective and much more cost-efficient to do it that way. When we have these sort of across-the-board cuts, I have great sympathy for the agencies that are trying to carry on this service.

I spoke to one of the persons in Laurentian Hospital in Sudbury the other day about this service. They are trying the very best they can to cope under the financial situations that they are presented with by the Ontario government and the Ministry of Health.

You can't come into a Health ministry and start to say you're going to get control of the expenditures without giving some sort of rational thought as to service provision and how that service provision has to be allocated community by community. Really, what you start to need to have is more local control of this and your district health councils need to have a greater say in how these services can be delivered in a rational way.

These are the points I wanted to make this morning, and I'm very sympathetic to the situation that the member brings up in his particular area. I wanted to use this opportunity to make sure that the legislators understood some of the problems we also have in northern Ontario, and specifically the riding that I represent, the great riding of Timiskaming.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm extremely pleased to provide a few comments on this resolution that has been brought to our attention by my colleague the member for Simcoe West. The member for Simcoe West is urging the provincial government to establish dialysis satellite centres in Alliston and Collingwood because patients have already suffered enough physical and emotional trauma in travelling long distances to receive dialysis treatments.

On Tuesday, December 7, I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of the new regional dialysis centre in Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital. This new facility is dedicated to the memory of the late Edward F. Monck, who crusaded for local service to meet the needs of the people like himself who had travelled to Toronto three times a week for treatment.

The service was actually established in November 1987 as a small satellite unit of Toronto General Hospital to handle three patients. Subsequently, in the face of the growing demand, it was expanded to serve 18 patients.

That's exactly what this member is asking here this morning -- to have the satellite units of a Toronto teaching hospital in Alliston and Collingwood. That is the way the one in Orillia started. I think the debate we're having here this morning will certainly bring to the light the many issues regarding the people who are demanding this service.

In 1992 the Ministry of Health approved the proposal for a new five-station unit, and construction commenced in the spring of 1993 in Orillia. This project is designed to serve the region of Simcoe county, Muskoka district and northeast Durham. Total capital cost was approximately $1.3 million, which included relocation of the administrative and business offices to make room for the new centre.

The Ministry of Health contributed $1.1 million for equipment and construction and will fund the annual operating budget of $1.6 million. There are 25 people now on staff and the patient case load has increased to 30. These patients -- it runs six days a week -- are there Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and the other group is there Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. So there are 30 people using the five stations that are there on a six-day week basis.

I believe the expansion of this life-giving service is truly appreciated by the patients who will now be able to receive their service in their own community, and in some cases much closer to their own community than ever before.

Dialysis, a process for cleansing the blood of people whose kidneys have failed, is essential for this life-support function. The only alternative treatment is a kidney transplant. The number of patients with end-stage renal disease, those needing dialysis or a kidney transplant, has recently been increased by 8%. There are 5,000 patients now on the waiting list, a major factor in the aging population of Ontario.

This resolution from my colleague the member for Simcoe West deserves our consideration and support. He is right when he says establishing satellite centres in Alliston and Collingwood will provide badly needed support to patients who have already suffered long enough. I believe these satellite centres would take some of the strain off hospitals that have been crippled by the provincial government's lack of direction.

Massive layoffs and bed closings are putting a considerable dent in the local economies of communities across this province. The lack of government policy and direction is causing serious planning and budgeting difficulties for many Ontario hospitals.

My colleague the member for Simcoe West has raised the matter of hospital mismanagement and funding in the Legislature on several occasions. He has asked the government to provide desperately needed planning direction for health care facilities and hospital boards. He has asked the NDP government to provide a prescription that enables hospitals to plan for the future.

The people are growing more annoyed at this government's approach to the delivery of health care services in Ontario. For example, a group of unemployed construction workers, frustrated with delays in the start of the construction of the new Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie, gathered last weekend and dug in their shovels in an unofficial ground-breaking ceremony.

The business representatives of the Laborers' International Union Local 506, representing 2,500 workers in Simcoe county, said the member for Simcoe Centre should "get off his tail" and push the Health minister to give the final approval of the project. The labour representative was angry that Mr Wessenger declined to take up the shovel for the symbolic ceremony.

I urge my colleagues to support establishing satellite dialysis centres in Alliston and Collingwood. I thank the member for Simcoe West for bringing this important resolution forward. He has indicated with regard to Collingwood and Alliston the four people that are going there daily and he also indicated that the dialysis machine was put in two homes. Wouldn't it make sense if they were put in a hospital unit -- suppose there's only one in the Alliston hospital and one in the Collingwood hospital that could serve more people? Common sense would tell you that that should happen.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I guess I should start off by thanking the member for Simcoe West for bringing the motion forward, not in the way it's written, not maybe in all of the content, but so that we can have a discussion about this very serious issue, because I think sometimes it's something that we don't really discuss openly enough. I don't agree with everything he's got written in his resolution, but I appreciate at least the opportunity to have this discussion in this Legislature, because it's an important discussion to talk about, especially as the member for Simcoe East said, as our population is aging.

Since 1989 the Ontario government, which has blamed for just about everything, including the economy, by the member for Timiskaming, has put $23 million towards expanding dialysis services right across the province. As part of the plan, they've been working with local district health councils. Now the member across the way complains because we've given them money to do this. Well, if they're going to do proper planning, it takes a little bit of revenue, unfortunately. We've given some money so that they can do some proper planning.

This is exactly what has happened in Simcoe county. The Simcoe County District Health Council made a recommendation for a preferred regional program, a small haemodialysis satellite in Orillia that of course the member for Simcoe East was at the other day.

It's funny. He can stand in his place and criticize, but he was there because he knows his constituents want it and they need it. The incidence is growing at 10% per annum. It's a serious problem that's got to be talked about. That's why I congratulated the member for bringing it forward.

Prior to the expansion of the Orillia program, residents of Simcoe county had to travel to Toronto to receive their haemodialysis services or, in exceptional cases, receive some care in their homes, if for medical reasons they're unable to travel to Toronto.

The ministry has a thorough strategy in place around prevention, and prevention is going to have to be a key to this strategy, health promotion initiatives to help reduce the incidence of kidney failure over the long term. It's a problem. These initiatives include diabetes prevention, cardiovascular health and nutrition.

We heard the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay raise the issue that the Ministry of Health supports organ donation, or the establishment of the multiple organ retrieval exchange program, as it's referred to. This program is to provide donor awareness, to let people know that when you get your driver's licence renewal and it's got that little space on the bottom, you should be filling that out.

It costs $45,000 for an annual treatment for haemodialysis, $40,000 to $45,000 a year. That same amount is the amount that it costs for a kidney transplant, so one year's worth of kidney dialysis as opposed to a transplant. Transplant is what has to happen. I think that by the member raising this here, our having this debate here, we can let people know that it's very important that they sign that form on the bottom of their licence and offer to donate their kidney should that opportunity present itself, because you're going to be giving of a life. Kidney transplant, of course, is the best treatment for kidney failure. It's unfortunate there are so many people on the waiting list today. As I said earlier, the demand is growing at 10% per year. It's something that we've got a problem with.

1130

To the member from the north here, from Timiskaming, I appreciate his intervention into this debate. As we talk about local planning for issues like this, today Kenora, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Sioux Lookout, Sudbury, South Porcupine, North Bay, New Liskeard, Kapuskasing, Elliot Lake, Parry Sound and Little Current health centres all have a haemodialysis unit there. The north has some coverage, if not enough.

Last night we had a debate here saying that doctors shouldn't be part of the solution. It's frustrating, because we do have a fiscal situation here not brought about by this NDP government; it's brought about by the reality of the economy that we live in. We're not an island unto ourselves here in Ontario. We're part of a whole country, Canada, part of a North American dilemma that's facing us around fiscal situations. In that, we have to take a look at some realities.

Local planning in issues like this is very important. This is not to say we shouldn't take into consideration the needs of individuals for the travel. Just a week ago, there was an announcement by the Ministry of Health to fund 36 dialysis treatments in an independent outpatient clinic in Markham. The services should begin, I believe, in February.

Dialysis, for those viewing who don't know, is a mechanical cleansing of the blood to relieve people who are suffering from kidney failure. I guess I have to keep coming back to it: The key here is the donors that we need, the education that's got to take place.

This haemodialysis unit program that's going to be up and running in Markham will not only provide for the people around that area and of course my constituents in Stouffville and in that area, but also for some people from Metro. I think there will be about 11 people from Metro able to come into that process.

The announcement for Orillia -- I guess I could say that for my constituents in Beaverton and Gamebridge, it would be important that they be able to have something locally. I'm glad they only have to travel to Orillia and they can access that, because a lot of my constituents travel to Orillia.

The final part that the member opposite put in his resolution was, "Therefore the government of Ontario should act...to embrace a local solution." Well, you know, that's exactly what this planning process is all about. District health councils have to be involved in the planning process. Money has to be put there so they can do some local planning. This is exactly what the process is about.

The member opposite complained about the $100,000 given to the central area for doing some planning. We can't plan if you don't start sitting down and talking about it. We wouldn't have realized we had problems here if it wasn't for the Simcoe County District Health Council making a recommendation that Orillia have an expanded service. I think it's important.

Unfortunately, sometimes we get in the House and we'll hear from members opposite: "You're spending too much. Don't tax any more. Spend a little bit more; tax a little bit less." It gets confusing for the viewers. We've got a financial problem here. The government of Ontario is trying to deal with it. At the same time, we're trying to include local areas in good planning for long-term health care. That's exactly what this process is about. So I'm glad the member opposite raised this issue. I think local planning is important.

If anything, I hope the people who are viewing this morning's deliberations will take an opportunity to take their licences out and sign that donor portion on the back, because that's the key. The key is that for the $40,000 to $45,000 that it costs for renal dialysis services for one year, you could have a transplant. For those thousands of people who are waiting on that list for that kidney transplant, it's important that we actually, each one of us, have an opportunity to make an impact that is going to give a lifetime of greater mobility for patients. It's going to offer them a life.

I think it's important, in spite of all the rest of the rhetoric that we find in this motion, because of course they blame the government for just about everything, that we have had the opportunity for this discussion this morning. That's probably a key. Within everything, there's got to be a little bit of rationality put into it. So I guess the rationality here is that, yes, we've got a problem; yes, we've got a local planning solution trying to work with the problem; and, yes, each and every one of us has an opportunity to be part of the solution.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate today, because I can understand the members' concern about facilities for haemodialysis patients. In the city of St Catharines we have the Hotel Dieu Hospital, which has a haemodialysis unit. The members from the Niagara Peninsula, including myself and my colleagues from St Catharines-Brock and Lincoln and Niagara Falls and Niagara South and I believe Welland-Thorold, all attended at one time or another to look at the unit to see the very difficult circumstances that face that unit. We have as a result, and there have been many representations made by those of us in the Niagara Peninsula, a situation where we have improvements that are going to take place.

