Journal des débats 1994-avril-21 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, the assembly calls upon the government of Ontario to undertake legislative and/or regulatory changes that would allow direct payment of shelter allowances and benefits to a landlord from the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act in situations where the tenant is in default in payment of rent.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I bring this resolution to the House as an issue I think many of us have dealt with in our constituencies. However, before starting, I want people to understand quite clearly what I'm trying to do here and not misread or misunderstand what the intent of this resolution is.

We've seen over the past few years a number of people taking runs at some of the most vulnerable people in our society: the people who find themselves unemployed. I was worried, bringing forward this resolution, that people would see it in that light and say: "What is this all about? Is this about taking a run at or attacking those people who find themselves on social assistance either through family benefits or general welfare benefits?"

I want to clearly say that that's not what this is all about. What we're talking about doing here is passing a resolution that simply says that in the event a person does not pay the rent, for whatever reason -- the present situation is that if I happen to be working and paying rent to my landlord, if I don't pay my rent a landlord has a mechanism by which to collect non-payment of rent. The landlord can take me through the Small Claims Court system, bring me before the Small Claims Court and in the end have an order against me to pay the amount of rent I am in arrears.

The problem is that if a person's on GWA or FBA benefits, you as a landlord are able to bring the person to Small Claims Court but have absolutely no mechanism to collect the money even if the judgement is in your favour.

We need to explain the two parts of this. First of all, I think that is unfair. I come from a northern Ontario riding, from Timmins, Iroquois Falls and Matheson. Most of my landlords, 95%, 98%, 99% of them, are people like you and me who happen to own a house, who try to pay the mortgage through the rent they may have coming from an apartment or two within their building. If somebody falls in default of that rent, it means that landlord can't pay his or her mortgage. Clearly, especially in this day and age, you can't have that kind of thing going on.

I've had a lot of people coming into my office -- I wouldn't say hundreds, but many people -- over the past two or three years with exactly that situation, who say: "I've rented out my apartment. My mortgage is due. The person hasn't paid their rent. I've now started proceedings under the Landlord and Tenant Act for eviction, but I have absolutely no way of collecting the money." In some cases that could put that landlord in a really tough spot.

Most people in my riding are working-class people who happen to work at Dome or Royal Oak or Abitibi or Hembruff contracting or Kidd Creek, who own a house and pay the mortgage through the rent to a certain extent, and they can't afford to be put in that position. There's been an extreme amount of frustration on the part of these individuals when they come into my office and find out in the end that there's nothing they can do. They've been calling on me, as their member, to try to find a way of resolving this situation.

With a lot of discussion with both the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Community and Social Services, my colleagues and other colleagues across the way, we talked about one of the ways we can possibly do that.

One of the things we need to understand is that when it comes to social assistance, general welfare benefits or family benefits, there's a very good reason you're not allowed to garnishee somebody once you've gone to Small Claims Court. The money they get is to help them in a situation, more than likely an emergency situation, especially on general welfare, and it was intended through the act not to allow people to be garnisheed in that situation because the little amount of money they get is to pay for sustenance, food, the hydro bill, for making sure your children have shoes to go to school, that you can just do the basic things in life. In the wisdom of the former Conservative government when they put together this act, they understood you can't start garnisheeing people with $600 a month coming in to pay for groceries for the family and some of those benefits. That's why you're not able to garnishee in a court.

1010

I tried to look at doing this in another way, and what we came up with is this resolution that basically calls on the government to do something that's fairly simple. In situations where somebody falls behind on their rent, and clearly only in those situations -- first, we have to understand up front that people on social assistance pay their rent at the same rate as people not on social assistance. People on social assistance are as responsible as people not on social assistance. I don't want to leave an impression that because somebody who happens to be unemployed runs out of unemployment insurance benefits and ends up on social assistance, somehow they're irresponsible. That's not what the issue is here.

The issue is that we need to find a mechanism that allows a landlord to get access to the dollars he or she is owed for that rent. What you've got is a contract between a tenant and a landlord. The landlord, in good faith, says, "I will let you live in that apartment and I will provide services to you to make sure you have a good place to live, but what I want in exchange is that you pay your rent at the end of the month," and clearly the landlord is entitled to that payment. This is what's at issue.

I'm calling on us to do simply this: In those situations where the tenant has gone into arrears situation and the money is not able to be collected through normal means, we put in a mechanism that the landlord under that circumstance is able to go to the authorities and say, "Pay the rent directly to me through their shelter allowance." I think that's a fair compromise.

I know there are people who will criticize me. I've had this discussion with people in the House on both sides, and I've had some members from the Liberal caucus as well as members from my caucus say, "Isn't this an attack on welfare?" I want to say up front that this is not what this is about. It's about saying we have a contractual obligation between a landlord and a tenant, and if the landlord's expected to fulfil his or her obligations in that contract when it comes to providing the tenant with an apartment, surely to God the tenant has an obligation to pay that rent. That's really what this is all about. Basically, what we're calling for is a very simple thing: to allow direct payment of rent in the event that the individual falls into arrears so that a landlord is able to be paid.

I want to bring forward another thing that really bothers me. One of the things we have going through society over these past years is that for some reason, I think because of what's happened in the economy, many people tend to try to blame the problems in the economy on groups of people. One of the things we've seen over the past four, five, 10 years is that many people, from all parts of the political spectrum to a certain extent, turn the guns a little and aim them towards people on social assistance, and say that just because somebody's on social assistance somehow they're not responsible. We're hearing a lot of derogatory comments through the media, made by very responsible people in our societies, about people on social assistance.

I think we have to refrain from that. We need to understand that fundamentally there is no difference between a person on social assistance and a person who happens to be working, other than that they don't have a job. That's the difference. People do things with the same frequency on social assistance as they do when they're working.

I want to point to an article I read in today's Toronto Star, a comment made by the Prime Minister yesterday here in Toronto while speaking to a group of newspaper executives. He says, "In my judgement it is better to have them at 50% of productivity than to be sitting at home, drinking beer, at 0% of productivity." I think that's a disservice to the people of this province, a disservice to the people on social assistance. I didn't know that only people who are on social assistance sit at home and drink beer. I sit at home and drink beer like anybody else, and I'm sure my colleagues do too. I see the members across the way waving. I think we have to be very careful not to make those kinds of statements.

Je voudrais seulement, en finissant, expliquer un peu en cours exactement ce que la résolution demande. C'est pour avoir un mécanisme, en fin de la journée, que si le locataire qui paie le loyer et, pour une raison ou une autre, cette personne n'est pas capable de payer son loyer à la fin du mois, qu'on donne directement à la personne à qui appartient l'appartement l'opportunité de faire la collecte de ce qui lui est dû directement, que dans une telle situation la personne à qui appartient la bâtisse est capable de mettre en place un mécanisme pour être capable de payer directement à lui ou elle l'argent qui lui est dû.

Clairement on n'a jamais, je pense, dans cette Assemblée ou n'importe où dans ce pays, dit que juste parce qu'une personne se trouve sur le bien-être social pour une raison ou une autre, elle n'a pas le droit et n'a pas la responsabilité de prendre ses responsabilités. Je pense qu'on a besoin d'être clair que tout le monde sur le bien-être social, c'est du monde responsable comme n'importe qui d'autre.

Mais ce qu'on a c'est une situation présentement où les règlements qui traitent la situation -- si une personne est sur le bien-être social ou si une personne n'est pas sur le bien-être social -- ne sont pas égaux. Ce que cette résolution demande, c'est simplement qu'on a besoin d'avoir de l'égalité dans la loi qui dit que dans n'importe quelle situation, les règlements qui s'appliquent à cette situation sont exactement les mêmes.

Just in closing, I would like to call on my members in this House, because I know you face this problem as well in your own constituencies, to join me today to pass this resolution so we can move forward and bring some fairness to the people of this province.

The Acting Speaker: Now each party will have 15 minutes, in rotation, to debate this resolution.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm pleased to participate in the debate on the resolution put before this House this morning by the member for Cochrane South. I'd like to state from the outset that I find the resolution very confusing. The remedy he seeks through resolution 38 already exists within the regulations of the General Welfare Assistance Act and in the trusteeship provisions of the Family Benefits Act.

First, I find it passing strange that the member for Cochrane South presents his resolution today just two weeks after the Minister of Community and Social Services told the recipients of social assistance in this province that they will no longer be paid a minimum shelter allowance but will be paid actual costs. Surely the minister has an administrative process in place to determine what these actual costs are, either through lease conditions or rent receipts or trustee arrangements. I ask the member for Cochrane South, have you talked to your Minister of Community and Social Services about this matter?

The GWA act and regulations manual, section 0104-02, as it exists today, this morning, in this province outlines measures available to recover rent from social assistance recipients, and I underline;

"If the administrator decides to pay for items on behalf of the recipient, the authority is contained in section 12(1) of the regulations, which states that an allowance shall be paid to or on behalf of a person, eg, shelter costs to the landlord, fuel allowance to a fuel supplier; the welfare administrator, or any member of his/her staff, may be directly involved in the apportionment of the applicant's assistance and the payments to the other person(s) on his/her behalf."

In addition, the landlord always has the option of eviction or court proceedings.

I have verified the information I have just related with a number of municipal social assistance commissioners over the past few days as well as with my contacts in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and I am told that the vast majority, over 90%, of welfare recipients pay their rent on time and in full and that the GWA remedy quoted above is very, very rarely used.

The member's resolution therefore does not adequately consider existing regulations which already permit the remedy he seeks from this House this morning. If there's a weakness in the system, it's the reluctance of a local administrator to use the power that he or she possesses.

May I suggest that the member for Cochrane South be very careful to examine the financial, social and legal costs involved in the implementation of his resolution. To download the additional administrative expense of accounting for, producing and mailing two cheques instead of one would add significant financial burden and would force further cutbacks in existing programs which are sorely needed in our communities.

1020

As the member for Oakville South did two weeks ago, this speaker wants a different standard of justice for people on social assistance than for others in Ontario communities. I have no doubt that this resolution will lead to a large number of challenges to the Social Assistance Review Board and to the courts. As you know, current backlogs in both bodies already force long waiting periods on people seeking a hearing, delays which are costly to this province and to the individual appellant.

In closing, I find it curious that the NDP caucus suddenly has a belated concern for Ontario landlords. I would suggest that the member for Cochrane South share his new concern with the Minister of Housing, whose retroactive rent control legislation destroyed the life savings of so many of Ontario's small landlords of whom the member speaks.

I cannot support this member's resolution this morning. It's imprecise to the ultimate and therefore open to many dangerous interpretations. The social assistance recipients in the member's riding and across Ontario deserve better from him and from the government he represents.

Sadly, the Queen's Park contest I mentioned two weeks ago continues, a contest based on sweeping pronouncements rather than hard evidence, a contest that will increase appeals to the Social Assistance Review Board, a contest that's based on confusion, a contest where the prize is unknown. The contest now has a new player in the member for Cochrane South.

I close by sharing an editorial cartoon from the Windsor Star. It shows a line of people entering and exiting a welfare office. As they exit, they are each wearing a target. Is this how the score is now kept in Queen's Park between the Treasurer, the member for Oakville South and the member for Cochrane South?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I take great pleasure in joining this debate today and congratulate my colleague from Cochrane South in bringing forward this resolution. Frankly, I wish it was a bill. It's an issue I've wanted to speak on for quite some time. I will just title my few words that I'm going to add to the debate A Tale of Two Constituents. They're two stories that I've come across since I've been a member.

The first concerns a constituent of mine who came to me, desperate for help. She was a Jamaican immigrant of very modest means who had scraped together every penny that she'd ever earned and saved and had managed to put a deposit down on a very modest bungalow. Because she wanted to improve the life of herself and her children, she recognized that at the beginning she could rent more modest accommodation for herself and she would top up the amount of money she was getting in rent in an effort to build up some equity in the house.

She bought it at the depths of the recession, so it certainly helped the economy, and then went, actually, to the welfare office and said: "Do you have a family that needs accommodation? I will rent this." In fact, the welfare office recommended this family and the family came forward and she rented. It was a single mother who turned out later to have a man who was a live-in boyfriend -- well, some of the time. He was a truck driver. He was also a motorbike gang member.

The truck was parked illegally on the driveway to this house and the tractor of the truck started to damage the driveway. The owner of the house complained that this was not appropriate, that they were not supposed to be parking the tractor on the driveway. She was told in no uncertain terms to get lost.

Mrs O'Neill: Because she was on welfare.

Mr Turnbull: I'll ignore the babbling on the side.

The tenant stopped paying the rent and the owner of the house went in desperation and said, "Look, I haven't received your rent," and she was put off for some length of time. Then it became very apparent that the tenant, who was a welfare recipient, had no intention of paying the rent.

Finally, in desperation, the Jamaican immigrant -- and I emphasize "Jamaican immigrant" because today there are so many negative things that people are saying. They're good, productive people who have come, like my colleague, from Jamaica originally. We have got so many people who come here and work hard and contribute to our society. She was trying to improve her lot and she was in danger of losing her house; she was in danger of losing all the money she had invested because she couldn't meet the mortgage payments.

She went to the welfare office and the welfare office, responding to a request from the owner of the house -- it was a very simple request. It wasn't, "Pay me directly," in fact; it was just, "Can you put aside that money into some sort of trust fund until at least I can go through the court process?" which was going to take about three months, to be able to at least get the tenant out. The welfare office said, "No, we will not do that." They continued to pay the full amount to the welfare recipient. Meantime, the money was being spent on other things instead of accommodation. The welfare office could very easily, if it had been directed to respond to these kinds of situations, have put it into a trust fund and that's all that would be required, but it refused to do it.

Finally, this lady of very modest means came to me and she was on the verge of tears, saying, "Please, can't you help me?" I investigated and unfortunately, no, there wasn't any way I could help. I felt very bad, because this immigrant who had come to Canada to better her lot and was a productive member of society was being victimized by the way in which the welfare system was working.

The second story, because I said it's A Tale of Two Constituents, is of another single mother who came to me and she was a welfare recipient and she had suffered, some months before, the loss of her mother. In her bereavement she had reached out for the only vice she had, and that was to go to bingo parlours. She started gambling quite excessively in the bingo parlours and spent all the money that she would normally spend on rent and got herself deeply into the hole. Finally, the landlord was moving against her to have her removed, and she too was on the verge of tears, saying, "What can I do?" I asked her, "Why didn't you pay your rent?" She had no logical reason.

If we had a mechanism which would allow the welfare office, in those few cases -- as the last speaker mentioned, 90% of the people on welfare or better, maybe more than 90% but certainly the vast majority of welfare recipients, don't want to be on welfare. They don't want to be in that situation. They want to be productive members of society. But sometimes people get off the rails and it's a very difficult time.

There is an element of people who deliberately want to use the welfare system in this way, and the welfare system couldn't move in and help. In both of these cases, the system was not working to help them. When people are in these desperate straits of being on welfare, we should reach out and certainly, for the landlords who have welfare recipients as their tenants, we should not make it a difficult situation.

I see my good friend Mr Mills just entering the House. I remember well speaking to him about this particular problem, and he was very sympathetic at the time to what I was speaking to him about. In fact, in discussions with the minister, we were getting nowhere.

I commend my colleague across the floor. I wish that you had brought this as a bill. At least if you have a vote today, sir, where the House supports you, I hope you will use that within your caucus to move this issue forward, because we do need to help the welfare recipients who get off the rails and we also need to help the landlords, the people who rent to welfare recipients, so that it doesn't become a very odious thing having a welfare recipient. If in any way I can help you in your task, I assure you I'm at your disposal.

1030

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd like to start off by saying that I fully support the resolution that's brought forward by my good friend and colleague the member for Cochrane South. What this resolution speaks to is very dear to some of the people in Cochrane North who are in the business of rental units and to the people throughout my riding.

There are a lot of landlords who have two, three or four apartments who depend on an income from tenants to make ends meet, to make their payments and to do the necessary repairs that they have on the building. What I would like to see, and I'm sure we're going to get a lot of support from my own colleagues and members of the opposition and the third party, is that when there's a lapse of a month where the rent hasn't been paid, there is a mechanism in place for the landlord to collect the rent that is owed. This would ensure that the tenant and the landlord would be able to have the agency pay the rent so that the tenant is not faced with an eviction and the landlord does not have to worry about financial loss. In most cases, direct payment of the rent would be a solution.

I don't want people to think I would consider that those working and those on general welfare or family benefits are any different. If there's an income that's coming in, whether it's from an employer or from family benefits or from welfare, people are expected to pay their rent. In society, this is what we expect. But there are situations where in various parts of the province things are handled in a different situation.