If someone had seen the unit previous to that, they would have come to the conclusion that these renovations were needed, that the kinds of services that the member for Simcoe is speaking of, that he would like in his area, are in fact needed. We had very crowded hallways. We had unsatisfactory circumstances facing the staff. It was marvellous, the work that the staff at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines were doing under the very difficult circumstances they were facing.

There were several people who made representations to us. The Kidney Foundation of Canada in the Niagara Peninsula made strong representations. Mr Jack Leake, among others, has contacted all of the members in the area, particularly the member for St Catharines-Brock and me, on a number of occasions to bring us up to date on what is happening. We will now see that improvement. All of us in the St Catharines area and the Niagara Peninsula are hoping to see the tenders opened very soon and the construction commenced at the earliest possible opportunity.

The first priority of course is to serve the patients, and there is a growing number of patients requiring haemodialysis at this time. That list has grown considerably, and that means that the expansion and improvement in those facilities is very much required. So we will, all of us, be urging that as soon as the tenders are evaluated and opened, the commencement date for that construction be set at the very earliest possible time.

The spinoff effect for those of us in the peninsula, and this is never inconsiderable, is the job-producing aspect of it as well. When the work is done, jobs are created and there's an improvement left on a permanent basis for us.

Another issue which the member may find among his people who require haemodialysis is the issue of the drugs. There was a great concern expressed for a period of time that revolved around certain drugs that might be available. The reform of, I guess, the drug benefit program certainly suggested that there may be a cutback in the availability of these drugs. Strong representations had been made, I know, from members of this House and from the Kidney Foundation and from those who are friends and family of patients. I think all of us probably know somebody on a personal basis who is a patient now for haemodialysis. I certainly know a number of people at the Hotel Dieu Hospital who are receiving haemodialysis at this time.

1140

Apparently there has now been a reconsideration, or a consideration -- whatever way you want to look at it -- of this potential policy of eliminating some of the absolutely essential drugs. As a result of the representations that have been made, the government has now decided that those drugs will be provided through the hospitals.

There is still a concern about certain other drugs or medicines that might be provided to patients. Most people would consider those probably to be not necessarily essential to the average person, but to people who are receiving kidney dialysis, haemodialysis, they are considered to be important in their general health.

Some of the over-the-counter medications that were not covered by the Ontario drug benefit plan were Os-Cal, Diavite, Gaviscon, Basaljel, Amphojel, Maalox, Life Brand, Agarol, quinine, Gravol and artificial tears. Tylenol, ASA and iron supplements were to continue to be covered by the Ontario drug benefit program.

While there are certain essential drugs that were required, I think we can rest assured now, or at least we hope we can rest assured, that they will be covered, because they were the ones that were most mentioned by the Kidney Foundation of Canada. For instance, a drug called EPO was considered to be extremely important. It's my understanding that it is now to be provided. Cyclosporine is another, and it's my understanding that now that is going to be provided. That will alleviate some of the concerns of patients, because while there were some patients who may be in a financial position to provide those drugs themselves, the problem is that people who are just above the line where they would be eligible for social assistance would find that considerable of their savings would be going into the purchase of drugs. We've tried over the years as much as possible in Ontario to ensure that our health care is not based on a person's ability to pay, but rather on a person's need of medical care services. That's a principle which I personally strongly adhere to and hope that all governments will adhere to well into the future.

In terms of the resolution that the member for Simcoe West has brought forward, we are acutely aware in our area, the Niagara region, of the need for such services and the inconvenience to individual patients. Mind you, when they're getting haemodialysis and they look at the alternative, they are sometimes prepared to put up with those inconveniences. But if you can make it as comfortable as possible and as convenient as possible for such patients, it certainly is appreciated by the patients themselves and their families. The ultimate for many of the patients is to get a transplant, a transplant that will take, so they don't have to use haemodialysis any longer.

I will continue to advocate, as I have in the past, on behalf of kidney patients in our part of the province. I hope that if the need increases for haemodialysis, the present contemplated expansion at Hotel Dieu Hospital is not the only expansion. If there's an increased need, and we always hope there is not, I hope the government is prepared to react quickly to that need, to look ahead, to assess that need and then ensure that it is met. As I say, on a short-term basis, that's going to happen, and I think that's going to be positive for those patients.

I know the member must find it difficult in his area, because he has to have people travel some considerable distance. For anybody who knows kidney patients, you know that they don't face a normal life. There are many restrictions on their lives and there are many ups and downs that aren't directly associated with the kidneys themselves but are side-effects: the kind of water they need, for instance; the amount of fluid they can take in; the fact that blood pressure can go up and blood pressure goes down, and there's always a chance of cardiac arrest. All of these things are going to make the member for Simcoe West and others who have kidney patients in their area want to have those facilities as close as possible to the patients so that there isn't a long period of travel.

We are often considered in the Niagara Peninsula to be part of the Hamilton area and have services available at Hamilton. Sometimes this is the case in fact and sometimes it is the case only in theory. We have to rely upon facts and figures which indicate we have access to Hamilton facilities, when in fact those facilities and opportunities may not be available because they're being used by people in the Hamilton area itself.

I hope all of us will remember, as the member from Simcoe is in his resolution today, that there are many people out there who have kidney disease, who require haemodialysis, who require the best of facilities in terms of the ward itself and will require the best of assistance in terms of the lifesaving and life-improving drugs that are available.

Mr Jim Wilson: I want to take this opportunity to put some of the very clear reasons for setting up haemodialysis satellite stations in Collingwood and Alliston.

As I alluded to earlier, currently there is no consistency in dialysis care across this province. Some individuals travel hundreds of kilometres while others receive care in their homes. Some people have home helpers or nurses who are paid for by a hospital while other dialysis patients have to pay for their own home helpers. Most of the funding and services for dialysis patients in this province is centred south of Bloor Street in Toronto.

Satellites in communities would ensure that all individuals have the right to the same care that others are receiving and that provincial dialysis resources are used to their maximum potential. Better coordination of existing resources is the key to solving this problem. The creation of satellites in Alliston and Collingwood would act as a support and cement the role of Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital as a regional dialysis centre. Having the Orillia hospital as a regional centre also makes these satellites more doable, as Soldiers' is in an enhanced position to provide the needed clinical backups to these satellites.

I am not asking the government to spend new money or more money. The funds for the creation of satellites would merely necessitate transferring the money already being spent on Simcoe West patients in Toronto hospitals back to our local communities so we can apply a local solution to this problem.

Currently, there are two dialysis machines in each community, for a total of four: two in Alliston, two in Collingwood. These four machines are serving only four patients. These machines could dialyse all 10 identified dialysis patients in Simcoe West. Instead, would it not make more sense to have one machine each in Alliston and in Collingwood hospitals so that all 10 patients have access to dialysis treatments close to where they live?

Currently, there are funds allocated to pay for home helpers to assist two patients in my riding. My proposal would reallocate these labour costs. There is an outstanding commitment in the Collingwood community from service clubs to assist in defraying capital startup costs for the satellite and I am confident that a similar arrangement could be achieved in Alliston. When the final figures are broken down accurately, it is more cost-efficient to establish satellites in communities and facilitate the dialysing of patients close to home.

A large component to any health care system must be to care for patients in a humane fashion. It defeats the purpose of providing lifesaving dialysis treatments to patients if their health is allowed to deteriorate by having to travel long distances for care. Health care facilities must be more than just bricks and mortar. They have a moral obligation to provide care that is sensitive and timely to the needs of the patient. This is not achieved when patients are made to lose years off their lives by travelling huge distances for care.

The social costs of not responding to this problem are enormous. Many dialysis patients in my area are unable to keep a full-time job because they spend half of each week on the road travelling to receive treatment; therefore they are on social assistance.

1150

Common sense dictates that when dialysis machines and space in health care facilities are available in communities, it only makes sense to utilize them close to home rather than incurring additional physical and financial costs by sending patients outside of their own communities for care.

Establishing satellites in Alliston and Collingwood conforms to the government's own belief that health care services should be provided and delivered in a community-based setting. My resolution enables the government to more than talk about its belief in community-based care; it presents an opportunity to the government to act in a humane and decent manner on its already-stated preference for delivery of care.

In the last six weeks, or about the same time it took the Ministry of Health to find dollar figures for Simcoe West dialysis patients, the government has made two significant announcements regarding dialysis assistance. On October 29, the government announced funding to put 25 more people on haemodialysis on an out-patient basis at the Toronto Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. On November 25, the government announced it would fund 36 dialysis treatments a week in an independent out-patient clinic in Markham.

What is interesting about the latter announcement is that Markham is part of the central region which is currently being studied by the government. While the government suggests to me that proposals for the creation of satellites should wait until the study is completed, the Ministry of Health is creating a satellite in the very same region that I am told is under review and that that's why we can't move forward on this issue in my riding.

The 10% annual growth in dialysis patients indicates that enhanced action is needed to head off an impending crisis in dialysis services. The establishment of satellites in Alliston and Collingwood could serve as a blueprint to solve similar dialysis problems that are popping up in many communities across Ontario.

The mandate of any publicly funded health care system must be to meet the needs of the people who pay for it. Forcing patients to travel long distances, often under treacherous road conditions, undermines the spirit and the integrity of our provincial health care system. We cannot be satisfied with a system that merely pretends to apply a Band-Aid to the dialysis problem while at the same time creating another problem in the form of the stress and strain and social costs involved with patients having to travel long distances for treatment.

Satellites in communities meet every criterion of what health care should be. It is community-based care that is efficient, cost-effective, standardized and humane, not to mention that local satellites are the preferred option of care for dialysis patients themselves.

I'd like to take this opportunity to share with members the views of my constituents who have fought hard to make the health care system more responsive to their serious and very difficult medical condition.

Rick Mackenzie of Collingwood says: "I put 62,000 kilometres on my car in a year, all because all the dialysis resources are funnelled to Toronto. Why can't it be the other way around and have the resources north of Toronto?"

Doug Wallace of Collingwood tells me: "I had a dialysis unit in my home for a year and a half and then it was gone. Three months later, another unit was installed again. This represented $7,000 wasted by putting it in and then it taking it out." Kate Wallace, Doug's wife, believes that one machine for one person is the most expensive way to go.

Doug Usher of Alliston says: "I am not prepared to accept the alternative as proposed to me by the Toronto Hospital, which is driving to Orillia three times per week. At my age, 70, driving on Highways 400 and 11 in the wintertime is very hazardous."

Mr Owen Kells of Alliston believes, "If home dialysis is to be completely done away with in favour of installations in local-area satellites, such a satellite setup in our area would be of tremendous relief to those local patients otherwise condemned to service in Toronto or in Orillia."

My resolution is all about doing the right, commonsense, humane thing for dialysis patients who continue to be shuffled to Orillia or Toronto for the care they must have to remain alive.

By supporting my resolution, I firmly believe that all members of this House will also give hope to patients in their own communities who may be suffering the same hardships. This resolution represents hope and a belief that health care services are best delivered to patients in their home communities.

I am calling on the government to stop talking about studies and to start looking north of Toronto to provide remedies to this very real and threatening health care problem.

I want to thank one of the parliamentary assistants, Mr Larry O'Connor, the member for Durham York, one of the PAs to the Minister of Health, for expressing another part of the problem this morning, and that is the need for transplants.

I want to make it clear, though, that while the government is studying this issue in the central Ontario region -- and I see that as a roadblock, which I've made clear -- many of the patients currently in my riding are past the transplant stage. They will not qualify for transplants; they do not qualify because they are simply too sick.

Transplants are a big problem. It's something I know the ministry's working on. I have, as critic, attended many meetings on the issue over the past three years, and I am confident and do encourage people to sign the back of their driver's licence so that people don't get to this critical stage.

What I am trying to do as the member of provincial Parliament, though, is to deal with the realities in my riding. Reality dictates, and I am told by ministry officials, that we do have a very haphazard, rather crazy approach to dialysis. Does it make sense to have two machines in Alliston serving two patients when one machine located in the local hospital could serve all five patients?

I've discussed it with the patients. The two who have machines are willing to give them up and travel a very short distance to the hospital so that fairness can be applied and everyone in that community -- and the same in the Collingwood area -- can have access to this lifesaving treatment.

I want to thank the member for Simcoe East, my colleague, who on Tuesday celebrated 30 years in public life as an elected official. He spoke with wisdom in supporting my resolution this morning. He supported it because he knows of the hazardous winter conditions, he knows of what I speak, and he cares about the people in my riding and his riding and in Simcoe county.

I present to the government an opportunity to embrace a commonsense solution this morning. I ask that all members support this and that the follow-up action be taken so that satellite dialysis units are established in my riding.

PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SAFETY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It was not my intention to mislead the House in the resolution I presented, but as a result of further information that's come forward since the resolution was printed, I find it necessary to correct paragraphs 3 and 4 of the preamble.

Paragraph 3 says, "Since several Canadian manufacturers" etc. That should read, "Since several Canadian and foreign manufacturers". Paragraph 4 says, "Since many foreign companies" and should say, "Since some Canadian and foreign companies". That is the result of further information.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent that we make this correction? Agreed.

The time provided for private members' public business has expired. We will deal first with ballot item number 41 standing in the name of Mr Eddy. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Eddy has moved private member's resolution number 34. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 42 standing in the name of Mr Wilson. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Wilson has moved private member's resolution number 35. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1206.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Mr Wilson has moved private member's resolution number 35. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Carr, Cunningham, Eddy, Hansen, Harrington, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Martin, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, McLean, O'Neil (Quinte), Rizzo, Sterling, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Wiseman.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Akande, Bisson, Cooper, Haeck, Hope, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Perruzza, Sorbara, Sutherland, Waters, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 24; the nays are 15. I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN FORCES BASE TRENTON

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): As the festive season approaches, I rise to once again pay tribute to the men and women in the armed forces at 8 Wing/Canadian Forces Base Trenton under the command of Colonel Barry Krall, and the air transport group under the command of Brigadier General Jeff Brace.

These men and women have distinguished themselves because of the dedication and service they have provided for not only the people of Canada but also for the people throughout the world. Their humanitarian efforts worldwide -- relief projects, their support of ongoing peacekeeping and rescue missions -- make the residents of Quinte proud to have them as members of our area.

I ask the members of the Legislature to join with me in thanking them for their committed service to Canada and ask that you extend to them best wishes for the holiday season.

NATIVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Later today, I will be tabling petitions calling for further investigation into the death of a 16-year-old aboriginal boy in Smiths Falls.

In August, 1992, Teddy Bellingham was lured into an apartment and then beaten to death over a period of hours. At least five people stood by and watched, but did nothing to stop the murder.

It took a full year and an anonymous tip to police to uncover what had happened. His body was later found in a shallow grave north of Smiths Falls.

To date, one man has been charged with first-degree murder; three others are charged as accessories.

The government's handling of the case thus far is troubling, to say the least. Firstly, the Ministry of Community and Social Services has refused to go public with its investigation into why the boy's disappearance from his foster home was never reported to police. The ministry has cited the future criminal trials as a reason to keep secret its report about how the local children's aid society handled the boy's disappearance. I ask the Minister of Community and Social Services, how in the world could whatever the CAS did or didn't do for Teddy Bellingham affect the upcoming criminal trials?

Secondly, only four of the six witnesses who police believe watched the murder have so far been charged. The fact that no charges have been laid against some witnesses who acted as passive participants at the time and as silent conspirators in the year following the murder is a matter of outrage for residents of Smiths Falls, the native community and, I'm sure, residents across this province.

I urge the Solicitor General and the Attorney General to ensure all avenues have been pursued to bring the remaining people allegedly involved in this murder before the courts.

AGE DISCRIMINATION

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Today I want to speak about agism and the hideous form of discrimination that is. It seems to be getting worse, for there isn't a week that goes by when a very talented man or woman is cast aside, as one discards old clothes, from a position they've held for years.

Of course it's fair to say that energy levels tend to lower with the decades. It seems as if the bright-eyed recruits off the university press bring an eye as yet undimmed by cynicism to the positions previously held by older workers. What they don't bring is job experience.

If we discarded the obsession some companies have today that if you're over 50 the only place for you is the human scrap heap, then perhaps we could deal with the widespread misery prevalent today among older workers.

I would argue that if you have a lively personality, a capacity for new learning, many years spent at the university of life, not pridebound by routine or touched with prejudice, then notwithstanding the fact of being 50 years of age or older, you should stand your ground and demand to be given the opportunity to live your life to the fullest.

Discrimination due to age is gaining momentum in Ontario and it must be eliminated as we work to eliminate all other forms of discrimination in this province.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I want to inform this House, and through this place the people of the province, of a very serious matter which has arisen through the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This matter is one which is another blow, especially to the small business owners of the province.

We are all aware of the tremendous pressures that small business operators face each day. The economy and indeed the general cost of doing business are daily pressures put upon this sector. We all remember that last year the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations imposed a one-time $50 filing fee for each business. We all remember the impact this had on businesses struggling to exist in very difficult times.

Now I have a press release which says that last year's one-time filing fee is going to be an annual, yearly requirement, that the government is going to gouge $50 out of each struggling business every year.

Minister, you have provided to me the business fee schedule from each province, and guess what? Ontario has the single largest fee schedule for businesses in any province throughout the country. It's time to get real. Small businesses have the potential of creating more new jobs than your government ever will. Give them a chance. Repeal this fee.

MEDIA REPORTING

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On Tuesday of this week the Legislative Building was evacuated for two hours in response to two bomb threats. This followed Monday's threat involving the constituency office of the NDP House leader and Chair of Management Board. Brian Charlton stated that the threat against his office had to do with the now-infamous memo banning religious Christmas decorations from Ontario government buildings.

NDP Wentworth North MPP Don Abel and his assistant, Jane Mulkewich, the daughter of Burlington mayor Walter Mulkewich, went further to blame the threats directly on the Hamilton Spectator and CHML radio host Roy Green, who recently did an on-air talk show about the memo.

In a letter to the Spectator, Jane Mulkewich states, "When sensationalist media hype results in bomb threats, I feel it is time for the media to take a little more responsibility for its actions."

These kinds of inappropriate accusations remind us of similar ones made by Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, who made perfectly clear their dislike for the meddlesome media. They also reflect the worldwide socialist practice of repressive politics against a press that refuses to toe the party line but rather attempts to meet the challenge of protecting the most fundamental public freedoms of a democratic society.

Bomb threats are always to be taken seriously and must be dealt with responsibly. However, it was Don Abel and Jane Mulkewich who were being irresponsible in blaming the media for doing its job of reporting the news and all the news, whether it is flattering to this NDP government or not.

SEASON'S GREETINGS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Today I'd like to take 90 seconds to speak about members' statements. I understand that to run the operations of the Legislative Building during our sessions costs somewhere in the neighbourhood of about a quarter of a million dollars. If you were to compute that into what it costs per minute for members to stand up and make statements like I am right now, just depending on how you do your computation, it could be anywhere from maybe $500 to $1,000 per minute.

So I guess the statement I'm about to make probably is going to cost around $1,500, and now I only have a minute left and I know that at the end of my statement the Speaker will stand up and tell me that my time has expired.

But because this is nearing the end of the year and it's certainly the holiday season, I just want to take this opportunity to thank many of the people in the Legislative Assembly who help us do our jobs.

For example, I want to thank Hansard, who will be very disappointed today to note that I don't have a written report to give to you, so don't send me the little note that asks for one.

I want to thank the translation people, and I'll wave to them right now and say thank you very much, you do an excellent job.

I want to thank the security people who in this facility make sure that we are looked after very well with regard to our security, much to the disappointment, I guess, of many who would say that we make it too lax, but that allows all the people to come into the Legislative Building and into this chamber the opportunity to hear what we have to say.

I want to wish everybody the very best of the holiday season and a very prosperous new year. I know the Speaker's going to stand up right now and say that my time has expired.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

1340

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Many people in the province of Ontario are concerned with protecting and conserving environmentally sensitive lands. In the spring, the Ministry of Natural Resources cancelled the conservation lands tax program. This program assisted conservation authorities in paying land taxes on these sensitive lands. Some of these lands are in the Niagara Escarpment and in the Oak Ridges moraine. We are being told that as many as 18 conservation authorities will have to sell environmentally sensitive lands in 1994 in order to continue operating, given other government funding cuts and changes to government formulas.

The minister must undertake today to indicate forthwith the funding for the important work of the conservation authorities for 1994. The minister knows full well that the municipalities are now working on their budgets, as are the conservation authorities, and they need an answer now.

The Minister of Natural Resources was also presented earlier this year with a document from the conservation authorities with the potential to save Ontario taxpayers $100 million. The minister promised a response to the Blueprint for Success by October. It is now December. We're starting to see reindeer. We would like to see the Minister of Natural Resources come forward with a response to this plan of the conservation authorities and save our taxpayers $100 million.

MEMBER FOR SIMCOE EAST

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I am honoured to rise today to recognize a man who has served the people of Simcoe East for the past 30 years at both the municipal and provincial levels of government. Allan McLean was first elected to Oro township council in December 1963 and served eight one-year terms and six two-year terms in the positions of councillor and reeve, followed by one term as warden of the county of Simcoe.

Al campaigned in a total of 14 municipal elections and ended that segment of his political career with a record of 12 and two. He has won four provincial elections and was first elected as the member for Simcoe East in 1981.

Al held positions on every standing committee of the Legislature and chaired two committees during his 12 years at Queen's Park, as well as serving in the cabinet under Premier Frank Miller.