We know that our government has been looking at changes and amendments to the general welfare assistance in finding ways of helping people gain access to training, find suitable day care facilities and find jobs through Jobs Ontario projects which fund employers. Jobs Ontario cannot do this alone, but we have to deal with this. I believe this resolution will deal with the situation between landlords and tenants.

We have to understand that after losing their jobs and running out of unemployment insurance benefits, they have no choice but to utilize the welfare system. We know it was created only as a cushion for those unable to find employment, but they have to have a certain amount of money and a little bit of income to be able to make ends meet from the time they've lost their employment and ended up on either family benefits or welfare until they get back into employment.

At the same time, I've met many landlords who are going through tough times: four or five months without receiving any income through rents. I believe this is not necessary in today's society. Most people pay their rent on time, but I would suggest that there are probably in the neighbourhood of 2%, 3%, 4%, at least less than 10% in my riding, where the landlords are having problems. I've met with the landlords' association, I've met with individual landlords and they've raised the issue with me: "Len, how can you help us to make sure we're not put in the position where we have to evict people from their apartments? Is there a system of direct payment that can be put in place? If they're one or two months behind, is there any way we can get the rent?"

I know this is not a new situation. It's been developing over the last 20 years. But we also have to understand that we've been in a recession, the worst recession in 50 years, which has been going on for three years.

With that, I would just like to say once again that I congratulate my good colleague Mr Bisson for bringing this forward during private members' hour today. I'm sure he's going to get support from the government members, the official opposition members and the members of the third party. I congratulate him on that.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill, which the member for Cochrane South introduced as ballot item number 49.

It's rather interesting that the NDP, the government of the day, is introducing something like this. I'm not at all surprised that it's a private member's bill. The fact is that now they have the opportunity to bring in something sensible as a government bill, but what they are doing is floating this situation on a private member's bill about shelter allowance. They would never have thought about it before.

The problem I have is that, as a matter of fact, I fully agree with the member for York Mills that it should be a government bill, not a private member's bill.

The NDP, as you know, Madam Speaker, and you fully agree with me on this, has never had a balanced view on housing. They have always advocated only for the tenants, who need, of course, some advocates in order to support their position, and justifiably so. But as a government you cannot look on only one side of things. If you're bringing legislation in, it should be balanced.

Not at all surprisingly, the Conservative Party has never understood housing policy, because it feels that only the landlord should be driving this policy of housing.

We and our leader, Lyn McLeod, have stated over and over that we must have a balanced approach to housing policies. We must involve the non-profit housing component and also the private sector contribution in giving supportive housing to the people of the province.

Unless we decide that we can take it sensibly and approach it in a manner where we can have a balanced approach, we will always have this adversarial aspect of it, one supporting the tenant and the other supporting the landlord. In the balanced approach, we'll have a proper housing policy.

How surprising it is too that this legislation talks about a shelter allowance. Let me first say that I believe in shelter allowances. I believe too that we should have control. We have a rent review process that we brought in in 1986 and followed through with in order that we have some control of the charges for our rental accommodation.

The problem we have in this situation here is on the road to a proper way of handling shelter allowance and handling rental payments, and default in rental payments. As my colleague stated, there are provisions that can be done in order to require the amount of money be placed for the rent to guarantee that landlords get their money when there is default.

Many of the landlords and the care givers today in our cities, especially in Toronto -- I know of a group that is challenged all the time by those people who are given accommodation. They are unable to collect the rent, because as soon as those individuals get their rent, some demands are placed on them that they sometimes seem to respond to quicker than their accommodation. Accommodation is so important. The care givers say to them: "Your accommodation is first. That's what you should emphasize. In this country there's severe cold and you need this accommodation. You must pay for that."

However, some other people hijack them of their money or demands are placed elsewhere and they have no accommodation. What happens is that they have to go somewhere else, like the Salvation Army or some other shelter, to get accommodation for the night because they're scared to come to the place where they did not pay their money.

What is happening? The government would have paid twice. They would have paid them through the welfare or the family benefits for accommodation, but which did not get paid to the care givers or the landlord, and then they would go to the shelter, where it is again paid.

1040

I think the direction in which the member is going is right, that we should have some sort of shelter allowance, maybe a certificate, in the sense that, "Here is a housing certificate and it can only be spent for accommodation." You give that in order to get your accommodation going properly.

The public trustee, of course, as we know, handles some of those situations. They are just overwhelmed with the type of administrative work they have to do.

The hospitals also at times handle some of these situations where people have nowhere to go after leaving the hospital or they would more or less have their funds coming in and not be able to re-enter the place where they're owing rent because, again, they have abused it.

So I think it's the right direction, but I want to say there's a bit of hypocrisy here, though, which bothers me. The fact is that the Housing minister, who I find very insensitive to the overall policy of housing, that she would have not come in here today and say to the honourable member for Cochrane South, "Let's get together and make a bill that will address the situation on the government level" -- but oh, no, sneaking it through here hoping it will die.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It is only a resolution.

Mr Curling: My colleague on the government side says, "It's only a resolution." In other words, let's float it; it will die. I'll tell you something: There are many members on our side who are prepared to support this and also the Conservative side, although I'm not quite sure the Conservatives understand the process of housing, will support that. I'm sure every single one of your members over there will support the shelter allowance situation. I know that. You're committed in order to make sure that everyone who's in need of accommodation will be paid through this shelter allowance process.

But it's a half-baked process. Do it properly, as my colleague said, so that in some situations it can be addressed, but now, presently, come forward with a bill that is sensible. Come forward like what the Liberals did and bring a balanced approach to housing. Come forward right now and assess the situation properly now that the cost of non-profit housing is even higher than the private sector which can produce accommodation. Say to yourself, maybe non-profit housing can be better delivered through the private sector, because right now, you are delivering non-profit housing at a higher cost.

You see what I'm saying? The NDP, who used to be so concerned about accommodation on the one side, and the Conservatives, who seem to be so concerned about accommodation who want to deliver in the private sector, don't understand that both sides have to come together in delivering that, exactly the way the Liberal Party, through Lyn McLeod, has said over and over. As a matter of fact, in Ottawa, Lyn McLeod has stated that what we should be doing is put a moratorium, a stop, on all of this. Let's look at it rather sensibly and decide to come up with a strategy to address the needs of people.

I know how sensitive it is to all that they're playing politics with this. In Housing itself, in all respect, while they have their hearts in it, their minds are not there at all. They don't have the full understanding of it. Get the private sector, get some of the non-profit people who have worked along with this to give you some of the answers, not come in with this kind of half-baked situation in order to say that this is the way we will deliver shelter allowance and protect the landlords.

Landlords, of course, need to be protected. Their assets need to be protected in order that they would have that accommodation for those people who come in here.

I will support this, I tell you, and hope that the Minister of Housing is listening and also would bring in a rather sensible bill to cover it all.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Now we've had a lesson from the former Liberal Housing minister, we can prepare to deal with the opportunity that we have to comment on the resolution from the member for Cochrane South.

He calls on the provincial government to make legislative and/or regulatory changes to allow direct payment of shelter allowances and benefits to a landlord from the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act, when a tenant is in default of his or her rental payments. I just wish this had been in the form of a bill instead of a resolution and we could have had some time in committee to debate it.

Many landlords in Simcoe East tell me they're sick and tired of people ripping them off and ripping off the system and they say to themselves: "We are struggling to survive. We're operating under rent controls."

Ontario taxpayers deserve and are demanding social services; they want workers' compensation and health care that are effective and accountable and not a waste and a fraud. I want to make it clear that the landlords and I know the majority of welfare and family recipients are truly in need. But we also know there always will be a small group of people who will take advantage of and abuse our caring social system. Those same people who are taking advantage of the system will not hesitate to stick the landlords with unpaid rent and their unpaid hydro, gas or oil bills.

Landlords are taxpayers and they understand better than most the need for government to provide services in an efficient, responsible and financially sound fashion.

I'd like to share with you just a couple of instances of people who brought to my attention -- Helen Wright, who owns property on Barrie Road in Orillia, and Marie Richardson, who owns property near Elmvale.

On March 21, Helen Wright wrote to me with regard to some problems she was having collecting rent. Tenants moved in in April 1993 and by July 1993 they'd only paid $600 in rent. By a few months later, there was $1,640 that was an outstanding balance. She supplied a letter to the welfare department, signed by the tenant, directing them to pay the rent directly to her. However, they refused to do that. The tenant agreed to do that, but the welfare system would not do it. If there's an administrative problem, then how come we're getting these letters from people such as that who do want to have it paid direct?

The other lady, with regard to the problems she was having -- they had a lot of damage done to their property. The landlord spent $300 extra, over and above, in legal costs; $1,300 of a bill she had and nobody would pay it.

We all know there was a time when tenants had few rights to protect them from the few unscrupulous landlords who tried to take advantage of them. However, times have changed and I believe the pendulum has swung too far in favour of some tenants who abuse the social system and the patience and goodwill of the landlords.

That is why I will be supporting this resolution to allow direct payment of shelter allowances and benefits to a landlord from the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act when a tenant fails to pay their rent. I thank these people for giving me the opportunity to read some of their letters in this debate today so that tenants and landlords will have a deal whereby their rent will be paid directly if they so desire.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I have had several calls to my office about this issue and that is some concern to me because, to tell you the truth, this isn't a large metropolitan area like downtown Toronto. This is a smaller community where we know a lot of people and everyone knows each other, but it's become worrisome because I see this type of thing happening even in our smaller communities.

I would like to mention a couple of letters I've got. One was from a gentleman who said: "As a landlord, I feel it is very unfair that I can't collect from a bad tenant. As of now, I have a tenant that owes me four months' rent, plus over $500 to get them out. In my opinion, people living off the taxpayer should be just as obligated to pay their rent as a person working for a living and they should be made to pay through the courts the same as a working person.

"I will not rent to someone on mother's allowance again unless I am guaranteed I get the rent. The rent cheques should go to the landlord directly."

When my opponents talk about targets, we see here that there are people being targeted, but they are everybody else on FBA or everybody else who needs social assistance and that's a concern. I think we do have to tighten up for those who aren't following the rules, who aren't playing fair.

He goes on to say: "I hope these issues will be given some thought and consideration. As a landlord, I like to be fair to everyone, but I can't let this kind of thing happen, as I need to collect rent in order to pay for the upkeep of the apartment, such as taxes, expenses," and so on and so forth.

1050

I had another letter from a gentleman, who said:

"I have a problem. I had a person living in the house. She was finally evicted for non-payment of rent for many months, damage to the apartment, continually disturbing the rest of the neighbourhood. I had a rough time getting her out through the courts, which cost me more money on top of having to pay for the upkeep of my place and fixing the apartment up after she left.

"I attended court twice, to which she never bothered to appear nor send anyone on her behalf to represent her. The General Division agreed she must pay back half the utilities. That amounted to over $500 plus my expenses. In small claims court I was awarded in the area of almost $3,000 for back rent and damages. This is all fine, but I have not been able to collect a cent.

"This person is on mother's allowance and it seems that she gets off scot-free at my expense and continues to abuse the assistance programs to this day."

That's what I'm saying: In some cases there is abuse, but even though the courts determine that the landlord is entitled to arrears, the likelihood of ever receiving this money from FBA recipients is virtually nil. Being on social assistance should not exclude persons from their financial responsibilities.

Firstly, being on social assistance should not exclude persons. The money a social assistance recipient receives monthly is based on their budgetary needs. The shelter allowance is based on their actual monthly rental or mortgage costs. If a recipient is receiving money to pay this shelter cost and is not putting it towards this expense, they are in essence committing fraud. If they did not have any shelter costs, their budgets would be adjusted accordingly.

Is there a way this problem could be remedied? In a case such as this, where the courts have determined that the landlord is legally entitled to collect the rent arrears, could the recipients be charged with an overpayment for the moneys instead of using them for shelter costs?

A second concern is the fact that presently landlords are unable to collect arrears, even though the court has ordered, and that, unfortunately, affects all persons receiving social assistance. It is probably one of the main reasons landlords are hesitant to rent to social assistance recipients. I am aware of landlords that are legally not allowed to discriminate, but the reality is that this problem does affect the decision in selecting their tenants.

There are no specific directions given under FBA or GWA as to how a person must spend their allowance; however, it is expected that people receiving social assistance pay for their shelter costs. Overpayments cannot be collected from recipients based on the manner in which they spend their allowance, but rather overpayments are recovered where a recipient has received assistance to which he or she is not entitled. Therefore, let me point out that they would not be entitled to this percentage --

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Two per cent of that is recovered.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mrs Haslam: That's correct. They would not be entitled to this money if they're not giving this money to the landlord. Therefore, we should be looking at a way that we can tighten up the criteria.

It's unfair. It's unfair to landlords because they're the ones who are renting and not getting their damage paid, they're not getting recovery through the courts. It's unfair to other GWA recipients because they are targeted like those who are not following the rules. It's unfair to the FBA recipients because people don't designate between those two, and therefore the FBA recipients who are being fair, who are on social assistance and need some help, are not being treated fairly. It's unfair to the women and the children who need social assistance, who need places to live, and they need decent shelter.

So I think the solutions are not quick to find, not easy to find. I think it's something that we do have to look at, and I will be supporting my colleague's motion in this instance.

Mr Mills: I am pleased to rise in my place this morning and speak in support of my colleague from Cochrane's resolution.

It's not an easy solution that we're faced with. I want to just start off my comments by saying, most people on welfare today and in receipt of some social assistance are there not because they want to be there; they are there because they're grasping at the social network to keep them afloat until they're able to get back into the workforce.

I do not like the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada yesterday in the House of Commons that suggests somehow that people on welfare are just hanging around drinking beer and wasting time and picking up money. Most of the people in my riding who are on welfare are there because it's the last straw in their existence. I have people --

Mr Jackson: He is only talking about the poor in Ontario.

Mr Mills: You tell Earl Warren that on your show. I'm speaking.

I want to talk about the problems that people have in my riding. The member for York Mills and I discussed this over a year ago. Some of the people in my riding are ordinary working folks who have somehow managed to get together the down payment on a house and the very essence that they can hang on to that property after all those years of effort is through regular payment of rent.

I believe, contrary to some of the debate that's taken place, that most people on social assistance are decent, upright citizens and they're there because there's no other way from there. These people also meet their obligations in a very honest, straightforward way. But like every situation that we have in the province of Ontario, there are some people who don't play the game. This is likewise true in paying the rent.

There are certain pressures that come upon people at the end of each month, I'm sure, that force their hand about who they're going to pay and what they're going to pay first. What I would like to see, my colleague from Cochrane, is that some method be put into place where people who miss one month's rent are given some sort of stern warning and spoken to and told this is not on and the next time, the right of paying the rent themselves is taken away.

I think everybody, whether you're on social assistance, whether you're in the workforce, should have the dignity to be able to manage the money that they get, be it from work or from social assistance. I am a great believer in that dignity and giving the people that dignity to manage their own affairs. I came from England years ago when people ended up in the workhouse. I think that's awful, that we somehow say to people: "You can't manage your affairs. The state is going to take over and we're going to pay the rent for you."

Something has to be done and it's my understanding, I believe, that down the road in some reform this issue is being looked at and I look forward to that day. But in the meantime, I want to make it perfectly clear that while I support this resolution this morning, I also recognize the dignity that we should afford to people who, as a last resort, are on social assistance for their very existence, brought about, I might add, by the diabolical free trade agreement and NAFTA and all these other measures that --

Interjection: GST.

Mr Mills: And the GST, my colleagues over there, their cohorts.

I also read in the press yesterday that the federal Liberals are determined to cut and slash more transfer payments to the province of Ontario and make more people dependent on the social assistance programs. I don't know where we're going to get the money but I say shame on the federal Liberals, shame on the 96 people who do nothing for this province and shame on the Prime Minister of Canada for suggesting that people hang around and drink beer.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. Further debate? The member for Burlington South.

Mr Jackson: I just can't believe it. I imagine Tommy Douglas must be rolling over in his grave to listen to the outpouring of support from the socialists for the private sector. I'm going to send this Hansard to so many people who won't understand what this new enlightenment on the part of the NDP is. There isn't an NDP member in the House today who has any more than three years' experience in this Legislature, and that's unfortunate. The truth of the matter is that they would be aware that there has been resolution after resolution in this House calling for this kind of reform.

I commend the member for Cochrane South for his courage in bringing this forward. It's not an easy resolution, after all. But the arguments purported by the government that this has got to be fairer for landlords is an unbelievable argument coming from the socialists. I applaud them, I applaud every speaker who has gotten up with this new-found version of hypocrisy, but if that's the new marching orders from the Premier, go for it.