Al is one of the few politicians who can truly be called a constituency man, and he takes great pride in serving in that capacity. Al is an old-fashioned, grass-roots politician who practises his craft on a personal basis with his constituents and his colleagues here in the Legislature.

Al doesn't boast about his success. He considers it a compliment to himself if he can do something for someone else, and not just at election time. He is a textbook kind of representative in the political field, and all of this is accompanied by a sense of humour and an ability to be always with the people from all walks of life.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I can't for the life of me understand why the official opposition and the third party continue to criticize and condemn the NDP Jobs Ontario program. For example, let's take a look at Jobs Ontario Training. It's working, and working well. All one has to do is pick up the newspaper and read what people are saying about the program, or just switch on your TV set and hear what's being said.

Paul Tyndall from Innovative Automation Inc stated on CKVR-TV's Total News: "Jobs Ontario, the way we've seen it, is probably the first program that's really shown some direct benefits to employers in our industry. It has given us an opportunity to hire people that are looking for work that have a potential that can be trained for the technical skills that we require."

So, to my critical friends across the floor, the program is working, and working well, and not only in the Hamilton-Wentworth area but all across the province.

Recently in the Hamilton Spectator Michael Schuster was quoted as saying, "Increased employment so far this month has prompted more people to stop their welfare claims as employment schemes...such as the government's Jobs Ontario program...continue to kick in."

Frank Tilley, president of Tilley Canada, recently stated, "And it's a good program for the people we hire because they will get a long-term job -- and I think they can feel justifiably proud of the professionalism they will have achieved because of the training."

Finally, a November 2 headline in the Chatham Daily News said it all. It reads, "Jobs Ontario Gets People Working."

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Later today I will be introducing an omnibus bill on financial services reform in Ontario. When the financial services review was announced in October 1992, we promised credit union reform would be the first step. We are delivering on that commitment today.

It has been 17 years since the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act was first enacted. Almost a generation has passed and credit unions need to be able to serve their members better in a rapidly changing marketplace. Credit unions and caisses populaires need a modern regulatory system to strengthen their ability to serve their two million members and better contribute to community and economic renewal.

Throughout their history, credit unions and caisses populaires have served individuals and grass-roots enterprises that felt ignored by large financial institutions, but which provided jobs and services vital to their communities.

As locally based financial institutions, credit unions and caisses populaires can play a greater role in community economic development. In many small communities, the credit union or caisse populaire is the only financial institution in that community.

This bill will give credit unions and caisses populaires the powers they need to serve their members and communities more effectively.

The reforms will allow broader lending powers, especially in commercial lending. This will enable credit unions to do more to support small businesses, farms and cooperatives.

The reforms will help credit unions grow by allowing them to set up subsidiaries and to join with other credit unions in financing large projects.

The reforms will help credit unions gain access to new sources of capital by enabling them to sell shares to the public.

These reforms will support local economic development by allowing credit unions to put money into a wider range of investments such as joint ventures with other credit unions and community loan funds for small business.

These reforms allow credit unions to provide the kinds of services to compete on a level playing field with the larger financial institutions.

To strengthen the movement's stability, the bill will establish a self-help safety net so that credit unions themselves can help a credit union correct problems before they get any larger. These reforms will begin a new era for Ontario's credit unions and caisse populaires and their communities.

In the second part of this bill, we are updating the Insurance Act to provide a framework to ensure life insurance agents continue to be knowledgeable and well regulated in a changing marketplace.

This framework will enable us to introduce higher educational standards and two levels of licences and to establish a strict code of ethics and set out serious penalties for violating it.

It will also broaden agents' ability to offer the products of other insurance companies to better provide for the diverse needs of consumers.

The third part of the bill strengthens protection for investors in securities. These measures will further enhance confidence in Ontario's markets as a safe place to invest.

The bill amends the Securities Act to update the Ontario Securities Commission's powers to investigate alleged misconduct and to deal with misconduct when it is found. To make monitoring the conduct of participants more efficient and effective, we will also extend the OSC's authority to recognize and oversee self-regulatory organizations.

I want to close by thanking the representatives of each industry who worked with the government in developing these reforms. We look forward to continuing to work with the other parts of the financial services sector on reforming Ontario's rules.

I also want to thank the present House leader, the Honourable Brian Charlton, who launched this initiative about a year ago. He has been extremely helpful.

Present today in the members' gallery are representatives from the credit union and caisse populaire movement. It's a proud day for the government.

1350

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I know that I speak for all members of the Legislature and for all Ontarians in acknowledging the importance of International Human Rights Day, which people in many countries will celebrate tomorrow.

December 10 marks the 45th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights adopted in 1948 by the United Nations.

In the intervening years, Ontario and Canada have developed tremendously. We enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. We have mature democratic institutions. Our universal access to education and health care is envied in many parts of the world.

The people of Ontario take pride in these accomplishments, and this government is continuing to work towards the basic principle of the universal declaration: ensuring the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family.

We believe that to promote social justice and uphold human rights we must help provide all Ontarians with full opportunities to participate actively in our economy. We believe that to help develop a solid, diversified and globally based economy we must build a society that respects the rights of all residents and inspires them to make the most of their skills and their capabilities.

Since we took office more than three years ago, the Ontario government has worked on many levels to promote social justice and economic renewal. For example, the Ontario government was the first in Canada to sign a Statement of Political Relationship with the first nations in Ontario, formally recognizing the inherent right of the first nations to self-government.

We have increased public support for child care; we have committed to the most progressive pay equity program in North America; we have introduced measures and programs to improve accessibility in our public transportation system and provincial parks and to give people with disabilities more control over directing the programs and services that affect them.

As Minister of Citizenship, I have the honour to chair the new cabinet round table on anti-racism and responsibility for the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat. My ministry has brought in the Advocacy Act to assist vulnerable people to exercise their rights, freedom and autonomy. I have also witnessed the important work of the Ontario Human Rights Commission which continues under its new chief commissioner, Rosemary Brown.

I am looking forward to the commission eliminating its backlog of old cases by March 31, 1994. The commission has worked hard to become more effective and more efficient. As a result of such measures as the early settlement initiative, new cases are being resolved faster: 66% of new cases were resolved using the early settlement initiative in the first six months of this fiscal year, which is quite outstanding.

It is only fitting that today, on the eve of International Human Rights Day, we introduce for third reading Bill 79, our employment equity legislation.

We have taken every effort to consult with the people of Ontario in preparing legislation that is both pioneering and practical, fair and effective. By embracing the spirit of employment equity, employers and employees will help create workplaces that are more fair and productive and therefore beneficial to all Ontarians.

I am delighted that Bill 79 will be introduced for third reading in this assembly later today, and I thank the many people who have given so much of their time and energy to the development of this significant piece of legislation.

I know that they, along with members of this Legislature, will join me in calling upon all Ontarians to reaffirm this province's commitment to human rights here in Ontario and throughout the world.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's interesting on a day like today when we're winding down, so to speak, the legislative agenda, that we're confronted again by another piece of omnibus legislation, which seems to be the new tradition in this House.

I spoke yesterday with representatives of the credit unions and caisses populaires and indicated my very strong interest and what I expect will be the support of our caucus for new means of doing business for the caisses populaires and credit unions in this province.

I did confront them, however, with the new tradition in this place, which is to tie together in bills several aspects of unrelated material, although all falling under the same general ministerial area, which sometimes impedes our ability to actually get to the heart or the root of the intended legislation's valuable effect.

My concern is not so much with the credit union portion or the life underwriters' portion or the securities portion, as they are separate pieces of legislative initiatives, but more the fact that the government now views it as a real sort of manner of doing business, that it can put all of these things together in a way which has not really been contemplated in this place before. It's really changing the way we do business here.

I do have some concerns and I did speak to the people from the credit union movement yesterday about one concern I have, and that is the very nature, the philosophical backdrop for credit unions and cooperatives in this province. The whole issue of having a credit union or a cooperative being able to issue share capital for the benefit of a capital gain to those people who may or may not be members is a bit of a problem for me because you're not supposed to really make money on a capital investment in these particular organizations. You're supposed to collectively, through your combined operation, save money for all of the people, all of the members in a more equal fashion.

I raise that question philosophically and I will raise it again during our debates and ask how this may tend to convert the cooperatives and the credit unions into something a little different than what I think they were originally intended to be. I also indicated that perhaps that's not going to be a real impediment to the passage of this, but I want to note that this is a change in the direction of how credit unions and caisses populaires traditionally have operated in this province.

I have another couple of observations to make. While it is important to start someplace, and I appreciate that both the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Nickel Belt have begun with credit unions and have married then a couple of other smaller initiatives with this bill, there are other financial institutions in the province that would hope that the playing field can be levelled so that everybody is participating from an equal footing. I also mentioned this to the people with whom I spoke yesterday and I think that all of the people who are involved in financial institutions and the financial affairs around the province are probably interested in seeing that happen.

There is an interesting departure. I haven't yet seen the bill, but I understand that the bill will indicate that credit unions and caisses populaires will be able to sell insurance out of their branches, except that there will be regulation which prevents that at this particular time.

While we're looking for some kind of similarity between federal and provincial regulation, this is the flip side of the way that the banks are now handled federally, and I think there will be some confusion remaining out there in the field that will have to be explained quite explicitly by the Finance minister.

I stop there to allow my friend the member for Scarborough North to get a few words on the record about human rights day, but I can tell you that there will be interesting days ahead for our debate to take place.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too rise in recognition of December 10, which marks the 45th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights adopted in 1948 by the United Nations.

We continue to have a nation that is concerned about our children, the growing numbers who are children in poverty. We continue in our society to hear women who are disclosing daily the violation of their bodies and their minds in society, and we must take some action on that; minorities subjected to racism and discrimination, which is getting worse, and we must do something about that; and the disabled whose recognition is yet to be addressed adequately.

This year is the year of the aboriginal person. It should be a watershed for all of us, but promises are yet to be kept. I think we cannot stand very idly unless we make sure that we address those concerns of human nature.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): First of all, to the Minister of Finance: I wish I knew that the Minister of Finance has the best interests of everyone at heart when he starts making changes as he announced today.

Do you have the intention to make it difficult for the small credit unions to exist? Are the new regulations and guidelines going to make it next to impossible for them to carry on business in the province of Ontario? Has this government lost sight of the fact that people were looking for changes to the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. You talk about a level playing field for credit unions. What about the need also to review the legislation as it affects loan and trust companies in the province of Ontario?

1400

Trust companies as well are facing tremendous competition and are looking for ways to survive if the province of Ontario would at least begin to look at their needs. They have trouble in lending. They can't lend to businesses that have not been in business for more than five years. They can't give letters of credit. They can't give banking services to subsidiaries.

Why don't you, as Minister of Finance, look for a way in which all Canada comes together and we start having a national program where we have a reduction in the bureaucracy that we have in Ontario and find some way in which there's a national securities goal and all of Canada begins to be somehow guided by the same fundamental principles so that those who are in Ontario can benefit as well by what happens in other jurisdictions?