1100

The truth is that the Liberal government, when it was running the show, started out -- I want to give you some idea. If you listened to the Liberals, what was their argument? The argument was that it would be too bureaucratic.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Can't you figure it out, Cam?

Mr Jackson: You might learn something. Listen to these figures. When the Tories left power in 1985, we were spending $8 million on rent control, to administer the entire rent control plan in this province. After the ravages of the Liberal government, including a former minister who stood up in this House and spoke on this debate, rent control is costing the taxpayers of this province nearly $50 million. So much for the Liberal argument about growing bureaucracy.

Now the NDP has a bill before the House called Bill 120 that's going to expand rent control services to thousands and thousands more residents in this province, including illegal basement apartments, all sorts of people receiving care in retirement-type homes. The government has been asked for the last nine months, how much more is it going to cost? You know what? They don't have a figure. So why should we be surprised that we have a very good resolution here today where the Liberals say, "My God, it's going to cost more money" -- we know that -- and the government can't tell us how much?

There are a lot of problems associated with social assistance and ensuring that every citizen has a right to accommodation. We have argued, for example, that we cannot compound the difficulties facing the poor by exposing them to more lotteries and gambling and opportunities to have their limited paycheque diminished. The children become school-phobic because they're more mobile, and tenants are rotating in and out of these buildings because they fall behind in their rent.

The truth of the matter is that the Tories have been fighting for shelter subsidies and this kind of linkage for the last eight and a half years. So I applaud the member for Cochrane South for bringing forward the resolution. I can't believe my ears that the NDP is actually defending landlords in Ontario, but thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Time for debate has expired. The member for Cochrane South has two minutes to respond.

Mr Bisson: I appreciate the comments made by my colleagues today in regard to what a lot of members recognize is a fairly serious issue and, I would admit, an issue many of us have been trying to deal with over the years.

I just want to respond to one thing so that there's no misunderstanding. One of the assertions that was made in the debate is that there is a mechanism already within GWA for a landlord to collect the rent directly. If we take a look at the system, it doesn't work, because one component is that the landlord must get the tenant to sign the paper to make it happen, and that's a fairly difficult situation to make happen.

What I'm calling for is to make sure we have a system in the end that says people their responsibilities when it comes to a contractual arrangement made between a landlord and a tenant. No matter whether they're a working person or a person on social assistance, they must take that responsibility. No way should a landlord be in a situation where because a person decides they don't want to take their responsibility, his livelihood and his home are put in jeopardy.

We must put on the record that the vast majority of landlords this would affect are people like you and me, people of working class who own a home because they're able to rent a unit in it to pay the mortgage. To put people in a situation where all of a sudden, because a tenant decides not to pay the rent, you have no recourse is highly unfair not only to the landlord but to the tenant.

I applaud the members who are going to be voting with me today to support this resolution, and I really, really appreciate the support they have given.

Juste pour conclure, je veux seulement dire que j'apprécie beaucoup le temps que les députés ont pris pour parler sur cette motion. Je veux dire clairement que les règlements que je regarde pour faire des changements donneraient finalement en Ontario, si on est capable d'en venir à un accord pour supporter cette résolution, l'occasion de mettre en place un système qui dit qu'on a des règlements qui sont égaux pour toutes les personnes impliquées dans cette situation.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. A vote will be held on Mr Bisson's motion at 12 noon.

AMMUNITION CONTROL ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS

Mr Chiarelli moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 151, An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition / Projet de loi 151, Loi visant à réglementer l'achat et la vente de munitions.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Canada spends $7.7 billion per year on policing, in our courts and in our correctional institutions, yet people still don't feel safe on our streets and in our communities. On the question of violent crimes, people want governments to act and to act now. They are demanding, and they are entitled to, stronger measures of prevention and stronger measures of enforcement.

Unfortunately, for some people it will be too late. Of course, I'm referring to the type of case which occurred in Ottawa, the Nicholas Battersby case, where a young man was gunned down while walking on an Ottawa street in a drive-by shooting, and the café killing of Georgina Leimonis in a Toronto-area cafe.

And of course we have a lot of people who are demanding stronger action of enforcement, in fact zero tolerance, in our schools.

On that point, I want to refer to a letter which I received from an Ottawa-area high school teacher, one Colleen Fraser. It's dated April 8, 1994, and addressed to me.

"As my MPP, I must remind you that the Elgin Street slaughter and mayhem that has so sickened Ottawa is once again an opportunity for our society to address the misguided direction in which we are all heading." It goes on to say: "Is it not now time for law-abiding members of society to receive a signal from the justice system that their rights and safety are at least as important as those who victimize others for adventure? As a local high school teacher, I am frightened by the increasing violence and lawlessness within the schools. How can students learn academic and personal responsibility when increasing murder and assault are punishable by such insignificant penalties?"

And it goes on to say: "Please respond to my concerns with something other than a form letter. In particular, I very much want to know the changes you will be advancing in response to this latest outrage."

People everywhere are asking the legislators for action and they want to know what we are going to do. Indeed governments have been lax and must act now.

We limit by age the sale of cigarettes. We limit by age the sale of alcohol. We limit driving by age. But we have no such limit on the sale of lethal ammunition. That has to change.

Indeed, according to the Ottawa police, in the drive-by shooting on Elgin Street, by young offenders, I might add, the police say it was an illegal weapon but that the bullets were store-bought over the counter, bought legally by these young people, who are not of age to buy alcohol or cigarettes. That's intolerable.

Why this bill? This bill is An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition. People are saying, "We want stronger action on gun control, enforcement and prevention." Well, we in this Legislature do not have the authority, the constitutional jurisdiction, to deal with gun control matters. That is for the federal Parliament to do under our Constitution. Indeed, the federal Minister of Justice has stated that he is going to move, and move quickly, on the area of gun control in terms of prevention and enforcement. We encourage him to do so. We support him in doing so, because the people in Canada, the people in Ontario, are demanding it at the present time. They do not feel safe on our streets. So this bill deals with a retail matter which we feel is within the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. It deals with the control of the sale and purchase of ammunition over the counter.

1110

It's a very simple bill. I'll read a couple of the sections.

First, "No person shall purchase ammunition unless the person holds a valid Ontario Outdoors Card with the appropriate hunting licence or a valid firearms acquisition certificate and produces it at the time of purchase." Of course, for that there are penalties of up to $5,000 for the first offence and up to $10,000 for a second or subsequence offence. I've received a lot of comments from people who feel these penalties are not sufficient enough, that they should be higher, but hopefully this bill will be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice, where changes can be made and suggestions can be received.

The bill also says, "No person shall present, for the purpose of purchasing ammunition, an Ontario Outdoors Card with the appropriate hunting licence or a firearms acquisition certificate other than the card and licence or the certificate that was lawfully issued to him or her." That also has penalties of up to $10,000. That is going to be used to prevent the transferring of this card, which is already issued in Ontario but is not required for the purchase of ammunition. The transfer and forgery of this type of card would be a serious offence under this legislation.

This bill is not a major step in the course of crime prevention, the use of guns and the whole area of gun control. It is a small but important step. It is an area this Legislature has the jurisdiction to deal with. We're asking the people who will be here to vote today in the Legislature to support this bill in principle and send it to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The major steps in terms of gun control, prevention and enforcement, as I said, are at the federal level, and we encourage the federal government and the federal Justice minister, the Honourable Allan Rock, to move on that as quickly as possible. But there are some steps, major steps, which can be taken in the province of Ontario by the Attorney General. Of course, she can instruct prosecutors to seek stricter sentences for persons convicted of gun-related crimes. She can also prohibit plea bargaining of gun-related offences, 80% of which are plea bargained away or given minimal sentences.

That is a serious flaw in Ontario in terms of controlling guns, in terms of prevention and enforcement, and that is that the people who are charged with gun offences are basically not having to face any sanction for these. They are plea bargained away in connection with other crimes, such as burglary, robbery, you name it; and when they are given sentences, they're given minimal sentences. That is not acceptable to the people of Ontario at this time. The government can also enforce zero tolerance in our schools with respect to weapons.

Very simply, we're asking the members of the Legislature today to approve this bill in principle. There are changes that can be made. There are submissions that we want to hear from different groups. But hopefully we can take some action and this bill can be enacted before the end of this session in June.

I want to make reference to one of the objectors. Last night I received a fax from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and I'll just read very briefly from that:

"Provisions must be made to allow target shooters, legal handgun shooters, and those who use firearms to control predators and nuisance animals, to purchase ammunition without an Outdoors Card or FAC. At a minimum, a restricted weapons permit issued by the chief provincial firearms office must also be accepted documentation."

We certainly would welcome the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters to come to the justice committee. We certainly would look to making changes that hopefully could accommodate their concerns. Indeed, they're offering to come to the committee and to work with all parties in the Legislature to come up with a better means of prevention and enforcement of gun offences. That group is particularly concerned with the large number of weapons which are imported from the United States. That is an area which has to be dealt with by the federal government.

In conclusion, I want again to refer to the letter Colleen Fraser wrote to me on April 8. She says, "Please respond to my concerns with something other than a form letter." I'm asking all members of this Legislature to please respond with action. We can always find reasons not to do something. We have all the reasons in the world now to do something collectively and in a non-partisan way. So I urge you to please vote for this and refer it to the standing committee on administration of justice.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I will be supporting the bill on second reading in principle. The bill is clearly hastily put together. We just received a copy of it this weekend. There are significant flaws and concerns and implications, jurisdictional and otherwise, but we do support the principle and believe it's something that should be considered through a standing committee of the Legislature.

I am bothered by what's happening here in respect to the Liberal Party of Ontario. They're coming to this whole issue rather late in the day when some very terrible things have happened, in Toronto, in Ottawa and in other parts of Ontario.

Our party, the Mike Harris Ontario Conservative Party, has been dealing with these issues for a significant period of time. I can recall when we established a task force to take a look at law and order issues in the province that we were ridiculed by the Liberal members in this Legislature. They said we were rednecks, we were scaremongering. We took the time to travel the province for over nine months listening to people, listening to everyday Ontarians, listening to crown attorneys, listening to lawyers, listening to police officers.

We developed a document. We're the only party in this province that has a significant document dealing with the concerns of Ontarians in respect to justice issues, A Blueprint for Justice and Community Safety in Ontario. I would urge the public, anyone viewing, to call our office, 1-800-665-MIKE, and we'll be pleased to provide Ontarians with a copy of this document. It's a very fine document with a lot of work put into it.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: Again members of the other two parties are treating this as a joke, and that's the way they've dealt with this whole justice issue for the past number of years. It's a bit of a joke, a sad one, that the Liberal Party is trying to capitalize on some very terrible incidents in this province. I want to remind our viewers, if no one else, of their track record of five years in office. I just want to remind people of some of the matters that came to a head during the Liberal years in office.

The SIU, the special investigations unit, was the creation of the Liberal government. We know of all the difficulties the SIU has created for police officers in this province: the hiring policies of the SIU; its going after police officers -- that seems to be its sole mandate -- in areas where there clearly is no justification. We've even seen the NDP use preferred indictments, but this is quite comparable to the Liberals in the creation of the SIU in going after police officers.

Susan Eng, who is the current chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, a Liberal appointee, certainly has not been a friend of police officers or policemen and policewomen and has been consistently attacking police forces and police officers in Metro Toronto. She has had a vendetta against Chief Bill McCormack, has wanted to get McCormack out of the Metro board. She's been rather quiet for the last year or so because she realizes the public is not supportive and perhaps she has some electoral ambitions of her own, I don't know.

Ian Scott, who was the Liberal Attorney General: I can recall an incident where drug dealers were convicted by a court in Toronto and were turned right back out on to the streets. Two Metro detectives who had spent months trying to get these people into court and convict them were furious with the judge and the courts that put these people right back out on the streets to deal drugs and impact upon young people in our communities. They expressed their frustration with that judge and with the court system.

1120

What was the reaction of the Liberal Attorney General? He got up and vented his spleen against the police officers. He said he was going to have those officers reprimanded, even dismissed, if they dared to criticize the justice system that was putting drug dealers back out on to the street after they had spent months and months trying to get convictions and rid us of that vermin. That's what Ian Scott, the Liberal Attorney General, said on that day. I recall it vividly.

Police concerns: I have a quote from 1989, during the Liberal years in office. A police officer phoned my office and told us that in his 31 years as an officer, he had never seen police morale "as bad as it is today." He said: "There's no leadership in the Ontario government. There's no one to back us up." That was a Liberal government.

I could go on about a host of areas; one quick one where Wade Lawson was shot by Peel Regional Police driving a stolen car attempting to run down those officers. Two Liberal cabinet ministers attended that funeral. Not during the Liberal tenure did one minister ever get up to express condolences over an officer shot or wounded on the job, but they went to the funeral of a man who was driving a stolen car and attempted to drive down police officers. That's the kind of support police got in this province from the Liberals.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I know that the constituents in my riding and right across Ontario were clearly horrified by the senseless drive-by shooting of Nicholas Battersby in Ottawa that the member for Ottawa West referred to. I know they were also horrified when felons burst into the Just Desserts restaurant in Toronto and turned it into a killing field.

I was personally concerned because not too long ago my younger sister, when she was an art student, was a waitress at Just Desserts. I'm sure she was equally shocked to hear that a quiet, tranquil place where people go to consume cake and cappuccino was suddenly turned into a killing field in a very mindless and senseless way.

So who could possibly oppose greater restriction of the sale of ammunition? I certainly can't. Most people I know couldn't oppose further restriction of ammunition sales. However, we do have to be mindful, and I think that the member for Ottawa West is mindful, that there are some constitutional challenges here.

We have, under the Criminal Code, provisions that deal with the sale of ammunition. Section 110 allows for reasonable conditions to be placed on ammunition permits. Section 94 prohibits the sale of ammunition to people of unsound mind, to people who appear to be influenced by alcohol or drugs or to people who are prohibited by the courts from possession of ammunition.

Under the regulations to the Explosives Act, dealers of ammunition are not permitted to sell to people under the age of 16 unless they have special permits for sustenance hunting; that is, hunting as a way of life.

We know there are problems when the province attempts to trench on federal jurisdiction. It's unfortunate that Bill C-17, rushed through by the former federal Conservative government, did not contain any amendments to the requirements for sale of ammunition. That would certainly have been laudable. We have to continue to urge our federal counterpart to change the law to restrict the sale of ammunition. It seems absurd to me that you require a firearms acquisition certificate to acquire a firearm, but you don't need an FAC to acquire ammunition.

Presently, the province does issue firearms ammunition permits to dealers, who are obliged to follow regulations that deal with safe storage, keeping sporting ammunition out of the hands of young people, and certainly there's customarily a criminal record search before those ammunition permits are distributed.

This bill does not deal with some of the concerns of the federation of anglers and hunters. How do we deal with farmers? How do we deal with target shooters? How do we deal, for example, with native people who the Supreme Court, in the Sparrow decision, indicated have a right to hunt and fish in their traditional areas? We need to address that as well. So there are a number of problems that need to be addressed with this bill.

As my time is short, I just want to deal with one other issue raised by the member for Ottawa West. That is the issue of mandatory imprisonment for use of a firearm during a crime under section 85 of the Criminal Code. I would alert the House and the people who watch the proceedings in this House to the fact that the crown law policy manual gives clear direction regarding the treatment of section 85 offences by prosecutors.

In all cases involving the use of a weapon or firearm, crown counsel are obliged to point out to the court that such involvement is an aggravating factor relevant to the issue of sentencing and should be reflected in a harsher sentence. In terms of plea bargains, the crown policy manual says that these plea bargains should not be the subject when section 85 is concerned.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill. I agree with the member for Ottawa West that this is not a cure-all, it's not a major step, but it is I think an important step in helping reduce access to guns, which I think are the primary unfortunate player in violent crime in our communities.

I represent a community where concern and fear about violent crime is a daily unfortunate fact. I think of the people I represent in Regent Park, where last year there were seven shootings in seven weeks. Much of that, according to the police, is related to the drug trade and we need to do something about drug trafficking as well. That kind of criminal activity on a consistent basis can do nothing but raise fears.

It's not isolated there. In the St Lawrence neighbourhood recently, there were unfortunately two violent incidents within a short period of time which have caused a lot of concern there. The members in Corktown and people involved in SOBRA, the Seaton Ontario Berkeley Residents' Association, the Carleton and Jarvis area, St James Town, Cabbagetown, areas all across the riding I'm proud to represent have a fear about what's happening in terms of crime.

I think this is an example of where we can say we're doing something. We are saying that we can do a little bit to reduce the amount of violent crime and the access to guns and, importantly, ammunition that is out there now, because we see that in the streets.

There are other initiatives we can support. Community policing and foot patrols: 51 Division has had a 33% cut in its foot patrol, which is clearly the most effective way to police the downtown community. It's a shock to me. I'm told that part of the reason there's been a cut in community policing in my riding is because of the social contract. It's unfortunate that an essential service like policing was not taken out of the social contract.

I think actually there's a good example of why we should support something like this ammunition bill. I have in the members' gallery Tanya Whiteside, who is my MPP for a day.

Applause.

Mr Murphy: Yes, by all means; please applaud her.

She was shocked to find out that she could walk into any store and buy ammunition. I wanted to pass that message on to the legislators here and hope that will encourage them to support this.

1130

The member for London South expressed concern about constitutionality. I think there is clearly an overlapping jurisdiction here, but I have canvassed constitutional law lawyers on this issue who have indicated to me that there is a provincial jurisdiction and that there is room for provincial action in this area.

I see the member for Durham East shaking his head. I assume that means he disagrees with me, but it's so rare a thing, I'm shocked to see it. I'm sure the member for Durham East will show me his constitutional law degree in support of his conclusion. But I'm not a constitutional law lawyer and won't claim to be.

Interjection: You're an expert at everything, Gord.

Mr Murphy: Yes, the member for Durham East is an expert in most things, but I have talked to constitutional law lawyers and they indicate to me there is room for provincial action.

I want to say at this time that obviously we are debating this now to a certain degree because of that sense of random violence that has been connected to the unfortunate shooting in Ottawa and the unfortunate shooting in Toronto at the Just Desserts café. But while those focus much of public attention, it's not the only circumstance where those kinds of criminal shootings and criminal activities have occurred. There are many other circumstances which are continuing on a daily basis. As I think I indicated in the House the other day, between July and December 1993, 51 Division had 460 weapons offences. That's a shocking statistic to me, one which I think we need to do something about.

Finally, in the few seconds left to me, I want to repeat a message that I've mentioned before, that it's important that we as legislators understand that what we are trying to do is make communities safe for everyone. I think that, for example, in the last few weeks being a black youth in Toronto is a very difficult thing because of the way in which the issue played out. I want to express my sympathy, of course, to the family of Georgina Leimonis, but I think also that we have to ensure we don't add to the tension that's created, but that we say we're trying to make the city safe for everyone in it. I hope the government members and the Conservative members, including the always temperate member for Leeds-Grenville, will vote in favour of it.

I thank you for the opportunity to participate.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): It's a privilege for me this morning to have the opportunity to say a few words on second reading of Bill 151.

I think every member of this Legislature will agree that we must find a way to stem the illegal trade of weapons and ammunition. A concerted effort must be made to prevent violent crimes and so provide safe streets and communities for the citizens of Ontario once again.

Under the leadership of Mike Harris, the Conservative Party has developed a comprehensive strategy to address the issue of crime and safety. Earlier this year, our party released a third edition of New Directions covering crime, justice and community safety. We are not doing something at the last minute on this subject. As my colleague from Leeds pointed out, we have been working with this task force going across the province of Ontario for almost a year and we have now compiled what I would suggest every member should read, volume three of our New Directions covering this subject.

In this policy book, we put before the people recommendations that will reduce crime, restore the rights of victims and make our streets safe. In our town hall meetings across the province, we listened to the people and we acted upon their advice. The people of Ontario told us that one of the best ways to reduce crime is through greater community involvement. This means giving the community an active stake in making their neighbourhoods safe. It is through community participation that we can find real solutions to the real problems of violent crime and the fear it generates.

Through this initiative, members of the community voluntarily buy into the notion of reducing the number of guns on our streets. This is the kind of initiative that will work.

This bill, however, does nothing to target the illegal weapons and ammunition trade. By making it illegal to purchase ammunition without an Outdoors Card, we will be bolstering the underground arms business. Those who have legitimate uses for ammunition will be forced to look to the underground market.

By trying to capture some headlines, the Liberal Party has sensationalized a serious issue and put forward a bill that is ineffective and ill-inspired. I wonder if the member for Renfrew North thought he was truly representing his constituents when he stood in this Legislature and railed against the freedom to purchase ammunition.

To force sporting gun users to acquire an Outdoors Card when they do not want to hunt is a ridiculous proposition. I have a letter here, that's been circulated, from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters:

"This bill, as drafted, will further restrict the legal law-abiding firearms owner but does little to address the illegal trade and traffic in firearms from the United States. Many federation members and other firearm owners do not possess either of these documents, yet remain law-abiding, safe firearm owners and users. Provisions must be made to allow target shooters, legal handgun shooters and those who use firearms to control predators and nuisance animals to purchase ammunition without an Outdoors Card or an FAC. At a minimum, a restricted weapons permit issued by the chief provincial firearms office must also be accepted as documentation."

I have many other reports here that I would like to read in, but the time is going by and I have other members who would like to speak on this.

In closing, I want to point out to the member introducing this bill that this is not a provincial jurisdiction. Violations in the purchase of ammunition are federal offenses. It would be an offence for the provincial government to set the fines which are in this legislation. We do not, as a provincial government, have the right to set these fines. It's a federal jurisdiction.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am very pleased to be able to stand in my place this morning and speak to the bill of my colleague across the floor.

I find it absolutely regrettable and repulsive that the member for Leeds-Grenville would interject and introduce some wild, partisan, neo-right-wing, Harris police state philosophy to the discussion here this morning.

We are here, I believe, as legislators -- and it crosses all party lines -- to do the best that we possibly can to reduce the crime, to reduce the tragedies that happen across this wonderful province of Ontario. For someone to get up and make some sort of political statement is absolutely -- and I use this often, but it really fits today -- diabolical, to introduce that statement.

If we talk about the Mike Harris strategy of dealing with crime with his crime force, I just would like to look at the statistics in the United States. They have built more prisons in an effort to contain their crime. It doesn't work. The crime in the United States, the number of killings with guns, is absolutely out of control and they have not contained this one little bit, although they insist on building more prisons and more facilities to lock people up from society. It doesn't work.

As to this meanness of the Conservative Party that they're going around the province with, I remind them that in the Thatcher era in England it produced the Thatcher children, and that's a legacy the English people are dealing with today in so far as thugs, crimes, criminals are concerned. It's all a social problem brought about in England by Thatcher.

Let's turn to the other neo-right-wing group they're trying to copy, the Reagan administration. We all saw what happened in the United States with the social programs, the cutting of the welfare and all those things. This is also a social issue, dealing with this crime. We saw on television the riots in Los Angeles, and heaven forbid if Ontario is heading into that way of thinking.

1140

To get back to the bill which my colleague has issued, I'd just like to point out certain facts that probably we should understand.

First of all, I'd like to say that pursuant to sections 1 and 5 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the permit to sell ammunition is issued by the office of the chief provincial firearms officer, which is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. Subsection 110(11) of the Criminal Code allows for reasonable conditions to be placed on ammunition permits, and section 94 of the Criminal Code prohibits the sale of ammunition to a person who is of unsound mind, impaired by alcohol or drugs, or prohibited by the courts from possessing ammunition.

There are no further controls on ammunition sales under the Criminal Code. However, regulations under the federal Explosives Act prohibit the sale of ammunition to a person under the age of 16 unless that person has a permit under section 110(6) of the Criminal Code to possess firearms for the purpose of hunting as a way of life.

The control of the sale of ammunition, therefore, would appear -- and I'm not a constitutional lawyer as my colleague from St George-St David suggested; I have a life experience of a lot of things, but that's not one of them -- it would appear that the sale of ammunition will be a matter pertaining to criminal law, which falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

It would also likewise appear that any legislative action to further control the sale of ammunition has to be taken at the federal level. It's my understanding that a legal opinion is at this time being sought from the constitutional law section to see whether or not the province can pass any legislation at all in this area.

I just want to say that I endorse what the member said. I think we should do everything we can to stop this carnage in Ontario. If we have to get a program where we can get the arms so they can't be stolen, like an amnesty, we should do it. We should do what we can about the ammunition. We should do all we can in our power, and all parties, to make Ontario safe, to make our people safe and to take this frightful situation off the street.

In Canada, in Ontario, tragedies involving handguns continue, and we can't reduce that tragedy overnight, because most of the tragedies that happen are caused by unsafe usage of firearms, and we have statistics to support that.

But believe you me, I stand in my place supportive of any measure that we can do across non-partisan policies and positions to stop this sort of carnage that's happening in this wonderful province of Ontario that we all live in.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I would just like to indicate my full support for this particular piece of legislation. It is clear, as has been brought out numerous times, that when these tragedies in our communities occur many times they are as a result of the use of illegal guns, and certainly I support any measure which takes illegal guns off the streets.

But in all cases, the use of those illegal guns is with legally purchased ammunition. This is a piece of legislation which would go miles in terms of making certain that there is a restriction on who can purchase ammunition, and it is clear that the passage of this bill will make our communities safer.

I would implore all members of this Legislature to support this legislation as one which is in the best interests of our communities in making them safer and more secure.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to have a chance to place a few comments on the record about this bill today, An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition, which has been brought before us for consideration by the member for Ottawa West. If passed, private member's Bill 151 would restrict the sale of ammunition to only those with a valid Outdoors Card, with the appropriate hunting licence or a valid firearms acquisition certificate.

What about the farmers out there, and the natives who don't have the Outdoors Card? What about the target shooters? What about the biathlon people who are involved in sports? While I support this bill in principle, I have some reservations with regard to the very intent and the purpose of the bill. I believe this bill was introduced as a knee-jerk reaction to the recent murder of a young woman in a Toronto restaurant, the recent drive-by killing of an innocent passerby in Ottawa and the recent slaying of a university student in Hamilton. The call for gun control is being led by the power media in these large urban communities. The responsible, gun-owning residents of small, rural communities are being swept up in the media-generated hype.

In a recent column in the Orillia Packet and Times, Jack Marshall, the former publisher of the Orillia daily newspaper, said, "Guns Are Toronto's Problems, Not Ours." Mr Marshall says: "Typically and predictably the only call the federal justice people are listening to is for more gun control. They are too frightened to contemplate greater penalties against criminals or greater police enforcement. So they go after the guns." Mr Marshall says, "We must send them to prison for long terms...."

In the articles I have read in the newspapers with regard to this bill, Mr Allan Rock, who is the Justice minister, indicates, "No Crime Crisis in Canada." This is the federal Liberal Justice minister saying that crime is not a problem, that society is still safe. Yet his own mother and father are telling him to do something about what they perceive as a less safe society.

The letter of the day in the Toronto Sun says, "The Honourable Allan Rock can enact the handgun prohibition he favours and follow in the footsteps of Washington, DC, which banned the possession and sale of handguns in 1977." Yet in that very state there's been a 20% increase, and firearm robberies have increased by 96%. To say that to limit the amount of shells and people who can buy them is going to solve the problem will not do it.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Certainly violence and victims of crime are uppermost in everyone's mind today and have been for the last little while. This is a complex issue that we on all sides of the House must work together to address. It affects all of us.

Just last week, the mother of a murder victim spoke to a group of women in my city of Niagara Falls. For many years I have been involved with a feminist group in my city that is concerned about the causes of violence against women. One that they have been working on this past year is the effect of pornography. Certainly, there are a lot of factors contributing to this frightening violence that we are experiencing.

Attitudes of inequality are one of them. While women are unequal they will be victims. That's why such initiatives as employment equity, economic equality and political equality, having more women here in this House, will go towards that end.

Let me state the obvious: Women are victims of violence in our society and the use of guns is largely male. There are no easy answers, there are no quick solutions. Access to guns and ammunition is one avenue to pursue. That is why I will support this bill. We must look at the whole justice system. I am asking for justice for women. Our justice committee, which I sit on in this Legislature, has been working on a report over the last six months or more and some of the recommendations of that report are that victims be more aware of support services, that victims encounter long delays when being awarded compensation, that victims are not notified when offenders are released on parole and that victims do not have adequate counselling for court appearances. I could go on and on.

We must not use, as the Niagara Falls Review has said when speaking about the member for St Catharines, any opportunistic, political gamesmanship. This issue is far too serious. Our society in Ontario has been, and strives to be, a model to the whole world of living together with respect and tolerance. Our society is very precious to us.

1150

I ask all members to look very carefully and to evaluate very carefully every possible solution to this complex problem. I want us to act here in this Legislature in a most responsible way, and I also want us to encourage and address the federal level. We know that they are involved, that we cannot do it alone, but we must do our part and we must lead the way.

One other item I might draw to your attention was in the Niagara Falls Review this past weekend, and it talks about a program called the victim-offender reconciliation program, in which the accused stands not only before a judge but stands before the victim to answer to the crime.

I ask all of us in this House to work together and to look at all avenues by which to address this very serious concern.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I believe that the debate in the Legislature this morning on the bill that has been presented is an important debate. It is a part of the efforts of people in this Legislature over recent weeks to address what are very real concerns among people in our cities, people in communities across this province about the increased level of violence and their anxieties about the safety of our communities.

As we have raised these concerns in the Legislature repeatedly over recent weeks, I think we have all agreed that it is extremely important for legislators at all levels of government of all parties to be ready and willing to respond to the kinds of concerns and the kinds of anxieties that people in our communities are feeling.

We have asked the government if it would refer the issues of how we can deal more effectively with safety in our communities, with the safety of our streets, to the standing committee on justice issues so that we can indeed, as thoughtful and concerned legislators, discuss the issues, the many issues that have to be dealt with if we are going to provide that reassurance to people about the safety of our communities.

We would agree that this bill that is before the Legislature this morning is but one step in responding to what is a truly complex problem. But it is essential that we be prepared, clearly prepared, to act and to act in a way which is going to be effective, and that is why we present the bill in the Legislature this morning and that is why we urge the support of all parties for this bill, as one step in responding to those very legitimate concerns and very heightened anxieties that people are feeling right now.

This bill is but one step in dealing with a very complex problem. I was more than a little surprised to come into the House to speak to the bill and hear a member of the third party referring to it as a knee-jerk reaction. I simply don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction to be ready and willing to respond to varied concerns, very real concerns that people have.

Members of the third party are suggesting it's a Band-Aid reaction, and again, no one would pretend, would claim, that this one step is sufficient to address all the concerns that we have about violence and about crime. All of us would agree that it's a complex problem but that, again, we need to be prepared to take specific steps to respond to it.

We present this bill because we have discovered that as we talk about issues of gun control, as we talk about issues of dealing with the Young Offenders Act, there is absolutely no regulation, no restriction in the province of Ontario on who can buy bullets for guns. Under existing legislation, even somebody who is in possession of an illegal gun is able to buy ammunition legally, and that just simply does not make sense.

As we are more and more concerned about the incidence of gun-related crimes, as we recognize that greater gun control has to be one of the responses to the concern about gun-related crime, surely regulating the bullets that go into those guns has to be part of the action that we're prepared to take. It just does not make sense that people can use store-bought bullets in illegal guns, and this bill will limit the sale of ammunition to people who are legally entitled to own a firearm.

The bill clearly speaks to the ability to regulate this without a great additional bureaucracy, without costs, without difficulty to people who own legal firearms, because it would be possible to buy ammunition, for those who are legally able to own a firearm, by presenting a firearm certificate or an Outdoors Card. So this is relatively easy to implement.

Again I say that obviously the bill alone will not deal with the problem of violent crime, it will not deal with the proliferation of guns on our streets. We recognize that the problem with gun-related crime is indeed illegal weapons, illegal guns, and that there is going to have to be a very active effort to deal with the possession of illegal guns, with the smuggling of guns into the province and into the country. We also know that we're going to have to make a very concerted effort to deal not with just being tougher on crime after it has been committed, but to deal with crime prevention.

The member for Niagara Falls has spoken about a particular concern with increased violence that she brings, and that is violence against women. We share that as one of the concerns we have about increased violence in our communities. We have presented a number of very specific resolutions that we believe would be part of responding to the concern about increased violence against women.

We have urged that there be a regulation on the distribution and sale of killer cards. We have urged that this government take action to deal with the availability of slasher films, which we believe incite violence against women. We urged last week in the Legislature that there be action taken to put in place a central registry for dangerous offenders. We believe this would be one more step in ensuring that our communities and our streets are safer.

We all have to sit down and talk about all the responses that have to be made if we are in fact to do what is necessary to provide for greater safety in our communities.

I am gratified by the fact that the federal government clearly recognizes the urgency of this issue. I had an opportunity yesterday to meet with the federal Justice minister, and he is clearly prepared to take action on the issues of the Young Offenders Act and gun control and, as well, to go beyond that and talk about how at all levels of government we can work to bring about, in an integrated way, a focus on crime prevention, because he recognizes the need for a comprehensive approach. He is also prepared to look at whether or not there is a federal application of the bill which we present before the provincial Legislature today so that in fact it may be possible to regulate the sale of ammunition across the country. We believe that would also be a very positive step forward.