I see this bill as another omnibus attempt. It is a dangerous attempt where I hope the ministry and the government will be open to some lively discussion and debate as we look at trust companies, as we look at the small credit unions, as we look at the national scene and the bigger picture.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm disappointed that we in the House haven't more time to talk about human rights day and that there wasn't a special time for all parties to make a special statement on such an important issue. This is the anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

Forty-five years ago, the world was awarded the first opportunity to put an end to injustices against human rights. On December 10, 1948, the United Nations adopted a list of the fundamental freedoms to which all men, women and young people are entitled. Some of these freedoms include freedom from slavery and torture and arbitrary arrest and detention, the right to join a union, the right to own property and to vote, freedom of movement, the right to seek asylum in other countries, the right to a fair trial and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This declaration was the first step in the creation of an international machinery for the protection and promotion of human rights. The hope was that there would be no more war, that there would be no more pain and suffering, that there would be no more injustices to the human spirit.

In Ontario, we can celebrate this declaration. We enjoy the rights and freedoms founded in that declaration. We have used these rights as the cornerstone of our own Human Rights Code. We have taken the lessons of history and tried to put in place a system that tries to protect all of us from human rights violations.

The world is a different place today than it was in 1948, yet there is the same need for the protection of human rights. In fact, we need more.

Wars are raging in various parts of the world. Each night we see the atrocities of war in Yugoslavia, where many women and children are suffering at the hands of their captors. We see conflict in Ireland, Israel and South Africa. Human rights violations are rampant. Amnesty International is still fighting for the freedoms of political prisoners worldwide. There seems to be no end in sight.

In Ontario, we have all witnessed an increase in racially motivated crimes against individuals in our society. The Jewish people, the aboriginals and the various ethnic minorities are being verbally persecuted right here in our own province. Here we are today celebrating our freedoms and the belief that the United Nations declaration is working, but turn on the news each night and we can see otherwise.

What is the answer? Human rights violations should not be tolerated. We can talk about building tolerance and respect, but we can act out this thought. There are still many cases of systemic discrimination against women, children, visible minorities and people with different religious or cultural beliefs. Systemic discrimination also exists against the poor and underprivileged, yet actions like the riots on Yonge Street, the defacing of Jewish synagogues and attacks on visible minorities remind each of us that human rights violations still exist.

Today we recognize and honour the human rights declaration. Its principles are sound. The mandate is strong. Today, then, we must recognize that 45 years ago there was a need for this declaration. We share the same need. Let's begin once again to restore the respect for all members of our society worldwide.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the minister of financial institutions. Minister, it was a year ago that there were three different actuarial studies, all of which found that insurance premiums would indeed go up as a result of the legislation that you were imposing to change the car insurance legislation. You insisted at the time that your legislation would not cause premium increases, that it could all be managed without an increase in premiums.

Today, as I'm sure you know, the Insurance Bureau of Canada has said that the average car owner in Metropolitan Toronto will face a $100 increase in their insurance premiums. Minister, what happened to your claim that this legislation could be implemented without any increase in premiums?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): It would appear that the leader of the official opposition has been missing for a few months. Several months ago, we made the announcement that the OIC, the Ontario Insurance Commission, would be allowing the insurance industry in this province, on its automobile insurance book, to make application for up to 5% increases associated with the implementation of Bill 164.

There was a fairly extensive discussion that went on in July of this year in the media and publicly around the cost increases that some were predicting, and even the information which is out there today, when you get past the headlines, sets it all out fairly clearly, that the industry is taking 5% or less in association with Bill 164.

There are some other costs in the system, like the 5% tax which was imposed by the Treasurer in the budget, which has nothing to do with the auto insurance legislation, and there is also about 7% in increases associated with the legislation which the Liberal government passed in 1990. All of the insurance industry analysts openly admit that the vast majority of the cost increases being imposed at this point are a result of the existing Liberal legislation.

Mrs McLeod: My question of the minister was how he reconciles what he said a year ago about not having any premium increase with the clear evidence that premiums are now going up an average of $100, but I guess it's another case of, "That was then, this is now." You don't have to reconcile the commitments you made a year ago with what is actually happening today. It's no longer relevant.

Minister, we know very well what is happening. We're well aware that there are companies that can apply for a 7% increase in their premiums because of the additional costs. We are also aware that the auditor has in fact commended the insurance commission for its regulation of the industry. That seems to be a legitimate application on the part of some companies. But the other factors that are bringing about the $100 increase in premiums are directly related to what your government has done.

We are seeing premiums go up by 5% because of your legislation and we're also seeing premiums go up by 5% because of the tax that you imposed last spring on car insurance premiums. So, Minister, your government alone is responsible for imposing a 10% increase in insurance premiums.

I'll tell you what I've been doing. I've been talking to a lot of people who are frustrated and angry. This represents over 30,000 letters that we have received from people who are upset about the kinds of increases they are facing because of your tax alone, and I want to just give you a flavour: "I object strongly to being taxed on an item which is a compulsory and not a voluntary purchase. I've already been forced to sell my car because of the high costs. Don't even think of raising one more tax dollar."

Minister, how could you have added new taxes to car insurance at the same time that you knew very well you were passing legislation that was going to increase premiums on its own? Instead of hitting car owners twice, why don't you at least repeal this regressive tax?

Hon Mr Charlton: The Leader of the Opposition has dealt again with two issues, the tax issue and the Bill 164 issue. She started out her question by referring to commitments that I made a year ago, when in reality she was referring to commitments that I made two years ago, in December 1991 when I introduced Bill 164. Then she tried to roll into the commitment that I made 5% taxes which were introduced in May of this past year, which had nothing to do with any commitment this minister had ever made to anybody. The issue of the tax is a real issue. It is a net cost to the consumers in this province, but it has nothing to do with the automobile insurance legislation around which this minister has made commitments.

1410

The passage of two years has added some costs, but it's time that the Leader of the Opposition lived up to and admitted publicly to the mistakes that the Liberal government made in respect to auto insurance in this province. The 7% that she refers to is directly related to the cost of their insurance package. The insurance industry has said, and said clearly, that Bill 164 will reduce the future costs of pressure that would have resulted because the Liberals failed to deal adequately with the implementation of change in this province.

Mrs McLeod: There is absolutely no confusion on this side of the House. In February 1992, and it is in Hansard, this minister said that indeed the costs of the new legislation on insurance could be about 4.8%, close to 5%, but that it could be handled without an increase in premiums. Knowing that, this government brought in a 5% increase through a tax on insurance premiums, and that adds up now to a total of 10% that this government has imposed in increased car insurance premiums.

The people who are writing to us, the people who are calling our constituency offices, are frustrated and they're angry about the taxes, and they are going to be even angrier when they see those premiums go up in January.

I give you just one more example of somebody who has written to me and said: "How is it that new rules end up increasing insurance costs? I would have expected a decrease. Am I the only one who is confused?"

The anger, the frustration, the confusion out there is widespread. The cost that this government is imposing is hitting car drivers across the province, whether they are young drivers, seniors, truck drivers or taxi drivers. Minister, I ask you, if you are not prepared to repeal your tax on insurance, will you repeal Bill 164 before it's too late, or are you determined to impose this 10% increase in premiums on drivers of this province?

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, the Leader of the Opposition has asked two questions. She's asked me whether I'm prepared to repeal the tax. I think that's a question she could more properly put to the Minister of Finance at some point. But she also asked me if I was prepared to repeal Bill 164.

It's time the Leader of the Opposition and the other members of this House started to understand some of the facts. Without the passage of Bill 164, without the passage of the cost control mechanisms contained in that piece of legislation, cost control mechanisms that were negotiated in a task force with the insurance industry and accident victims in this province, the costs of auto insurance in 1994 would have gone up between 10% and 15%. We've limited that increase, even with the tax, to far less than what their package would have imposed on the people of this province, and the insurance company executives in this province are prepared to say that publicly.

OPP INVESTIGATIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. On numerous occasions in this House, my colleagues and I have raised the issue of the government using the understaffed and often cash-strapped OPP as a political police force for the government of Ontario, a police force compelled to harass and intimidate opposition members and representatives of the news media as well as civil servants at the behest of your administration.

Yesterday, Richard Brennan of the Windsor Star and Jim Coyle of the Ottawa Citizen were interrogated in their offices in this building by the anti-rackets branch of the OPP about their acquisition of documents embarrassing to your government. Do you remember those documents? They were the documents that said the real aim of your casinos was to get at middle- and low-income people instead of the high rollers.

Mr Premier, this question is for you, not for anybody else. Why does your government continue to silence opposition to your administration with the use of the Ontario Provincial Police?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can honestly say to the honourable member that I don't know the first thing about this -- the idea that the OPP would carry out whatever investigation it would feel was necessary in whatever circumstances were there. I don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Bradley: Over the past several months the Ontario Provincial Police, on instructions from the Premier's government, has interrogated Liberal MPPs Murray Elston and Barbara Sullivan because they received documents embarrassing to you and your government. That same Ontario Provincial Police has harassed members of the news media who have dared to be critical of your administration.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Bradley: I know that you and your staff have complained bitterly about the coverage you have received in the popular media, and that's reflected in Detective-Sergeant Morris Elber's comment to Mr Brennan that says the following, "Oh yeah, you're the negative one."

I know that you have been concerned about that and that your handlers have been concerned about the kind of coverage that you've had, but do you not believe in freedom of the press, and do you not believe that this freedom is diminished by the police interrogation of reporters right in this building?

Hon Mr Rae: There's no stronger defender of freedom of the press than this Premier and this government. I would only say to the honourable member that I will take his question as notice and ask that there be some explanation provided. But I can honestly say to the honourable member that I have absolutely none.

Mr Bradley: I wish this were the first time this question was directed to the Premier, but it's one of many questions to the Premier. Since the government has introduced with a good deal of fanfare a bill called Bill 117, a bill which allows for whistleblowing provisions -- in other words, civil servants allowed to pass information along without intimidation from the government -- and since it states the following, that the boss -- in this case, that would have to be the Premier who is the boss of all the government -- cannot coerce, intimidate or harass, or attempt to coerce, intimidate or harass an employee who has done this, how can the Premier square what has happened to these two reporters and other reporters and members of the opposition with Bill 117, which says that employees should have the right to provide that information valuable to the public?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only respond to the honourable member that there's one thing in his question and in the way in which he's framed the question which I've said on other occasions when it's been asked, which I find truly offensive in the way in which he's framed the question -- he's been around in this House long enough to know exactly what he's doing. I know exactly what he's doing and everyone knows exactly what he's doing.

The allegation that you are making that this Premier or that any member of this cabinet had anything to do with that investigation has absolutely no foundation. If you had an ounce of integrity, you'd stand up and say that there's nothing been directed at us. You have none.

The Speaker: New question, third party. The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville with his question.

1420

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I guess the Premier forgets his comments during the Joan Smith affair, but in any event I'm going to ask the Solicitor General a question along these lines. The Premier indicated he knew nothing about this, yet he's quite certain that no one in his government had a hand in what took place, which is passing strange to say the least.

The Solicitor General is responsible for the Ontario Provincial Police in this province. I am assuming, Minister, that you are aware of the recent press reports in respect to the interrogation that took place of Mr Brennan and Mr Coyle. Can you indicate to the House and to the members of the public in Ontario just what crime the police were investigating?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat.

The Solicitor General.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Given the nature of the previous question, and I'll gladly take a further question from the honourable member, I think that an answer would more likely satisfy him should it come from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in this regard.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): It really is appropriate that I answer that question, and I think the Liberal member knew that when he asked the question as well. This is not the first time that this issue has come up in this House. If you will recall, a little while ago when the selection committee and the project team was in the process, in a very sensitive process, of selecting the final operator for the government-run casino, some documents went missing.

My deputy minister, who is the head of the casino project, was concerned, as she should have been, that these sensitive documents went missing and decided to ask the OPP to investigate not only why the documents were missing, but also to look at the security systems and make sure that they were adequate. In my view, it was the most appropriate action to take, given the sensitivity of the process at that time.

Interjection.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Well, what would you do, Chris?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Well, it was a nothing document. The minister said so at the time. She said it was a nothing document.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: At the outset in my supplementary I want to express concern about the minister responsible for the Ontario Provincial Police passing this question off. It appears there's no system of accountability in respect to these kinds of political investigations within the government, when the minister responsible for the police apparently was unaware of what took place here in terms of the facts of the case.

Going back to the minister who indeed answered the question in a totally unsatisfactory manner, she herself said this was an inconsequential meeting. She said that the matters, when they were revealed by my House leader, were insignificant and unimportant. Yet she stands up in the House today and says that it's totally appropriate for her deputy minister to instruct the police to go into interrogations of members of the media. Some of the things they said in respect to the media I will get into in my final supplementary.

My question to the minister is, how in the world do you justify saying in this House to my House leader that those documents were insignificant and unimportant, and on the other hand say that this interrogation of members of the media was totally justified? How do you answer that?

Hon Ms Churley: To go back in history a little bit, what I said at the time about that document was that fortunately it turned out that the contents of that particular document did not in any way interfere with the integrity of the process which was taking place. However, the fact that the document went missing was of significant concern, given the sensitivity of the process. In particular, it was necessary to review the security of the process and also to try to find out how that document went missing. The OPP were called in to have a look at that. It is the responsibility of the OPP to determine who they interview in the course of their investigation, not the minister and not I.

Mr Runciman: My initial question was, what crime was suspected here? I don't think that's been adequately answered.

This appears to be a witch hunt to save the government some embarrassment. I want to say that it's an outrage, and I'm not saying that for political reasons. I am the critic for the Ministry of the Solicitor General. I know what's happening across the province in terms of policing. We don't have 24-hour coverage in many areas. You're closing down detachments in rural Ontario. Yet you've got police to do this sort of a job and your Solicitor General doesn't even know about it. Come on.

I want the minister to stand up in the House today and apologize to Mr Brennan, apologize to Mr Coyle, apologize to the people of Ontario for using the police for political purposes.

Hon Ms Churley: This has got to be one of the silliest, most ridiculous questions that we have ever heard in this House. I think the members opposite have a responsibility to their constituents and to the members in this House to at least ask reasonable questions.

His question is based not at all on the facts, and he knows it. He would be the first one to be screaming for us to abort the process that we were involved in for choosing the final operator had sensitive documents gone missing. He would be the first one to be crying that the process is lacking in integrity. He would be the first one. That party would be the first one to be calling on us to cancel the process.

We did the right thing under the circumstances. I'm happy to say that we have chosen the final operator. The process was aboveboard and everybody is talking about the integrity of that process. That was the most important aspect, that we keep the integrity and honesty of that process in place.

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

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): So the documents leak had nothing to do with the process. They were only embarrassing to the government --

The Speaker: To whom is your second question is directed?

Mr Harris: -- and for that we call in the OPP. The people being investigated --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. I recognized the leader of the third party in order to place the second question.

WCB STAFFING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Labour. It is my understanding, Minister, that six senior executives at the WCB were fired earlier today. It's also my understanding that two individuals have already been promoted at the WCB to fill the vacant positions: Miss Linda Jolley and Miss Cathy Rellinger. Both of these women were former staff members of the OFL. Minister, can you confirm this information and tell us who was responsible for the decision to further politicize the management of the WCB?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Perhaps the minister's colleagues would allow him to respond to the question.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm surprised at the concern expressed by the leader of the third party. They seem to be after us almost on a daily basis to start doing things to try to meet some of the difficulties we have at the board. We've been doing exactly that.

The board makes the decision. I reject outright his contention that there was any political intent in any of the appointments. I want to tell him very clearly that the reorganization of the bipartite board responds to the recommendations of the report that came from the task force on service delivery and vocational rehabilitation, as well as the board's own operational plan.

Mr Harris: The WCB has an unfunded liability of $12 billion. Businesses will have to close their doors or lay off workers because they can't afford the astronomical rate hikes you're bringing in.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): What about the injured workers, Mike?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Downsview.

Mr Harris: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know they're rowdy and tough to control, those NDP members.

Your hand-picked vice-chair has been in conflict with the Provincial Auditor over a $180-million imperial palace.

1430

Mr Perruzza: What about respect for injured workers?

The Speaker: The member for Downsview is asked to come to order.

Mr Harris: Now we have six senior executives being replaced with NDP cronies.

Minister, what more has to happen before you finally wake up? Will you review the decision to promote your NDP friends and ensure that all promotions or changes at the WCB are based upon the principles of sound turnaround management and expertise and not a pork-barrelling carousel?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): If we did that retroactively, there'd be a lot more changes.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Shut up.

I just want to say that I reject totally and find unfortunate the kind of attacks and character assassination that come from the leader of the third party. I want him to know very, very clearly that some members of senior management have notified the WCB vice-chair of administration of their intention to take advantage of the retirement, the 80 factor. Others have announced their intent to pursue other occupations. I want to tell him also very, very clearly that we don't make the changes there; they're made by the board. I want him to know also that the new senior management of the board will continue to enhance the board's commitment to continued improvements in service delivery, which was what was behind this, and financial and fiscal responsibility. It really is an organizational streamlining of the board, which I thought they'd been calling for for some time.

Mr Harris: Minister, I've been telling you for some considerable period of time that you need turnaround management at the WCB, and that means at the top. That means turnaround management at the top. Not only have you not done that, but your two most senior political hacks at WCB are further infusing politics into the entire Workers' Compensation Board. I'm telling you that it is time to quit playing politics at the WCB. Will you sack Mr Di Santo, will you sack Mr King before they do any more damage and will you bring in professional senior management with insurance executive expertise to replace these two political hacks at the top?

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oxford, order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: What this government is doing and what we're attempting to do now, in any way that we can help the board, is to see that we resolve some of the problems that have been there since his time and as well some of the deficit that's built up since his government was in power. I reject outright, and it's not even worthy of a response, to talk about those kinds of hacks who are put in these kinds of positions, because it simply isn't true and that's not the way we operate.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is also to the Minister of Labour, following up on the question that he was just asked. I was interested to see the exchange when the Minister of Municipal Affairs said, and it will probably show in Hansard, that had it been retroactive, there would have been a lot more changes. The Minister of Labour turned to him and said, "Shut up." Interesting; I wonder what he's worried about.

Minister, this purge that went on this morning at the Workers' Compensation Board, we understand it was five of the six senior vice-presidents who were purged. We think they're the wrong people. You purged the senior vice-president of finance, Bob Coke; you purged the senior vice-president of client services, Sam Van Clieaf; you purged the senior vice-president of human resources, Sig Walter. Two other vice-presidents, Henry McDonald and George Picken, were given the axe this morning. Your pal your former colleague Odoardo Di Santo replaced them with two of your colleagues, two long-time friends of the NDP. That is very clear.

Employer groups are calling this morning saying that they are concerned about these purely partisan appointments to the Workers' Compensation Board senior positions and that they fear they will have no more say in the goings on at the Workers' Compensation Board. Minister, how do you justify firing long-term loyal employees to put in place your own political supporters?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I may owe my colleague an apology, but I'd just as soon not have the heckling from either side of the House when we're trying to answer serious questions.

I simply want to say to the member across the way, that you only have to be a member responsible for my ministry in this House to know that one of the issues that has been raised in this House for some 15 or 20 years, and has been a problem, is the Workers' Compensation Board. That is something we are now trying to deal with. Both the officers who are now leaving for other purposes and the current officers who are there, I am convinced, are doing the best they can to try to turn this around. I think some real progress is being made.

I want to put the recommendations specifically again, the reorganization response to the recommendations in the report from the task force on service delivery and vocational rehabilitation, as well as the WCB's own operational plan. I think they're on the right track.

Mr Mahoney: Minister, we're going to be interested to find out what the financial implications are to letting five senior vice-presidents go on a Thursday morning just out of the blue. We're also going to be very interested to see the position develop of the partisan hack you've appointed now as a vice-president in charge of strategic policy and implementation, human resources and client appeals. It appears that Linda Jolley will not only be the gatekeeper for the OFL; she'll be superwoman at the WCB.

Minister, the fact of the matter is that Odoardo Di Santo is purely politicizing the senior people at the Workers' Compensation Board, just as you have already done in government with the appointment of David Agnew, Michael Decter, Jeff Rose and others. Since you've taken office, we have seen the blatant, continuing politicization of the Ontario public service, and now you are politicizing the WCB at the highest level.

Minister, the question is very simple. There is no confidence in the Workers' Compensation Board; there is no confidence in your chairman, Odoardo Di Santo. How can you expect business and employer groups to have any confidence in the administration of the WCB with these further appointments, and what does appointing your political friends have to do with addressing the real workers' compensation issues of 25%-plus rate increases and a $13-billion unfunded liability?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Every time I hear about this unfunded liability, which is one of the problems that I'm the first to admit to, it seems to go up by another $1 billion. I would say it's $11.4 billion, not $13 billion.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It was $11.4 billion in 1992, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

1440

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I find it strange that the opposition is usually telling us that we're not doing anything. They seem to be arguing now for the status quo when we are trying to make serious efforts --

Mr Mahoney: Fire Di Santo.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- to get a hold of the problem at the board. That's exactly what we're doing --

Mr Mahoney: You fired the wrong people. You put hacks in charge.

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

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- and exactly what we intend to continue to do.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview is cautioned. Come to order.

ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the day after the Provincial Auditor raked your government over the coals for its permissive accounting policies, the credible and widely circulated investment newsletter published by High Frequency Economics noted that last year's provincial deficit was $12.4 billion, not the $11.9 billion reported by you.