In the meantime, we have before us a piece of legislation which allows us as a provincial Legislature to take a clear and decisive step to assure people that we are ready to deal with their concerns. I would urge the members of this Legislature to recognize that this is a positive step, to be prepared to support it and to be prepared then to sit down in committee and discuss what more we can do to respond to what has clearly become an increased concern of people in communities across the province of Ontario.

We would urge that there be support for the legislation that's before the House today. We would urge that there be further discussion in committee as to how this legislation can be proceeded with as quickly as possible so that it can be enacted into law. We would urge as well that the government act very quickly on a referral of concerns for violence and for crime and for the safety of our communities to the standing committee on justice issues so that other steps can be considered and can be acted on very quickly.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the time to speak on this ill-conceived, Band-Aid approach by the Liberals on a very serious concern. This concern is great, I know, but the Liberals just have a Band-Aid approach to it. What they're really doing is hurting the citizens who are honest.

What they're doing is attacking rural Ontario. What they should be doing is getting tough on criminals, not worrying about a Band-Aid approach which won't solve anything. If they think this will stop the criminals from getting bullets, they're really misguided and don't know what they're talking about.

Also, I have a letter from our Tourism critic. "What about from the sports angle? Biathlon athletes who are under 18 years of age may have more difficulty in practising their sport because they won't be able to get bullets." They won't have an Outdoors Card. They won't have a hunting card; they don't hunt.

This is a really ill-conceived bill by the Liberals just to gain some publicity.

The Deputy Speaker: There are 19 seconds, member for Durham West.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I rise simply to commend the member opposite for bringing forth this bill and to say that while it is important to bring up this discussion, I am very shocked to hear of the opposition to this issue. It's an important issue regarding violence in our community.

1200

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough North, you have 57 seconds.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to add my support to this bill. It is of extreme importance. Take away the partisan point of view and talk about a community that needs to be safe for children, for families. As our leader, Lyn McLeod, stated, this is a start. Of course this is not going to resolve all the crime within our community; it's a start. It's extremely important that we lend support to this, and if it is short in some respects, that all members of the House add their support in respect to having a safe community. We are extremely concerned and we shall not play football with it. We just hope, for the safety of our children, our families, our wives, our husbands, whoever they are, that we proceed with this bill to have a safe community.

Mr Chiarelli: I was quite surprised at the response of the member for Leeds-Grenville. It was extremely partisan, and there seemed to be a tenor that the Progressive Conservative Party owns this issue. Well, the people of Canada and the people of Ontario own this issue, and they will be very angry with elected officials who try to make this a partisan issue and take ownership of it.

I respect the Conservative Party for having conducted its task force and for its bill of rights, but people don't want task forces any more, they don't want bills of rights any more. They want governments to act to make our communities safer.

I would encourage the third party, the Conservative Party, to take a more non-partisan tack with this particular bill. Indeed, if the member for Leeds-Grenville wants to put his name in place of mine or Mr Murphy's on the bill, let him be my guest, and we'll go and debate his bill. But action is required.

With respect to the member for Lanark-Renfrew, he talks about illegal import of arms. The association of hunters and anglers talks about the importation of illegal arms. They're absolutely right: The federal government has to take action in these particular areas.

But when they speak of this bill being a knee-jerk reaction, maybe there's a knee-jerk reaction on the other side. When anybody in Ontario wants to go for an X-ray or to visit a doctor, they have to show a card. All we're saying now is if they want to go and buy bullets, which can kill people and be put in illegal guns, we want them to show a card. Perhaps the knee-jerk reaction is the person who doesn't want to try to make our communities safer by identifying themselves and their weapons when they buy bullets.

TENANTS ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE / LOCATAIRES SUR L'AIDE SOCIALE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 49, standing in the name of Mr Bisson. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise?

Mr Bisson has moved private member's resolution number 38. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

AMMUNITION CONTROL ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 50, standing in the name of Mr Chiarelli. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise?

Mr Chiarelli has moved second reading of Bill 151, An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition.

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

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Mr Speaker, I believe a majority of the members wish Bill 151 referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Deputy Speaker: The standing committee on justice.

All those in favour will please rise.

All those opposed will please rise.

The majority of the House being in agreement with the request of the member for Ottawa West, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on justice.

All the private members' business issues have been debated. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Tuesday evening I attended a town hall meeting in Sudbury to discuss the crisis in health care in that city and in northeastern Ontario. The main problem seems to be that, while Sudbury is recognized as the health care centre for northeastern Ontario, the government doesn't seem to be willing to put the resources into Sudbury to get the job done.

There are several reasons this is happening. One is that the Ministry of Health is using inaccurate data to make these health care decisions. The ministry insists that Sudbury has 145 full-time, active general practitioners in the district. This would more than meet the established standards, but in actual fact there are only 79 GPs in Sudbury.

The ministry in its list lumps in specialists, full-time emergency doctors, retirees, part-timers, PG trainees and others. I find this incredible, but that is what the ministry has done. Therefore, there are from 8,000 to 12,000 people in the Sudbury region without a family physician.

Not only are waiting lists for doctors growing, but the doctors who are there are burning out and leaving at an alarming rate. Because of the inaccurate data, the ministry will not declare the Sudbury area an underserviced area, which would provide incentives for more doctors to locate there.

There is also a shortage of specialists, and that is causing a six- to eight-month waiting time compared to 30 days in southern Ontario. The catch here is that the rules of the health travel program prevent a patient being referred to southern Ontario if there is the appropriate specialist in the north. Therefore, patients in northeastern Ontario are being denied timely access to specialized physicians.

This is a serious problem. It's not only affecting the people in Sudbury but those in all of northeastern Ontario, the 600,000 people who call northern Ontario their home.

EARTH DAY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Tomorrow communities across Ontario, Canada and 91 countries around the world will be celebrating Earth Day in their communities. Earth Day has become an opportunity for individuals and businesses to look at what they are doing for the environment and what steps could be taken to improve the situation.

Businesses normally are pointed at as major abusers of our environment. I am pleased to be able to announce that many of our corporate partners have acted in a proactive way to ensure that Ontarians are given an opportunity to help the environment and save our valuable resources.

The Ontario brewing industry has been committed to reuse since 1927 when it offered customers their first two-four of refillable beer bottles. Through the Beer Store, consumers are returning over 90% of their beverage containers for reuse.

The notable part of these initiatives is that the Ontario brewing industry has made these moves without government legislation or regulation. The people of Ontario have chosen to return their containers because of the cost advantage to do so and because it gives us an opportunity to do something positive for the environment, not because Big Brother will fine us or take away our right to drink beer.

Environmental initiatives such as the one initiated by the Ontario brewing industry work, and work well, because they are initiated by the industry, supported through positive advertising campaigns by the industry and supported by consumers. The old adage of, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't force him to drink," rings true when it comes to the government trying to force society to change in a way it is uncomfortable with.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'd like to use my 90 seconds today to speak about the upcoming celebrations to recognize the 50th anniversary of D-Day. On June 6, 1944, the Allied Forces landed on the European mainland in one of the most brilliantly conceived and almost faultlessly executed offensives in the history of modern warfare.

Here in Toronto plans are in the process to recognize D-Day in an unforgettable manner. A parade featuring over 1,500 veterans will march from Nathan Phillips Square to Union Station where the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, His Honour Hal Jackman, and the Premier of the province of Ontario, the Honourable Bob Rae, will take the salute.

A fly-past of vintage aircraft and a drive-past of vintage military vehicles will also be part of these celebrations. The parade will culminate at Ontario Place at HMCS Haida, followed by a concert in the Forum at Ontario Place.

I urge all veterans watching today to keep Sunday, June 5, 1994, open on their calendar. I also encourage them to come to Toronto and be part of the celebrations. More details of this event will unfold nearer the day, and they will be announced in time to ensure the maximum participation by all.

EARTH DAY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I rise today to commemorate a very important occasion that is going to be taking place not only all this week but especially tomorrow. What I am speaking to is Earth Week, and tomorrow marks the 24th anniversary of Earth Day, an internationally recognized event which provides all of us with an opportunity to renew our commitment to protecting and preserving the natural environment today and for future generations.

To celebrate Earth Day thousands of people in Ontario will be taking part in a variety of events: tree planting activities, green marches and the cleanup of park areas.

Earth Day, and this Earth Week, is important. It is a time where we rededicate ourselves to the maintenance and improvement of our environment. Community groups, business groups, school children, all will be taking a vibrant and vital part in recognizing Earth Day through a myriad of exciting events.

Earth Day allows us to specifically recognize the importance of our environment but also to remember that our environment requires a commitment not only for one day of the year but indeed for every day of each year. It is a commitment that is shared by all. I would like to congratulate all who are going to be taking part in Earth Day tomorrow and celebrating this Earth Week.

OTTAWA-CARLETON LEGISLATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Congratulations to the city of North York for launching the economic development campaign Open for Business. North York understands the need to work with the business community to create a favourable climate for economic growth, jobs and increased assessment.

The borough of East York has encouraged economic development and job creation by eliminating all planning and development charges for industrial and commercial development and renovation. The public demands government that is more efficient but less costly and less bureaucratic.

Therefore, it is with regret that I consider the municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton region, which with the passage of Bill 143 will lose the fundamental right to direct their economic development.

But this is not the only failure of this bill. It will take away local representation from the regional government, including the local mayors, thereby establishing a government structure susceptible to confrontation. It will cause the loss of community-based policing.

Most important, the government has provided no financial analysis or evidence to demonstrate that the new government and the new police structure will save money or use tax dollars more efficiently. Indeed, those who were permitted to speak, before closure silenced all voices, indicated their overwhelming concern that the government cost would escalate.

No pricetag, no answers. Welcome, Ottawa-Carleton, to Bob Rae's Ontario.

MEMBERS' HOCKEY GAME

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today with an invitation for all members of this Legislature and all individuals who enjoy hockey and wish to support a worthy cause. Tonight the Ontario Legiskaters will play hockey against the Carpenters Union Local 27, with all proceeds going to the Children's Wish Foundation of Canada.

The Ontario Legiskaters is a non-partisan team that has travelled to various areas in this province to assist in fund-raising events. These games are thoroughly enjoyed by all individuals who attend. It provides communities with an opportunity to meet not only their local MPP but also MPPs from across the province. MPPs are also given the opportunity to travel into their colleagues' ridings.

I encourage all of my colleagues to come out and support a worthy cause and to have fun doing it. I extend this invitation to everyone in the Toronto and surrounding area, the members of the press gallery and individuals of the Legislative Assembly. We look forward to seeing all of you there.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of the individuals who have worked so hard to make this event such a success: Maggie Yen from the Carpenters Union Local 27 training centre and Barb Dolan from my office.

Speaker, I encourage you and everyone else to come out and join our fund-raising efforts this evening. We are fortunate that the Maple Leafs played and won last evening so we are not in competition with their game this evening. Rather than spending an evening without hockey, come out and enjoy our game. The game is being played tonight at 7 pm at St Michael's Arena, 1515 Bathurst Street at St Clair Avenue.

Thank you, Speaker. We'll see you at the game.

1340

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Yesterday in the House of Commons federal Justice minister Allan Rock tabled draft legislation to prohibit the sale and distribution of serial killer trading cards to children under the age of 18 years.

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, it is a good thing that the federal Liberal government has taken action to protect the women and children of this province, because we certainly can't count on the Ontario government or the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to act on our behalf.

Members are aware that last July, almost one year ago, I introduced a private member's bill to ban the sale of these hideous cards to our children in Ontario. Since that time, the only thing we have heard from Minister Marilyn Churley is excuses as to why she can't take action. She told us she had no jurisdiction to control retail sales. Imagine this coming from a minister who had no authority to regulate casinos but did not hesitate to use that power.

The minister had the power to enact legislation on serial killer trading cards; she just didn't have the will. The minister could have taken jurisdiction, just like her government has done in countless other areas. Instead she chose to opt out of protecting the interests of the children of this province.

The issue of combating violence is too important to get sidetracked by intergovernmental disputes over who has jurisdiction. We must all work together and take responsibility. I urge the minister to take responsibility for combating violence against women and children in this province.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Last night I had the pleasure of attending a volunteer appreciation dinner at which the Victoria County Association for Community Living and Victoria County Community Care honoured some very special citizens from my riding.

These individuals have demonstrated their commitment to total community citizenship through the many caring tasks they perform for the good of others. Volunteers play a proactive role in assisting people with developmental handicaps, seniors and special-needs clients of all ages to participate fully in community life.

Volunteers from these two associations are responsible for numerous important tasks, including providing companionship to elderly in their homes, a diners' club, one-on-one support, recreation and leisure activities, providing transportation and delivering meals on wheels.

Volunteerism is not a job; it's a commitment. The people I saw being honoured last night do the work they do because they truly enjoy it and each and every one of them is committed to serving others.

In these difficult economic times, and especially with government funding becoming more and more scarce, it is encouraging to see people freely sharing their time, experience and patience with others.

I would also like to recognize the generosity of the Moose Lodge in Lindsay for donating 275 dinners for last night's celebration.

I'm happy to say that compassion and caring for others and community pride are all alive and well in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I rise today to speak about taming a killer. I am referring to the infamous killer highway, the stretch of Highway 6 between Highways 403 and 401. Since 1989, as a result of over 200 accidents, at least 21 people have died and dozens more have been injured in the 24-kilometre stretch of highway each year. During that five-year span, all 21 fatalities were caused by human error. Of course, speeding was the number one cause.

In the very near future photo-radar will become a reality on Ontario's 400-series highways. The project is designed to save lives, reduce injuries and cut the cost of collisions each year in this province. It has been proven to reduce speeding and fatalities in other jurisdictions around the world. In Australia, for example, fatalities had been reduced by 30% three years after the technology was introduced.

In an attempt to tame the killer, I ask the Minister of Transportation to consider extending the use of photo-radar to the deadly stretch of highway on Highway 6. The killer highway has carved its notoriety with a heavy hand. We have the tools to reduce the number of accidents and deaths. We have to act responsibly.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HEALTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WEEK

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Today I'd like to tell the House about our second annual Health Economic Development Week, which began on Monday. This is the week we spotlight one of the most promising sectors of the Ontario economy, our health industry sector, a sector that employs 40,000 Ontarians who manufacture and provide health care products and services.

The timing for Health Economic Development Week couldn't be better, because just last month the health industry's advisory committee submitted to me a sector development strategy. This strategy, called Healthy and Wealthy: A Growth Prescription for Ontario's Health Industries, outlines a plan for economic growth and job creation. I'm impressed with the strategy's forward-looking and creative attitude towards economic development and I can tell the House that my enthusiasm is shared by my cabinet colleagues.

That's why I'm happy to tell you today -- and, I might add, in record time -- that the government will be proceeding with many of the committee's recommendations. Growth and job creation in the health industries sector is a high priority for this government, and I will soon have other announcements to make on the specific details for implementing the advisory committee's strategy.

The members of the advisory committee contributed a great deal of time and effort to develop the health industries strategy. It's a joint effort of four industries: pharmaceutical, medical devices, biotechnology and private health services. In addition, labour, medical researchers, health care providers and health care consumers are on the committee.

I'd like to introduce to the House some of the members of the advisory committee who are here in the gallery today and allow members to thank them for their hard work.

Bill Blundell chaired the committee and is the former CEO and chairman of General Electric Canada and currently the chair of the Wellesley Hospital. Glenn Buchanan, national representative of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, represented labour. Gerry Turner of Mount Sinai Hospital, Ed Rygiel of MDS and Hans Kunov of the University of Toronto are also members of the committee. I'm sure members would want to acknowledge the work they've done for the province.

Applause.

Hon Mrs Grier: The advisory committee has many innovative initiatives. These include plans to increase Ontario exports. The global market for health sector products and services will be more than $500 million -- $500 billion; I get my letters wrong -- by the end of the decade. Ontario's share of this market is much too small and explains why Canada has a trade deficit in health products of more than $2 billion. We need and can do better and, as the report points out, there is no reason why we can't.

The companies that are taking part in Health Economic Development Week range in size from 25 employees to 5,900. To help kick off the week, on Monday I visited the headquarters of MDS Health Group Ltd. At MDS I untied a ribbon to celebrate its 25th anniversary. MDS is not only an exporter of medical supplies to more than 100 countries; it's also an important provider of venture capital to new companies and new technologies. And MDS employs 5,900 people.