As reported in today's Toronto Star, the editor of the newsletter went on to say: "We believe this recasting of history must raise the starting point for estimating this year's fiscal deficit. Ontario's creditworthiness remains a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode."

Before this bomb blows up in your face and blows our credit rating out of the water, would you tell us if you remain the only person in this House or in this province or in the international investment community who believes that the deficit for this fiscal year is the $9.5 billion as reported in the second-quarter update, or would you care to share with the House a revised estimate that has at least some connection with reality?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): We have said all along that the Provincial Auditor's requests would be complied with. I said it to him personally at a meeting, I put it in writing to him and, as a matter of fact, he expressed in his report his appreciation of our response to his request.

Secondly, he admitted in the report that changing an accounting system, which he is asking us to do, asking us to change from the way the Conservatives did it previously and the Liberals did it previously to a new system of accounting, is an arduous and time-consuming task. I agree with that. We've said to him, and he understands better than you do, I think, that we are indeed moving to the way he wants us to report our financial statements. You will indeed see that happen. I think you'll understand it as long as you don't spend too much time taking advice from the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Cousens: I understand a lot of things. I know I asked a question a minute ago and you didn't answer it. That's what's happening around here. I'm asking you to own up and admit to the fact that this $9.5-billion proposed deficit really isn't the case. I gave you a chance just now, before I started to go after you, to come along and tell us the truth, because no one is fooled by your creative accounting. The taxpayers aren't fooled, the member from Etobicoke isn't fooled, the public isn't fooled, the international investors aren't fooled.

Earlier today, my office spoke to the author of the newsletter and he told us that there are concerns over this government's ability to manage the problem and that the downgrade of our credit rating we just had was really the first warning that this government has to clean up its act.

We're in a sinking boat. It's filling up with water. There are so many leaks that you can't bail fast enough to keep this government afloat. Don't blame the federal government if it comes along with a big speedboat and gives you a little wave to deal with. The ship of state in Ontario is in trouble. Ontario is facing a serious financial crisis. When will you gain control of Ontario's financial situation and provide us and the entire investment community with a solid action plan?

Hon Mr Laughren: I must say I was aware of the report to which the member for Markham refers. I would like to offer him some serious reassurances that when we took a look at the Ontario finances about a year ago now and into the spring of 1993, we were very much aware that we were headed for real difficulty with the size of the Ontario deficit. It was indeed going to go to about $17 billion this year. We said that is completely unacceptable; that is not the level of deficit which this province and its taxpayers can sustain.

That's why we have put in place an expenditure control plan that took $4 billion out of committed spending for this year, why we invoked the Social Contract Act to save $2 billion on public sector compensation and brought in tax increases, which I know you didn't like but which at the same time raised almost $2 billion.

By doing that, we are putting Ontario on a sound financial basis, with a revenue base that will allow us to continue to provide the essential services in health care, education and other public services that we think the public in this province deserves.

BENEFITS FOR OLDER WORKERS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question today is for the Minister of Labour. On November 5, I met with a group of injured workers from my constituency who are disabled from their occupations and have at best a small pension from the Workers' Compensation Board. This group is here today in the public gallery. These people are living in poverty, relying on Canada pension plan disability or on welfare for survival. They told me that the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee has broken down and will not propose changes to the Workers' Compensation Act.

In order to relieve the poverty of injured workers living on old-age pensions or deemed wages, will the Minister of Labour introduce a bill now to amend the Workers' Compensation Act, an amendment which would increase the pensions of older injured workers in order to relieve some of the poverty while the government grapples with the long-term problems of comprehensive reform of this system?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I do appreciate the question. It's a serious one, because what the member for York East has indicated is one of the real concerns out there in the constituent community of the Workers' Compensation Board: the question of older workers' pensions. There is a group of workers who are at the bottom end of the ladder in terms of the pensions and who are not receiving anywhere near a living wage and are not likely to be able to work again.

One of the things we tried to do with the PLMAC was to call together the business leaders as well as the union leaders and present two or three of the key problems -- the older worker pension was one of them; the unfunded liability was another -- to see if we could reach some agreement. That process, while not finished, does not offer an awful lot of hope at the moment of being successful. We still haven't had the formal report back from the labour side. We've heard from the business side: It dealt with the unfunded liability but not with the question of older workers' pensions; indeed, the recommendations there were ones of cutting benefits that currently exist.

What we are trying to do now is see if there is some way to put together a package or whether we have to go out for a broader investigation of this whole issue. The decisions on that are decisions the government will have to make in the very near future.

1450

Mr Malkowski: Will the Minister of Labour then include in that bill an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act that will effectively eliminate deeming, a job the minister announced he was setting out to do in his statement to the Legislature on December 19, 1990, because it in essence punishes those who need help the most.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I guess to a large extent that depends on whether or not we can bring the parties together on any kind of agreement on some steps that might be taken, or whether we will end up having to look at something like a royal commission. We are still struggling with that issue and attempting to come in with some recommendations that would not see us having to wait till we got such a commission report, which might take a year or two.

LAYOFF OF CLAIMS INSPECTORS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to Minister of Northern Development and Mines. We have been made aware of some information which questions your integrity and conduct. You have recently come under attack for your decision to lay off eight ministry claims inspectors. To defend yourself, you told the media that the decisions were made after consultations with the mining industry, but your own ADM has admitted that there were actually never any consultations made.

This is the second time you have been accused of making false statements to protect yourself from public criticism. Can you tell the House how you reached the decision to lay off eight claims inspectors from your ministry, and who were the ministry officials you consulted with before this decision was made?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Yes, I certainly can, and I thank the member for the question. There are several things I want to say.

First of all, since I've been here, I've made it a point with the political staff and the bureaucratic staff to discuss with our mining clients on a ongoing basis their needs, both with respect to these difficult times and some of the priorities that the ministry should have in responding to those same needs. Some of those client groups include the OMA, the PDAC, OMEP, Save our North, and my own Mining Act advisory committee.

As a consequence of those discussions, we have internally a very clear understanding of what programs and what policies are essential for our mining clients and those which, when faced with difficult economic times, we feel we can do without and our clients can do without.

During the ECP process, based on that internal knowledge we have, I made the decision that we needed to protect our OGS mapping, for example, the OPAP and OMIP grants, and that the mine claims inspection program which was referred to in the article did not have a requirement to have dedicated staff but that those staff could do other things within the ministry and still maintain disputes.

Normally, as with any other change we make in the ministry, we choose a select group of staff and clients that we have confidence in to give us an accounting of whether or not those changes can work. In this case, with respect to this program, I am advised, as a consequence of the article which appeared, that this did not happen due to the request of confidentiality that myself and every other minister had with respect to the ECP changes.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Miss Martel: The point I want to make is that based on the fact that we had to make cuts, there were a number of areas we felt we could not change. There were some we thought we could, which would be the least difficult for our clients, and the mines inspection claims program is one of those.

Mr Miclash: You have admitted that there was no consultation. This issue is about your government's standards and about what is acceptable behaviour of you and other ministers of the crown.

The facts of the matter are quite clear. On October 25, the Timmins Daily Press quotes you as saying, "We have made these cuts after consulting with the industry, and we think these are the kindest cuts we could have made," but in the December issue of Northern Ontario Business, your ADM, John Gammon, said no consultation took place. He says: "I wish that I had had the opportunity to do that. I frankly couldn't consult with my staff either. As you can imagine, rumours were flying thick and fast. The nature of the exercise is not one that allowed for consultation." Your assistant deputy minister said that after you said to the press that you had consulted. We have also checked with the Ontario Mining Association, which has confirmed that there was absolutely no consultation before the announcement.

Minister, has the Premier now given you carte blanche to say whatever you want without any reference to the truth? How can the public have confidence in anything you or your government have to do or say from this point on?

Hon Miss Martel: I think I made it very clear in my first response to the member what happened, and I'll repeat it again. We know, after at least a year and a half of my being here, because I consult with my client groups on a regular basis and because my political staff and bureaucratic staff do, what programs we can look to cut if we have to and what are the programs, policies and functions that are invaluable to our client groups that they cannot live without.

During the ECP process, that knowledge we have in the ministry of what we can live with and what our clients can live with and what they cannot live with was used to determine which cuts we should make. During any other process we have in terms of changing our legislation or making changes to programs, we have a select group of ministry staff and of clients that we run those changes by in order to get their best view of it.

In this case, we did not do that with respect to this program --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Miss Martel: -- because of the nature of the cuts and the request for confidentiality for all the cuts that were to be made. I regret that was the process that was used, but I made the determination, based on all the knowledge I have of my client groups --

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Miss Martel: -- that a cut in this program was the best thing we could live with, given the cuts we had to make, and the best thing the industry could live with, given the cuts we had to make.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the minister responsible for automobile insurance. Minister, there's an ad running on the radio now, sponsored by Kingsway General Insurance Co, and it says that after January 1 a new auto insurance plan is coming to Ontario. The ad tells people that if they're injured in an accident after January 1 they will not be able to claim any longer for their loss of income. The ad goes on to say that if someone is killed in an accident, their family will not be able to claim for the loss of income that's sustained by reason of the fatal injury. The ad is predicated upon the fact that all you get is whatever the accident benefits pay you.

The ad goes on to say that if you purchase extra coverage, it might cost you as little as $36 a year to protect any income that you might lose. I assume that is the economic loss endorsement, and I wonder if you could confirm that and explain how that plan will work.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Let me start my response by saying that although I haven't heard the ad myself, I assume the member opposite is correct. The additional coverage which the ad is referring to is, in my view, nothing other than the excess economic loss endorsement which the insurance industry and the legal community in this province sat down and worked out at my request over the course of the last several months, which we've now put into the regulation that will be implemented on January 1.

That excess economic loss endorsement will allow people whose incomes are rather large, beyond the range that's fully covered by the legislation of $1,000 a week, to purchase additional coverage. But people should be extremely clear before they go running out to buy that coverage that 95% of the people in this province are fully covered by the basic plan up to $1,000 a week in terms of income levels. This economic loss endorsement was for those whose incomes would leave them perhaps at risk because they were far above the basic coverage in the plan.

1500

Mr Harnick: It's my understanding that in addition to that, this will cover children who might be very badly injured in accidents, who lose their competitive ability to work and to earn the potential they would have had, had they not been injured.

What concerns me, Minister, is the fact that if someone's on their way to a new year's party on December 31 and unfortunately is involved in an accident, they will be treated in a different way from someone on their way home from the new year's party who is injured in an accident.

What I'm concerned about is that no one in this province seems to know that on January 1 we have a new insurance scheme that is going to provide new kinds of benefits, including the excess economic loss. What I'm wondering is whether you as minister plan to inform the province by way of radio ads, television ads or newspaper ads that we do have a new plan, that we do have coverage for excess economic loss in the event of a fatality or loss of income, or that will cover children who are catastrophically injured in serious accidents. I'm wondering if you can tell us what plan you propose to implement to inform the public of the new insurance scheme, including the excess loss endorsement.