I also visited Livingston Healthcare Services, where I saw an important new paperless system for reducing hospital inventory costs.

Tomorrow I'll be at three more companies: Astra Pharma, a growing brand-name pharmaceutical company; Unitron Industries of Kitchener, a hearing aid manufacturer; and Resource Management Consultants, a company with 25 years of experience in health strategy and facilities planning around the world. The health industries strategy addresses the needs of every size and type of company at every stage of development.

Our government is the first to recognize the importance of health industries to the health care system. The health industries sector contributes to the health of Ontarians by providing high-value-added jobs to our people.

A recent study found that physical and psychological stress associated with unemployment costs Canada $1 billion a year in extra health care costs. It's clear that our physical wellbeing depends on our economic and social wellbeing, and that's why job creation is a health issue as well as an economic development issue.

As the advisory committee's report says, "We must succeed in this endeavour because a society that fails to create good jobs for its people is not a healthy place to live." I hope that by raising public awareness of the importance of health industries, Health Economic Development Week will be a step towards building a healthier Ontario.

1350

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Responses?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Frankly, we had expected today an announcement with respect to the governance of the ambulance system, long-term care, capital infusion into the cancer system, dialysis infusion or perhaps even the emergency on-call situations that are faced in many communities across Ontario.

We have, however, a positive announcement with respect to Health Economic Development Week. I believe the advisory committee report was in fact well received. It certainly recognized that the underwriting of the manufacture of bedpans was not the way to go in terms of developing the health economic contribution to the general economy of Ontario.

The report also recognized that in this province we have the technological expertise and the technological development base to serve not only Ontarians and other Canadians but, as well, people in other jurisdictions and in fact be a tool for export development. We know there is a high value added in the health care sector that's significant in our own economy, and it's clear that value added can be substantially increased.

This announcement celebrates the naming of a week, but unfortunately we see no other indication of government action associated with the health economic recommendations that were placed by the committee. I suggest to the minister that she could look at the Orders and Notices paper, at resolution 37, where I have called for the creation of an Ontario health research council as a crown agency that could coordinate health research and development activities in Ontario and lever public- and private-sector-coordinated dollars not only to do the clinical, basic and biomedical research but also to create an option for development that could move our products more quickly into an international market.

I ask the minister why there isn't a particular policy from the Ministry of Health whereby new developing technologies that are coming out of Ontario operations are given preference for capital purchase in, for example, our hospitals. It's very difficult, if one has developed a major new technology or device, to market that project to the Mayo if you can't even sell it to the Sunnybrook hospital or to the Toronto Hospital. That has to be a significant factor in the development of our economic health policies.

I also suggest to the minister that there are deep concerns in the pharmaceutical industry, among manufacturers, with respect to the government's approach to that sector. Many have indeed suggested that the government should have a look at the Australian initiatives which recognize the economic contribution to society as well as the development of the pharmaceutical products. That suggestion has been put forward, I know, to people in the ministry on more than one occasion. They also refer not only to the Australian initiatives but to the Quebec initiatives, and virtually every pharmaceutical manufacturer located in Ontario will tell me they don't feel awfully welcome here, particularly with this government, but they do feel awfully welcome in Quebec.

I also suggest that while the minister has recognized and visited MDS Health Group over the last couple of days, just to use one example, the recognition of that particular company's involvement in health innovation through venture capital funds is one to be admired and encouraged. Not only MDS, but other groups that have placed investment in biomedical research and technological development have added more to capital and economic development in the health care sector than this government itself has. The government should perhaps look at where and how it can assist the private sector, which is already taking extremely strong stands, to indeed increase those stands.

To encourage investment here, we must have consistent policies that show that Ontario welcomes the investment and will create the environment and the atmosphere for that investment to take place. We have seen over the past period of time with this government threats against the private sector's involvement in health care, from the home care to laboratory services to ambulance services to the nursing home sector, and frankly those examples turn business off rather than welcome it.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to spend a few minutes to respond to the minister's announcement.

I think we're seeing, and all members of the House should be aware that we're seeing, the great conversion on the road to Damascus. We have a government that has done everything it can to drive the private sector out of the delivery and development of health care in this province, everything it possibly could in its three and a half years in office. If you take the home care and the long-term care sector, they've stated time and time again their preference for the not-for-profit sector.

If they had their way -- we know they did a study, but they found out it cost too much money, that they couldn't buy out the capital stock of nursing homes. Unfortunately for them and their ideology, they had to abandon that. Fortunately for the people of Ontario, we continue to have a choice in our long-term care sector, and when a Mike Harris government gets in, we're going to restore the balance between the private sector and the not-for-profit sector in this province.

We look at the pharmaceutical sector, and the minister, on her conversion road here today, finally talks about visiting some pharmaceutical manufacturers. Well, my party has visited with health officials in the province of Quebec. We've learned from them why they've been so successful in taking jobs from Ontario and in attracting jobs from around the world for the pharmaceutical industry.

Do you know what they did? There wasn't money exchanged. It was simply that the pharmaceutical industry asked the Quebec government for an understanding that health care must become part of the economic engine that drives the economy, and the Quebec government said: "Yes, we'll do that. And you know what we'll do for you so you'll have comfort and stability in locating and creating jobs in our province?" They said they would not pass any legislation or regulations or more red tape until they threw it by the pharmaceutical industry and asked how it impacted on their industry.

So today, in the honourable Russ Williams's riding around the city of Montreal, we have the development and the encouragement of the pharmaceutical manufacturing companies in this country. Ontario's got to get on the bandwagon with that and actually start dealing with economic development.

The minister heard me on Saturday talk about a new vision for hospitals, that rather than running around talking about closing hospitals, we should have a new vision for hospitals in this province. She heard me say it at the Catholic Health Association of Ontario. I've been saying it for three years. Hospitals shouldn't be closed: We should be taking that empty space, using the infrastructure that's in place and making complete health care centres out of those institutions, welcoming into those institutions independent health care facilities for dialysis, welcoming chiropractors and doctors to take up offices in those institutions; to pay rent and overhead to the hospital boards so we can keep those beds open.

This government has done everything to demoralize pharmacies and pharmacists in this province. Their smoking legislation will lead to bankruptcies, and soon, rather than developing health care in this province, they're going to find themselves in court with the pharmacies in this province.

The NDP ideology, when it brought out the Swimmer report, wanted to take over the ambulance sector in this province. If they had their way and if they had the money -- and thank God they don't have the money in this case -- they'd have taken over the private sector ambulance operators in this province.

I do want to thank the members of the health industry's advisory committee. I want to thank them for the work, and I have one message for them today: Stay alive till 1995, when a government that understands business and economic development in this province is elected and able to implement your very good recommendations in this report.

The minister mentions that she went out on Monday to MDS. Mike Harris and I were at MDS last year, the year before, and we were there again this year. We understand what companies like MDS want in this province, and we understand that this government has been nothing but a barrier to creating jobs in the health care field.

1400

Our caucus has spoken to and had presentations from Dr Fraser Mustard, and if there's one lesson that all of us need to understand in this Legislature, it's that the best thing you can do for the health care of the people of this province is to give people the opportunity for employment in this province. Jobs are the best thing we could do. After three and a half years of doing everything they can to destroy jobs in this province, the minister finally recognizes that unemployment creates stress and that it has an effect on our health care budgets. It more than creates stress; it robs individuals of the only dignity a government should be trying to provide: the dignity that comes with a job.

Yes, Minister, health care should be an economic engine that drives this province. It should be part of your economic development strategy. You've got to get together with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade to create that strategy and respond to the recommendations in this report. You'd better do that, Minister, or more people are going to lose their jobs and more Ontarians are going to move south of the border.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): I believe there's unanimous agreement to make a statement on the occasion of the Order of Ontario investiture.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

ORDER OF ONTARIO

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): The Order of Ontario is the highest and most prestigious award this province gives to its citizens. It recognizes people who have demonstrated excellence and achievement of the highest degree in any field of endeavour and whose contributions have enriched the lives of others and the betterment of their communities.

Last night, in an impressive and emotional ceremony, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor invested 16 outstanding Ontarians to the order this year. They were chosen from approximately 120 nominations by an advisory council comprising Mr Speaker Warner and the secretary of cabinet and clerk of the executive council, David Agnew. The advisory council is chaired by the Honourable Charles Dubin, the Chief Justice of Ontario.

It is with great pleasure that I read the names of the new inductees into the record. They are:

-- Dr Prasanta Kumar Basu of Unionville, for his achievements in ophthalmic research at the University of Toronto, establishing Canada's first eye bank, and writing Bengali literature.

-- Lorna de Blicquy of Dunrobin, for pioneering and significantly advancing the rights of women in the field of aviation.

-- M. Joan Chalmers of Toronto, for supporting and bringing greater recognition to culture in Ontario, particularly crafts and the performing and fine arts.

-- Martin Connell of Toronto, for his work as a businessman and philanthropist in Canada and developing countries.

-- Elsie Cressman of Kitchener, for being a pioneer in midwifery in Canada and overseas, and for founding the St Jacob's Family Birthing Home.

-- Selma Edelstone of Toronto, for launching Interlink, a program that brings seniors and children together through words and music.

-- Nicolas Goldschmidt of Toronto, for his achievements as a conductor, singer, teacher, pianist, administrator and musical entrepreneur.

-- J. Conrad Lavigne of Timmins, for creating the Mid-Canada Television System and introducing French-language broadcasting to Ontario.

-- Donald C. MacDonald of Toronto, for his 27 years as an MPP and building and leading the CCF and New Democratic parties into strong political entities.

-- Ed Mirvish of Toronto, for extraordinary charitable contributions and entrepreneurial achievements in business and the entertainment industry.

-- Phillip Nimmons of Thornhill, for being a leader in the Canadian jazz scene for more than 40 years and for being an inspiration to young musicians.

-- K. George Pedersen of London, for an outstanding career as an educator and university administrator.

-- Ronald Satok of Toronto, for founding the Satok School of the Arts, which enhances the lives of artists with disabilities and helps to bring public attention to their work.

-- Dr Nelles Silverthorne of Toronto, for being a pioneer in preventive medicine and developing the first whooping cough vaccine and treatment for meningitis.

-- Elizabeth Thorn of North Bay, for achievements as an educator at schools in northern Ontario, particularly native schools and the University of Nipissing.

-- Dr Bryan Walls of Windsor, for his contributions to increasing public awareness of black Canadian history in Ontario.

Three other inductees, Martha Henry, Flora MacDonald and Ted Nolan, were unable to attend last night's ceremony and will be invested in the order at a later date.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I certainly wish to offer my congratulations and sincere thanks to all the recipients for their contribution to Ontario society, ever building the fabric that makes up this wonderful province of ours.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'd like to join with the minister on behalf of the Liberal caucus and my leader, Lyn McLeod, in congratulating the 16 wonderful Ontarians who were given the Order of Ontario last night.

I had the privilege and honour of attending the ceremony. It was a wonderful, moving experience. We were sitting down on the main floor looking up on the stairs as the people received their order. We were looking up at them, frankly, in all ways.

It's an incredible litany of accomplishment these 16 people have made to our province, and that set of accomplishments, rather than diminishing us in comparison, ennobles all of us and charges us with the responsibility of doing our job better.

I remember former Premier Bill Davis used to talk about politics as the art of the possible. In some ways, these 16 people have shown us the art of the impossible. It's an incredible set of things these people have done.

I don't want to single anyone out, but I will talk about three in particular as examples because they, I am proud to say, are constituents of the great riding of St George-St David. I wish the fact that three of them are from my riding reflected on the quality of the member, but I think they reflect instead on the quality of the people in the riding and in the province. I particularly want to note Joan Chalmers, Martin Connell and Ronald Satok just as examples of the kind of people we are honouring.

Joan Chalmers was a founding director of Harbourfront, founder of two Chalmers buildings, in fact, founder of numerous crafts councils, the Glenn Gould Foundation, Young People's Theatre and many others too numerous to mention.

Martin Connell, many people will know, president of Conwest, is also the founder of Calmeadow, which provides low-interest loans to aboriginal peoples, the Imagine campaign in the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, a founding director of the Festival of Festivals, and is currently president of a program providing low-interest loans to Latin Americans.

Finally, Ronald Satok is an artist who in the middle of his life lost his eyesight, unfortunately, but used that to create an opportunity to start a school of art for people with disabilities and has had a tremendous career in doing so and has been a model for people.

These are but three of the 16 we honoured who have made a contribution to the life of this province that calls us to do a better job in this House, and I for one would say two words to them. Thank you very much.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I too am pleased to rise and join with the minister in the great celebration that takes place on an annual basis with the Order of Ontario awards. We single out excellence. We single out the best in giving to community, to neighbourhood, to province, the volunteerism of those who go beyond themselves and their families and immediacy to so many others.

I wanted particularly to have been there last night. Unfortunately, those in the Legislature know I was called home to a funeral yesterday in North Bay and had to cancel being at the ceremony last night.

Nothing epitomizes more what we want to celebrate than the individuals who were honoured on an annual basis and those who were honoured last night. Again, it's difficult to single out individuals, but it's hard for me not to mention a couple who have been friends over the years.

Certainly Conrad Lavigne, who has done so much throughout northeastern Ontario in broadcasting, is mentioned as a pioneer in French-language broadcasting. He was a pioneer in broadcasting in general, in bringing northeastern Ontario up to date, if you like, in television and in the media in both languages, with particular emphasis in the French language.

1410

It's also hard for me not to mention Flora MacDonald, who blazed so many trails for so many politicians to follow, both women and men, probably, I think all would agree, in a spirit of non-partisanship that even today we can only envy of her and her time in politics.

I would be remiss, of course, if I didn't mention Elizabeth Thorn, who is acknowledged, I saw in one of the write-ups, in northern Ontario for the impact she has had in education. But indeed Elizabeth Thorn is far better known around the world than she is in North Bay, than she is in northern Ontario. She is far better known by academics, where she is constantly invited to speak and to lecture all over the world. In fact, she is one of those living examples where she is appreciated for her excellence and leadership around the world perhaps even more than at home, and is of particular interest to me because she happened to be one of my teachers a few years ago -- maybe it's a good thing she isn't here because this dates her a tad -- when I was in teachers' college. She was at the leading edge at that time as publisher, author and lecturer on early childhood education, particularly in the language arts.

On behalf of my caucus, but indeed -- this is one of those non-partisan moments -- on behalf of all Ontarians, let me offer congratulations to those awarded the Order of Ontario last night.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I would like to announce to the House that this is the last day our young pages are spending with us. They have been a dedicated crew. They've worked extremely hard, always with a beautiful smile. We are sorry to see you go, but we wish you all the best. Make sure that you study hard.

Join with me in giving them a warm round of applause.

Applause.

The Deputy Speaker: I would also like to thank you for your excellent cooperation yesterday in keeping your questions short and to the point, and your responses brief. Let's keep it up that way.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, once again there is new evidence that your $1-billion Jobs Ontario Training program is not working.

I know that you are probably concerned about the investigation of Jobs Ontario Training that W5 will be presenting tonight, but I want to talk to you today about a recent report at Metro council which showed that the program in Metropolitan Toronto has reached less than 30% of its target in finding jobs for unemployed men and women. In Metro Toronto, only 5,700 people have been placed in jobs and, Minister, this is clearly well short of the goal of 20,000 placements that you had set.

In fact, the chair of Metro's community social services committee, which oversees Metro's role in the Jobs Ontario Training program, has said: "This program has not created more work for unemployed people. It has created more work for bureaucrats."

Minister, now that the people who deliver the Jobs Ontario Training program for you are saying that it just doesn't work, will you finally admit that the program is a failure? Why are you continuing to put money into a program which is doing nothing to help people get back to work?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I can recall, just a couple of weeks ago, comments from Metro Toronto officials to Metro council indicating that the program was in fact showing very significant signs of success in Metropolitan Toronto, that it actually was having a substantial impact on the welfare costs here in Metropolitan Toronto. So I guess you can pick and choose what you want to quote.

The fact of the matter is that statistics still show that there have been tens of thousands of training positions and jobs created as a result of this program, that there are tens of thousands of people who have been assisted who were on social assistance but are now off social assistance.

No matter how many times the Leader of the Opposition tries to slam the program, the people who are participating in this program very much appreciate the opportunity to get into the workforce and get the type of training that you say they require and that is good for the province. But you speak differently depending on which day of the week it is. Do you want to help welfare recipients or don't you? Which audience are you speaking to today?

Mrs McLeod: There has been absolutely nothing inconsistent in our concerns with the Jobs Ontario Training program. There is nothing inconsistent in our saying that welfare rolls are at an all-time high in Metro, that what those people need is a chance to get into real work and that Jobs Ontario Training is not giving them that chance.

The original deadline for creating 100,000 jobs, this government's deadline, this government's target, was March 1994. By that time, by the time the deadline had expired, you had found jobs for only 29,000 people. You have enrolled 110,000 people in the program, all 110,000 people hoping you were going to find them a job, and 80,000 of those people are still waiting.

What's this government's response? This government's response is to extend the deadline for the program, to enrol more people, to lead more people on in the hope that this program is going to help them find a job. Minister, why do you simply extend the deadline for a program? Do you think that extending the deadline is going to fix a program full of broken promises?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I do know is that since the last time the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of Jobs Ontario Training -- the statistics I'm going to talk about right now are a week out of date; they're as of April 15, so the numbers would be even higher -- since the last time you raised the matter, up till April 15, 3,058 additional jobs have been created under the Jobs Ontario Training program, and there have been 3,035 individuals -- again this is only up till April 15, so there's another week to add in there -- over 3,000 people placed in jobs. If that is a failure, then I don't understand what the definition of success is in this province.

Mrs McLeod: My definition of a failed program is a program that has 80,000 people sitting on a waiting list, hoping for a job that this government led them to believe it was somehow going to find for them, 80,000 people who are still waiting.

Not only is this government giving people false hope, not just to the 80,000 people who are on the waiting list but to all the people who will now enrol as this government extends the deadline until next March, and not only are they extending the deadline to try and save face with this failed program; they're also advertising this program as a success when it is clearly a failure. The staff have admitted that they have already spent some $3 million advertising this failed program, and somehow maybe the minister thinks this kind of advertising will make people forget that the program has a failure rate of 75%.

Most sensible people would look at the failure of the Jobs Ontario program and would decide to cut their losses by scrapping the program instead of spending more money on advertising it. Why is this government's only response to a program which has clearly failed simply to extend the deadline to give false hope to more people and to spend more money on advertising?

Hon Mr Cooke: Nobody, when this program was announced, said that the Jobs Ontario Training program was the complete answer to all the unemployment problems in the province. That is absolute nonsense. It's the most simplistic, silly analysis of job creation that I've ever heard in my time in the Ontario Legislature -- absolutely silly. This particular program has created jobs along with other Jobs Ontario programs that this government has announced in the past.

What I would ask the member once again is to go and talk to the business community in her own area. I wish she had come to the jobs fair that I went to Thunder Bay and talked to the business community about a few weeks ago. They had nothing but praise for this program. Those are people in the private sector, and I could list off the employers in her own riding that have praised this program and that have participated.

Get out there and talk to people in the real world. Talk to the welfare recipients who are back to work, talk to the employers who are taking advantage of this program, talk to people who have analysed this; not just the opposition mentality you bring to this place, but the real world.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The question's been answered. New question.

Mrs McLeod: It is the government that set a target of 100,000 jobs. It is the government that enrolled 110,000 people. It is the government that has left 80,000 people on that waiting list.

1420

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Over the last weeks, we in this Legislature have been spending a great deal of time talking about the increase in violent crime, the concerns that people have about the increase in violent crime and what we can do to try and stop it.

Today I want to turn to an issue that I believe is very much related to this, and that's the proliferation of material that promotes violence against women in our society. When you became the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations over three years ago, you said that this was a priority issue for you and you said, at that time, that you believed there was a link between pornography and violence against women and that you wanted to do something about it.

What I want to know, Minister, is when can we expect to see some action? Exactly what steps have you taken as minister over the last years to combat the proliferation of violent pornographic material?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): In fact, I have done a lot on this issue, and the opposition just isn't listening. Today your member for Eglinton, I believe, stood up and slammed me for not doing anything, for instance, on killer trading cards. I was really shocked to hear her say that I have done nothing when they sat there and did nothing, knowing that it was a federal issue. I'm the one who sent the letters and made the phone calls and you did nothing, knowing it was federal jurisdiction.

Also, I'm shocked that she is applauding the move by Mr Rock to allow these cards to be sold to people over 18. The federal government already, within the Criminal Code, outlaws certain kinds of crime comics. It's not an issue of freedom of speech. This part of the Criminal Code could be amended to deal with that. What is he doing? It is his jurisdiction. He's standing there and saying, "We can't interfere with freedom of speech; therefore, we're just not going to allow it to people under 18." It is a disgrace and not to be applauded.

Mrs McLeod: We have raised two very specific issues that we believe require urgent action from this minister and from this government, and we have indeed called on this government in the past to restrict the sale of serial killer cards. In fact, I am pleased that the federal government is taking action, and in committee will be looking at what further steps can be taken to deal with this problem. I will congratulate the member for Eglinton for having raised this issue and pursued this issue with both the provincial and the federal levels of government.

The second issue that we have raised is the proliferation of slasher films and this is an issue which the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters has said is a very serious concern. It has now been close to a year since this House unanimously passed a resolution urging the government to take action to control access to these films.

That resolution called on you, under your jurisdiction, to review the operation of the Ontario Film Review Board, to strengthen the film rating system and to make sure the film review board is enforcing it, to hire inspectors to ensure that videos that are being sold or rented in Ontario stores have been classified and to implement a sticker program to warn consumers and retailers of the contents of the videos. Those were some of the specific steps that resolution called on you to take.

Minister, what specific actions have you taken to follow up on the recommendations of that resolution? I remind you that it was unanimously passed by this Legislature.

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, in direct answer to her question about what we have done, the OFRB has recently reviewed and revised its mandate. I think she is aware of that. The ministry has also reinforced the Theatres Act compliance section. We are reviewing a number of options for video-stickering programs, which can get very complex because we're dealing with two different issues here; that is, the adult-type film and the mainstream film. We should have an announcement about that shortly. Inspectors will be increased as well.

I want to come back to the issue of slasher films because I know it's an issue of great concern to all of us and it's been raised frequently in the House before. I have to say again that this is federal jurisdiction. The slasher films were around when you were in government and when they were in government. They predate the Theatres Act, and you know that. We have no jurisdiction.

Once again, I have written these letters and I have made phone calls to --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The question has been answered.

Mrs McLeod: As the minister well knows, the issue of whether or not the Criminal Code definition of obscenity has to be changed is not the issue we're raising with her today. The issues we're raising with her today are very directly under her jurisdiction and that's why we pursue them in this Legislature.

Having said that, if the minister believes there are other actions that need to be taken by the federal government, I would urge her to contact the current federal government, and my understanding from discussions with the federal minister is that this has not happened.

Minister, I come back to a letter that we know you have written to our member for Eglinton. You wrote that letter in December and you indicated that your staff were working on a proposal to establish a sticker program for videos so that people who are purchasing or renting videos are warned about the content of those videos. You said that you were also reviewing the regulations of the Theatres Act and that you would find a way to restrict access to explicit sex and violent materials.

This was the same thing you committed to doing in April. It was the same thing you said you believed was a priority when you became minister. You said it again in a letter this December. In the meantime, the material continues to proliferate and teenagers can get access to these kinds of films at local video stores.

I want to know very specifically what action we can expect you to take in the next weeks. When will your review of the Theatres Act regulation be finished? When will your stickers proposal be ready to implement? Do you have any intention of taking and will you assure us you will take action before the end of this sitting?

Hon Ms Churley: I've already stated what we are doing, and it will be done. I want to repeat what I've said in this House before. These are very complex issues with new, emerging technology.

I'm very worried, for instance, about the possibility of the federal government very soon allowing a channel for video games. Nobody consulted with us, this province, about that and it is very worrisome. We have to look at the whole range of technology that's out there right now and how in fact the provinces are going to grapple with that vis-à-vis what the federal government is doing. This is getting to be a difficult and emerging issue that we all have to deal with. It makes what the film review board does almost obsolete.

But the Leader of the Opposition knows quite well there is a Theatres Act and under the act there are certain kinds of scenes that are not allowed, and that is happening. For instance, sexual activity with violence is not allowed; sexual activity with children is not allowed.

Some kind of stickering program, I agree with her, is very important because one of the problems is that the inspectors have a hard time sorting out the films that go through the board from the illegal ones. I do agree that has to be done and we will be bringing forth something very soon.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, yesterday the member for Simcoe West asked you about the litany of mismanagement, questionable accounting and unauthorized spending at Houselink Community Homes Inc to the tune of $2.5 million. We asked you to tell us specifically what steps you have taken to ensure this never happens again. We haven't heard an answer to that, and in addition to a couple of other things I want to know, I would invite the minister to respond some time today to that.

I specifically would like to know how much time passed from when the minister was aware that this report was in, because it was three and a half years before it became public. Why was this report kept from being public for three and a half years? What possible motive was there, even under the freedom of information act, to deny access to this report, to not releasing this report and making it public? Could you tell us that, Minister?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): No, I couldn't. There was no request for freedom of information to the Ministry of Health. Had anybody asked for the report, they could have obtained it.

1430

Mr Harris: You sat on this report for over three and a half years; you refused to make it public. The reality is that this report is a litany of mismanagement, of no controls, of nobody knowing where the money is going. The reality today is that $376,000 of taxpayers' money will never be recovered.

One of the things we say that you can do now is to ensure that it doesn't happen again. As well as instituting tough guidelines for these agencies, you have to send a clear message that your government will not tolerate what appears to me, as I read it -- and what I think appears to any objective observer who has read the information that has become available -- is fraud.

Could you tell us, Minister, when over this period of time the police were called in to investigate what appears to me to be fraudulent misuse of taxpayers' dollars?

Hon Mrs Grier: The leader of the third party and I completely agree. The auditor's report was a litany of mismanagement by the previous government between 1988 and 1990 with respect to funding that was given to a transfer agency. But what to do about it? Let me point out to the leader of the third party that our government got an audit report, our government then worked to recover the funding that had been spent without approval and our government put in place procedures to make sure that the kind of mismanagement which was rife under the previous government would never happen again.

Mr Harris: I asked you when the police were called in; you didn't answer that. I'm going under the assumption that with what certainly appears to me to be fraud, even today the police have not been called in.

I wonder if you can answer two things for me. Jack Lakey, Queen's Park bureau, Toronto Star: "The Star requested the audit under Ontario's freedom of information law but was denied because the government said it contained 'third-party information...which would lead to harm, if released.'" I wonder if you can clarify your position that nobody asked for it. I wonder if you can clarify for me what you think would be harmful if this report was released. Will you today, even though it's four years later, call in the police to investigate what appears to us to be fraudulent action?

Hon Mrs Grier: A transfer agency is an independent organization with a board of directors responsible for the operation of that facility. It is our taxpayers' dollar and the ministry takes very seriously any allegation that money was misspent. The ministry sent in an auditor. The auditor did a report. The report identified that there had been expenditures that had not been approved. We went over them line by line. Some of them in fact turned out to be expenditures that would have been approved had approval been asked; that was $376,000 worth. The rest was funding that was in an account in the agency and which was recalled on behalf of the taxpayers of this province.

I'm not quite sure what the leader of the third party's problem is. There was no freedom of information request to the Ministry of Health for any report. Had there been a request, it would have been offered to anybody.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): New question.

Mr Harris: I guess the Star is wrong. But whether the Star is right or wrong, the fact is that you've covered up this report for three and a half years and you still haven't called in the police.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr Harris: I don't know why you continue to cover up that mismanagement by the former administration. What are you covering up?

GUN CONTROL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Solicitor General. Over a week ago, I put forward what I thought was a very constructive and non-partisan proposal. I asked you, Minister, to spearhead a guns-for-goods program. At that time, you said to me and to the media that you were willing to take a look at the proposal, which I sent to you the next morning.

Minister, one week later, your only response to this suggestion is to ask the House leaders to send the matter to the justice committee of the Legislature, along with other issues, for three weeks of study some time this spring.

Solicitor General, my question to you is this: The program is going ahead without you; it is going ahead on a limited basis even without your support. If you are not willing to head or endorse or support a guns-for-goods program, will you today tell us, what single possible reservation do you have to encouraging the spreading of this program to even more municipalities in Ontario than it's already started off with now?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I find myself very perplexed at the question. I just spent, along with our House leader, a fair bit of time this morning talking about how an all-party committee might be able to deal with this particular issue. Now, maybe I assumed incorrectly, but I assumed that was something the honourable members wanted, and if they were not interested in having us do that, they should have said so and I would have gladly moved straight ahead and responded forthrightly.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the positioning that the honourable member is offering on this issue, and perhaps I need to hear a supplementary, because I'm very confused and perplexed by the framing of the initial question.

Mr Harris: Let me try and clean up some of the confusion. The Toronto Sun doesn't need three weeks. They don't need three weeks of committee study. The Toronto Sun immediately started a guns-for-goods program of their own last week. I asked you to endorse it and get it under way. I told you we don't need studies; we don't need committees; we don't need to look at it. The Toronto Sun program is under way. They don't need any more study.

As of yesterday, in conjunction with the Toronto police, they had collected 437 weapons. Yesterday 12 more guns were turned in at Ottawa.

It has worked in other jurisdictions. It doesn't need study to prove it works. All it simply needs is that you, on behalf of the government, endorse the program and encourage other police forces across the province to participate. Will you do this, Minister? Will you raise the profile of this issue, encourage others to participate, and let's get on with the program, spreading it around the province?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Please help me so that I can hear properly, because there's too much noise, honestly. Please. Minister.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm not sure what the game is here. The reality is that I have attempted and this government has attempted to respond to a very serious issue in an honourable way, to a suggestion I thought the honourable member was giving in a way that he meant to be honourable. If there's something wrong with the process, there's been ample opportunity to suggest that to me.

But to rise in the House here today and say that this issue doesn't matter, or that I have not followed on my responsibilities because I haven't bypassed the discussions that we're having, I find completely dishonourable and I don't know what the rules are that the honourable member is playing by.

Now, I hope that there is a clear misunderstanding --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I'm sure that you didn't intend to call the honourable member a dishonourable member. If you did, I would ask you to apologize.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, I was referring to his actions, not the honourable member, but I suspect that is equally unacceptable and therefore I withdraw the unparliamentary comments.

I urge the member to please put this in a way that allows us to deal with this in an honourable, consistent fashion, which is what we have sought to do. I sincerely believe that there is some sort of miscommunication that is having this being raised in this fashion, and if so, I'm prepared to meet with the leader, with the whip, with the critic, with the House leader, and so will my House leader, I'm sure, to correct the matter if there's a misunderstanding.

But I have to confess I am very, very taken aback by this, particularly when it comes on the heels of a meeting we just had a few hours ago where we've been trying to deal with this in I think a very positive fashion.

1440

Mr Harris: Let me be as constructive here as I can. Minister, I asked a week ago that you endorse the program, not a study, not get it tangled up in the ministries, and it doesn't need a committee of the Legislature. In fact, by three weeks' time the program will already be up and running in all of Ontario. All you have to do, and all I am asking you to do, is to not have more studies. I know you made a request today of the House leaders that it go to the committee and we study it for three weeks. I quite frankly don't think there's anything to study.

The Toronto police department is under way; Ottawa is under way; North Bay is under way. If you wish to have a committee study issues, New Directions, Volume Three has about 40 issues you could study. What I am asking you to do is this: Will you send a fax today to all police departments, the OPP and all police departments in Ontario, and will you also send a fax to all of the chambers of commerce saying that you, the Solicitor General, support and encourage this program? Will you do that today so we can get under way and have the blessing of the Solicitor General and the government? That's all I'm asking.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I would hope the honourable member has done more research than just reading one local newspaper in addition to the clippings that he did send to me and the correspondence he forwarded the next morning.

I have had some initial discussions with some of the police chiefs. As I have said at the discussions we've had with the House leaders, there are some questions that need to be addressed, that this is not simply a rubber-stamp matter but that I believe, and I say it again, that the honourable member's suggestion and that of the initiative here in Toronto has enough merit that we ought to pursue it; I really do. But if he thinks for a minute that it's strictly a rubber stamp and there's no other issue than, "This sounds really good, so why don't we do it?" he's mistaken. There are some issues that need to be answered, and there are some questions that need to be looked at.

If we're going to talk about the Ontario government playing a leadership role across the province in offering up this program, then it does require at least a little bit of thought and a little bit of research. If he's not interested in doing it in the fashion we've talked about, say so and I will deal with it directly. But I will say that I think the way that has been suggested previously is the most constructive.

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food and other things. Rural development, I believe, is the other title that he has.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: There's a lot of noise I'm trying to speak over, but the question is the following. This is Earth Week, Mr Speaker, as you would know, and one of the things that the NDP used to stand for when Stephen Lewis was the leader of the NDP was the preservation of prime agricultural land.