Hon Mr Charlton: The member raises an important question. In terms of the information that's being prepared for the public, it's proceeding on a number of fronts. The member mentioned media advertisement. There will be some media advertising in the newspapers and in other forms of media. But in addition to that, the insurance commission has been working with the insurance industry to agree on inserts that will be in the renewals that go out to people over the course of the weeks and months ahead. Not only will there be advertising, which some people do and others don't see; there will be specific information available to people in the renewal packages, information which has been agreed on between the industry and the insurance commission itself.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The Highway 11 corridor is the main transportation link in Cochrane North, connecting Cochrane, Smooth Rock Falls, Kapuskasing, Hearst and several other smaller communities. It is also the only highway accessible to these communities for transporting industrial and household goods.

There have been many concerns raised with the frequency of vehicular traffic accidents and fatalities along these roads. The mayors and reeves and some of the school boards have written me letters and phoned me and asked me if I could raise this with the Ministry of Transportation: Are there any immediate plans to upgrade or widen Highway 11 to address these safety concerns?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I appreciate the concern and the representation by the spokesperson, ombudsman, representative of that special part of Ontario. I'm a neighbour, by way of political geography, of my good friend Mr Wood, who diligently, almost on a daily basis, reminds me of what the reeves and mayors and citizens in his special part of Ontario, in our special part of Ontario have been saying.

The focus here is between the township of Hearst and the city of North Bay. We wish we had the possibility to four-lane, to six-lane. The traffic patterns and volume do not warrant it, but what we're committed to doing to reduce not only fatalities but the chance of accidents is to put a system in place, physically build 29 passing lanes at nine-kilometre intervals and to do all that before 1998.

We have shovels in the ground. Count them. They're happening in a neighbourhood near you right on Highway 11 between Hearst and North Bay.

Mr Wood: My concern is, what are the construction plans that can be announced at this time?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The truth is often found in simplicity or by way of a simple, direct answer. This project is not sponsored by the Ministry of Transportation. He's just made the announcement. He's talking about $600,000.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Get the hook.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You'll get a refund.

He's talking about 29 passing lanes. Those announcements are following through. They're happening this summer, the next construction season, for the next five years at different intervals. We're consistent. It's a reasonable cost. It shall be done.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a follow-up question from yesterday to the Deputy Premier concerning Ontario Hydro. I know that in relation to his accessing the teachers' pension funds, there was a re-evaluation of some non-marketable assets into a marketable value so that he could increase the value of that pension plan. I understand that currently studies are going on inside Hydro so that it can access pension plan money as well to assist it in stabilizing it in its financial situation.

I ask the Deputy Premier, does he support that plan by Hydro to access pension plan funds to allow it to stabilize Hydro the way he has tried to use teachers' pension funds to stabilize his government's finances?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): You're not going to trick me with that question. Ontario Hydro is looking at a number of proposals to try to stabilize their financial situation. As the member would understand better than most because of his ongoing interest in Ontario Hydro, there are a number of possibilities it can use, because there is a considerable write-off of certain assets of Ontario Hydro.

The Hydro board will meet next Monday, and Ontario Hydro will at that time, I understand, be considering a number of options open to it. But I can tell the member that none of those options have come to me at this point.

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

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'd like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to inform members of the Legislature about a fire that occurred in a unit of the Wellington and Guelph Housing Authority.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

HOUSING PROJECT FIRE

Hon Ms Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Last evening, there was a fire at around 11 o'clock in a unit of the Wellington and Guelph Housing Authority which took the lives of three people, a mother and two small children.

The fire is being investigated currently by the fire marshal, the police and Union Gas to determine the cause, which is not known at this time, and also to determine whether the smoke detectors were operative at the time of the fire. The ministry is providing support through the technical support services branch.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): First of all, I seek consent to deal with a motion regarding the extension of the sitting beyond today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that notwithstanding standing order 6(a)(2), the House shall continue to meet commencing Monday, December 13, 1993.

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

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): There are two other matters around which I seek consent. They are matters that come out of the House leaders' discussions this morning. First of all, with regard to Bill 31 and Bill 120, both of which we'll be calling throughout the course of the day today, at the point at which the debate on those pieces of legislation ceases and a vote is called, we have agreed that the House will see, and the Speaker will see, a division and that the votes on both of those matters will be deferred until before orders of the day on Monday.

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

PETITIONS

MINISTER OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has indicated that she consulted with members of the mining industry regarding the termination of eight claim inspectors at the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; and

"Whereas the assistant deputy minister has indicated that no such consultation has taken place; and

"Whereas this set of circumstances is consistent with previous actions of the minister in the past;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Premier of Ontario to investigate the inconsistent remarks made by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the assistant deputy minister forthwith."

1510

NATIVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"In an outcry for the unnumbered Ted Bellinghams, we petition for changes to the legislation which governs children who are wards of the children's aid society by making child welfare systems and agencies responsible for the safety and wellbeing of these children until they are 18 years of age or they have had a court hearing in which wardship has been relinquished."

This is signed by over 1,200 residents in the province of Ontario and I'm affixing my signature as well.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have two petitions that I'm going to read as one because they are related. They were sent to me by the Reverend Jim Sanderson of the First Baptist Church in Ingersoll in my riding. They are signed by the same people. The one is opposing Bill 45 and the other petition is opposing Bill 55.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a number of petitions from members of the King Bible Church and Grace Church requesting that Bills 55 and 45 be withdrawn. On their behalf, I present these petitions signed by several hundred persons.

NATIVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"In August 1992, in Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada, a 16-year-old youth was kicked and punched to death. At least four people witnessed the murder but did not report it. One year later, an anonymous call led police to a shallow grave where the boy's remains were found. These witnesses cannot be charged as there is no existing law that requires witnesses to report a murder they are witness to. We disagree and are requesting an amendment to the Criminal Code where witnesses to murder are legally responsible for reporting."

Over 1,300 residents in the province have signed this and I'm affixing my signature as well.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I have three particular letters here, all dealing with Bill 45, the Liberal private member's bill, and Bill 55, the Tory private member's bill. They are signed by Annelie McCreight from Mitchell, Pauline Walkolm from Stratford and Joy Gould from Stratford.

Since they all are a selection of petitions dealing with the same one, I'd like to put them in as one. Ms McCreight has 552 signatures opposing Bill 55 and 513 signatures opposing Bill 45. There are no numbers for Ms Walkolm's or Joy Gould's, but they all read the same. I will read them.

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

"Bill 55 will make it illegal for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation (still undefined). This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion, against historical Christianity which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas but are demanding that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classrooms, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 55."

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it. We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Bill 45.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition:

"Whereas all students are entitled to the same educational resources, regardless of where they live or which school they choose to attend; and

"Whereas most Catholic school boards and rural school boards do not have the assessment base of their public school or urban school board counterparts; and

"Whereas these assessment-poor schools are able to spend far less on each of their students than assessment-rich boards,

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

I will affix my signature to the bottom of this petition.

ANIMAL SHELTER

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have another petition from Leeds and Grenville from a significant number of petitioners. I don't have an exact count. In essence, they're calling on the provincial government, through the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, to assist in the re-establishment of an animal shelter for Leeds and Grenville. These are individuals very much concerned about the closure of the animal shelter in Leeds and Grenville.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I also have two petitions on Bill 45, the one that was introduced by the Liberal member for St George-St David, and on Bill 55, which was introduced by the Conservative member for Markham. They read:

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

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the code."

"Bill 55 will make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion, against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but are demanding that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45 and Bill 55."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I have a petition signed by some 1,432 individuals, principally from the region of Peel but also from Renfrew and other parts of the province. The petition is with respect to French-immersion programs. It says:

"We, the undersigned, as concerned parents and students, petition the government of Ontario to mandate French-immersion education in regions where the program is presently offered. Without such action, existing students are placed at risk with respect to changing local school board policies and temporary budget constraints.

"Further, young families continually face uncertainty with respect to French-immersion availability in the future in their region. Where sufficient demand exists, equality of access to education must be assured across Ontario.

"We petition the government to act immediately to prevent erosion of the French-immersion program in regions where the program exists."

Madam Speaker, I affix my signature to it and state for the record that my son is also involved in a French-immersion program of the general nature. I signed it without any conflict, as you well understand. In fact, I'm in full support of this petition.

1520

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have two petitions, one with regard to Bill 45, the bill that was introduced by Mr Murphy, the Liberal member for St George-St David.

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

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age, sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code."

We have literally hundreds of petitions and they're signed by citizens all over the city of London and in many areas of Middlesex county.

The second one is Bill 55, which was introduced by the Conservative member for Markham, Mr Cousens. He has since withdrawn it, but I feel it's my responsibility to read it into the record.

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

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

"Bill 55 will make it illegal, with fines of up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, still undefined. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religion, against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where some homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideals, but are demanding that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classroom, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions."

These petitions are also signed by literally hundreds of residents of the city of London and within the county of Middlesex.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have another petition. This one was sent to me by Jan Vickers. It has 50 names and it's similar to the petitions that have already been read out by several members this afternoon opposing Bill 45 and Bill 55.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, a petition:

"Whereas the Ministry of Environment mandates that all municipalities (whether upper- or lower-tier) which require to expand or relocate municipal sanitary landfill sites must conduct a waste management environmental assessment study; and

"Whereas it is the policy of the Ministry of Environment to assist in funding these studies at the upper-tier level of local government only; and

"Whereas of the 830 municipalities in Ontario, only 39 are upper-tier municipalities organized at the county or regional level;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Environment to cease this discriminatory policy and give funding assistance to all municipalities that are required to conduct a waste management environmental assessment study, and that this funding be made retroactive where applicable."

I affix my signature. It contains 274 signatures.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Beer from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 100, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 100, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the orders of the day, dated November 24, 1993, and also December 7, 1993, this bill is ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FINANCIAL SERVICES STATUTE LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 PORTANT RÉFORME DE DIVERSES LOIS RELATIVES AUX SERVICES FINANCIERS

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

Bill 134, An Act to revise the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act and to amend certain other Acts relating to financial services / Projet de loi 134, Loi révisant la Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions et modifiant d'autres lois relatives aux services financiers.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Does the minister wish to make some brief remarks?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Very briefly, Madam Speaker. The Financial Services Statute Law Reform Amendment Act is an omnibus bill that updates acts covering three parts of Ontario's financial services sector.

It amends the Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Act to allow Ontario's credit unions and caisses populaires more powers. It also reforms the Insurance Act to provide a framework to modernize rules governing life insurance agents.

The third part amends the Securities Act and the Toronto Stock Exchange Act and the Toronto Futures Exchange Act concerning the regulation of Ontario's securities industry.

Report continued in volume B.

9 décembre 1993