In the Niagara Peninsula, if you travel between St Catharines and Toronto today you will find that agricultural land is quickly disappearing, much of it because of the fact that the farmers are struggling.

I think for over three years now your government has promised conservation easements to farmers in the Niagara region to alleviate some of their financial problems. My question to the minister is this: Will you tell the House when you plan to implement that program which you promised over three years ago?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member is quite accurate that this party and this government has long been committed to preserving the tender fruit land of the Niagara region, and we remain firmly committed to that. The Premier is committed, this government is committed to that, and we intend to honour that commitment.

Mr Bradley: I have a supplementary question to the minister. If you wish to save the farm land, you have to save the farmer. I have seen no evidence to this point in time that you are going to implement the conservation easement program, which would allow farmers to stay on the land and make a viable living out of it. Will you tell the House today whether you have been sidetracked by the Treasurer or other members of the cabinet, or whether, at long last, we can expect this announcement that will save the farm land which, if you observe with your eyes carefully, you will see is quickly disappearing in the Niagara Peninsula?

Hon Mr Buchanan: No, I don't intend to get sidetracked by anything. We intend to preserve the tender fruit land and we have made a commitment to preserving the tender fruit land. The Niagara easement program, which was worked on by a committee of farmers and others from the Niagara region, is a good program. I have supported it, the Premier and this government have supported it and we intend to honour that commitment.

However, the member mentions the farmer, who is obviously an important element in this equation. There are many other things that need to be done as well. Other ministries are in fact working with people in the region to look at value added further processing for peaches and other tender fruits. We intend to do more than just save the farm land; we are going to save the farmer as well.

HIV IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Solicitor General and deals with an issue I raised about a week and a half ago related to Camp Dufferin, a young offenders facility, the concerns surrounding a young man who was arrested by the London police and who was a suspected HIV carrier.

Minister, your officials compiled a list of, I understand, 80 names of individuals who may have been in contact with this young man during his period of incarceration at Camp Dufferin, people who may have -- I stress "may have" -- picked up the HIV virus.

The average stay, we're told, at Camp Dufferin is around 36 days. There's significant movement in and out of the facility. What have you and your officials done to ensure that Camp Dufferin is a safe facility, that you and your ministry have no concerns about sending young offenders into that institution at this point in time; that it is not, in effect, a breeding ground for HIV?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I appreciate the question. As the honourable member knows, the information that was compiled by my ministry was forwarded to the provincial medical officer of health, who is of course responsible for making decisions and carrying out any actions vis-à-vis the contacting and dealing with allegations of diseases of this nature.

With regard to the specific question he asked at the time that these matters came forward, I asked ministry officials for a report on whether there were particular problems at the camp during that period or any subsequent period that I need to be concerned about, that I need to take action on. The preliminary finding, and I'm still waiting for a final report from my staff, is that there was nothing extraordinary about the situation at that time.

Obviously, if there were problems, we need to find out why they happened. But with regard to special problems or particular problems that stand out, at this point that doesn't seem to be the case. However, I reserve the right to modify that, pending receipt of the final report.

Mr Runciman: I'm sure I don't have to remind the minister that he has an obligation to maintain a safe institution. Your own officials identified 80 people who could have been in contact with this one individual. What about the people those 80 were in contact with during their time going in and out of Camp Dufferin? I think the significant question here is, does this facility constitute a health hazard?

The minister knows that he would have the ability, if this were a question of a venereal disease like syphilis, to go in and test. I think the concern that I'm expressing today is that we may indeed be gambling with young people's lives, sending them into this facility.

If you have not done anything, your officials have not done anything and if the Ministry of Health, through the chief medical officer of health, has done nothing whatsoever to ensure that this is indeed a safe facility, that it does not present a health hazard, if you have not done that or are not in the process of doing that, Minister, I suggest you're not carrying out your duties in a responsible fashion.

1450

Hon Mr Christopherson: The Tories are having an interesting day in the House today. I think, I really believe I just said that I did respond to that very concern. It was a question that obviously occurred to me. I talked to the chief medical officer of my ministry about this issue. I talked to a number of senior officials and asked for an initial response. I've asked them to provide me with a report on that.

With regard to the specific question of, do I believe that the facility is being run in a proper fashion as it exists today, yes, I do. I believe that the facility is as safe as one can expect. I don't want to put any special protection around what that might mean, but I certainly do want to alleviate any concerns that you may have in your question as to whether or not this is an appropriate facility for us to be using. The answer to that question very clearly, very directly and without hesitancy is yes.

RACCOON RABIES

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. As you all know, raccoon rabies has made its way from the southern United States to just a few kilometres from the Niagara River separating Ontario and the US. Predictions are that this disease, which is a threat to wild and domestic animals and humans, could spread like wildfire through southern Ontario this summer.

I recall reading a newspaper story last summer about a young girl from New York state who died after contracting rabies. The Niagara South Federation of Agriculture recently contacted me that something should be done about the threat of raccoon rabies before it gets out of control. Can the minister advise this House and my constituency of exactly what is being done to keep this disease from crossing the Niagara River into Ontario?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The member asks a very important question and one that I think is significant, certainly, for his part of Ontario, being from the Niagara Peninsula. Earlier today we announced in Niagara Falls that Ontario is putting in place a contingency plan to deal with and to prevent the spread of rabies from upstate New York into Ontario.

Raccoon rabies is a new strain of rabies. It originated originally in Florida in the 1940s and has gradually moved into the more northerly parts of the United States. It's within 20 miles of the Ontario-New York border now.

What we plan to do is to spend about $500,000 live-trapping raccoons between the Niagara River and the Welland Canal. After these raccoons are live-trapped, they are vaccinated and then released back into the wild. We will have established, in effect, a barrier of rabies-free raccoons in that area, which will prevent the further spread of rabies from New York state.

We are also going to conduct a large public information program to advise people to have their pets vaccinated, leave wild animals alone and, above all, educate their children about contacting wild or stray animals.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the budget which will be presented two weeks today. It really has to do with the basis on which you are preparing the budget. The minister will know that last year our Provincial Auditor, who is responsible for giving an independent view on the finances of the province, for the first time in the history of the province refused to give an unqualified opinion on the books. The minister's shaking his head, but that's the case. It's the first time in history that the auditor refused to give an unqualified opinion.

As a matter of fact, the auditor had something quite significant to say. He said, "Our general concern is that legislators and the public are not now being provided the financial information required to help them understand and assess the financial position and results of the operation of the government."

The auditor was saying that the way the books are reported does not give the public the information it needs to evaluate the budget. He made some very important recommendations indicating that the books should be prepared on the basis of his recommendations.

Can the Minister of Finance assure us that this budget will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor and that the books will reflect the Provincial Auditor's recommendations so we get an accurate reflection of the finances of the province?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I want to assure the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and the auditor if he's watching, that the budget presented on May 5 will be an accurate reflection of the finances of the province.

Not only that, but the financial statements, which are the more formal statements -- I would categorize them as such anyway -- the more formal financial statements of the province, which will be presented in the fall, not in the form of a budget but in the form of the actual financial statements, will be as close as is humanly possible to the requests of the Provincial Auditor. There's no question about that. The only question is to what extent the budget on May 5 will be presented in the same way.

I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt would acknowledge -- I believe the auditor will -- that there was not adequate time to present this provincial budget, standing the entire system on its head and changing the way in which the budget is presented, which is more of a public document as opposed to a precise set of financial books.

Mr Phillips: I will interpret the answer the minister gave us. I gather what the minister is saying is no, it will not be prepared in accordance with what the auditor requested, and that we will not see those numbers until September 30, 1995. That's when the public accounts for the upcoming budget will be released. The public accounts for the 1994-95 budget will not be released until September 30, 1995.

The reason I raise all this is that the auditor has already indicated that the books do not reflect the finances of the province and has made specific recommendations. In fact he says here, among other things, "Thus, substantial amounts of what would normally be direct government expenditure, revenue and debt will now be recorded outside" what's called "the consolidated revenue fund" or the budget.

On another matter -- I gather what the minister is saying is they will still plan to sell government buildings and record that as revenue -- the auditor says this: "To the extent the real estate is not resold to third parties, in substance there will be no sale." Yet I gather what the minister is saying is that he will continue to show that as revenue.

The reason I raise all of this is that the public, when they see the numbers, will be expecting that the Provincial Auditor's recommendations will be reflected in it, but they will not be. That's what the minister said today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Question.

Mr Phillips: My question is this: When you present your budget, how will the public be assured that these are the numbers that the Provincial Auditor believes should be reported, and how will we assure people in the province that this is a true reflection of the finances when the auditor has already said that, unless you do what he says, they will not be?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, you have my word that the budget that will be presented on May 5 will accurately reflect the finances of the province.

I wanted to clear up one area of misunderstanding -- and I think it's a misunderstanding, not a deliberate attempt to alter the facts -- that the Provincial Auditor requires that the financial statements be done according to his wishes. I don't disagree with that at all.

For the fiscal year that has just ended, 1993-94, those financial statements are presented. When all the numbers are in and all the reconciliations are done, those numbers are presented in the fall of each year. It always has been that way for as long as I can remember. Those numbers will be done exactly the way the Provincial Auditor wants --

Mr Phillips: That is what this is, September 30, 1995.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, in 1994; not 1995, 1994. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt is dead wrong when he says that. In 1994, this fall, the financial statements will be presented according to the wishes of the Provincial Auditor. That's exactly what I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt want us to do, and I can assure him we're going to do as the Provincial Auditor has requested.

1500

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. A contract for 4.5 million trees was given to a company in Quebec. My question simply is: This contract accounts for one sixth of all the crown tenders for seedlings in Ontario. Why did you give it to a Quebec company?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): Ontario has, for the last year and a half, decided to follow a policy whereby our contracts are eligible to people bidding from anywhere in Canada, and we do that because other provinces recognize our tree nurseries and allow our tree nurseries to bid on their contracts. For example, we will grow tree seedlings and we'll send them to British Columbia this year and we look forward to being able to negotiate contracts with other provinces.

There is one, so far, small glitch in the system, and that is an issue that this government has been trying to address. Quebec has had some restrictive practices in the past. We are trying to remove those restrictive practices. While we do that, we are trying to continue an open policy because we think that is the best for our growers in terms of their developing relationships with the forest industries elsewhere in Canada.

Mr Jordan: First of all, your ministry's tendering system gives Quebec producers an advantage in transportation costs. Second, the Quebec government subsidizes equipment costs for the Quebec companies. Would you agree to award Ontario's tenders to Ontario's companies until these differences are ironed out and we have a level playing field?

Hon Mr Hampton: I'm a bit perplexed. Yesterday the Conservative member sitting beside the member who just asked the question accused the government of bashing Quebec, and today the member stands up and says that we should be taking measures to exclude Quebec in this particular contract.

Ontario has led the way in trying to get interprovincial procurement contracts so that Ontario businesses can do business freely across Canada with other provinces. We expect that by the end of June we will have such an interprovincial procurement agreement which will be to the benefit of tree seedling producers in Ontario.

The policies that MNR has followed in terms of tendering are fair, they are open to anyone who wants to bid and there is no special benefit in it for anyone. We are getting the best prices for our tree seedlings than we've ever got. They will allow us to do more with the money we have available, and we expect that they will be to the long-term benefit of our own tree seedling producers here in Ontario.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I recently spent the day with members of the farm community in Middlesex. They and I would like to thank you, first of all, for the positive work that you've done to help farm families with regard to financing and farm programs as recommended in the Hayes report.

There are, however, still a number of very significant problems and concerns for Middlesex farmers. In particular, I'd like to raise the matter of the failure of Canada and the US to reach agreement on disputed farm trades. As you know, the US has threatened retaliation, and I'm concerned that this will have an impact on producers in my riding and across the province.

We've watched a very volatile situation. I assume that if you browsed through the Globe and Mail today, you'll understand what I mean by "volatile." The headline in the story says that US Senator Kent Conrad suggests that the United States nuke Canadians. At any rate, could the minister please provide information regarding the bilateral trade situation and tell this House what he's going to do to help Ontario farmers?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I appreciate the member's concern about the farmers in Middlesex, and the opposition Liberals across the way should listen too because the federal government in Ottawa has the primary responsibility for negotiating trade deals. They said they were going to fix NAFTA and they've accepted NAFTA as it was.

Having said that, we do have a major problem in terms of wheat exports to the United States. That seems to be the main stumbling block, and our federal government and the US seem to be at an impasse. It's rather unfortunate that we have respected senators in the US making statements about nuking the Canucks. I don't think this is conducive to good negotiations. The US has said that it's going to have a deadline of tomorrow to tell us what action it's going to take vis-à-vis wheat exports.

What we've been doing is working with the wheat industry, farm groups and the processing sectors to make sure that we keep as much information at the hands of our federal counterparts as possible so that we can get the best possible deal.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Minister. It seems that the bilateral negotiations have broken down and that there's real risk of an agricultural trade war breaking out with the Americans. Will the supply-managed dairy and poultry industries be drawn into this trade war?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Unfortunately, I don't have very good, up-to-date information. We do know that the federal minister, who had conversations with us before Christmas about our position on supply management -- after the signing of the GATT deal, the supply management boards were told that they didn't have to worry, that we had tariff equivalents and they would be protected for a number of years. We are now not so sure.

We see that the US, in chicken and some of the other supply management commodities, are asking for major, major concessions. In fact they're saying they're not going to use GATT rules, they're going to use NAFTA rules on supply management, yet in the NAFTA agreement supply management was protected.

It causes us great alarm. We continue to work with the groups, including the processing sector, as I mentioned in the original question, to work with all those groups to make sure that we can assist the federal ministers of Agriculture and International Trade to get the best possible deal for Ontario.

GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On numerous occasions in the past and particularly during hearings on Bill 8, casino legislation, you were asked what you, as the minister responsible, together with your colleagues were going to do with respect to the issue of problem gambling, indeed addictive gambling, in the province of Ontario.

The question I have for you today is: What have you done, as a minister around the cabinet table, to ensure that there will be resources allocated and provided for the treatment of the inevitable problem of serious gambling addiction in the province of Ontario that will be accelerated and highlighted as a result of commercial casinos being brought into our jurisdiction? What have you done? How much money are you prepared to spend to solve the problem?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): This question was asked before by the same member, and what I told him at the time is still true today: that past governments did nothing on this issue. When we looked in the cupboards to find any kind of information or research, there was nothing. So this government did a comprehensive study to see what could be done.

As you know, gambling in Ontario is already a $4-billion industry, between horse racing and lotteries and charitable gaming. We are adding one casino at this time to that mix. Certainly that one casino is acting as a catalyst only to have this government look at the problem.

We have given, I think it's $75,000, somewhere around that amount, to a group concerned with compulsive gambling. They are in Windsor now, working specifically there with social service groups, and we will be bringing forward a more comprehensive plan in the near future.

Mr McClelland: Madam Minister, it's all well and good to say that you will be bringing forward a more comprehensive plan in the near future. The fact of the matter is that it is probably going to be spinning out of control, given the response that you've given, if that's the best that you can do.

You know very well that to compare the horse racing industry and to compare charitable gaming, as it now exists, against commercial casino operations and the probability -- I say the probability, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Premier -- of video lottery terminals being advanced by your government -- you know that the $75,000 is totally inadequate.

The member for Cambridge -- I understand the member for Hamilton West is here today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The question?

Mr McClelland: The Attorney General and others always railed against it. You know what they said in the past.

Minister, at conservative estimates, you're looking at a $5-million social cost in terms of problematic gambling. If $75,000 is the best you can do, you are in serious trouble. It's time you stood up and said what you are planning to do, instead of an esoteric "We're looking at it," some definitive plans on dealing with the problem.

Hon Ms Churley: I should think the member would be delighted and pleased to hear that this government is finally doing something about a problem that's been out there for some time, when your government was in power and when the Conservative government was in power.

We are doing something about it. We have committed for the short term the $75,000 in Windsor specifically, but we will be bringing forward a more comprehensive approach to the problem focusing specifically in the area of education and prevention. That's what needs to be done. We are gathering the kinds of information that you, when you were in government, didn't get, when this problem has been around for a long, long time. I'm happy to say we are dealing with it.

1510

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs concerning his new approach to land use planning. Minister, your policy treats individual property owners pursuing routine planning approvals the same way it treats large-scale developers: A property owner who requires a minor variance to build a deck near a woodlot will need to undertake an environment impact study. You've clearly made no progress in having all municipal infrastructure dealt with under the Planning Act and not the Environmental Assessment Act.

Will you overhaul your policy to ensure it does not shut down rural Ontario, recognizes the diversity of the province and will not seriously curtail meaningful public involvement and community decision-making with regard to your environmental impact study?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): We're pursuing very vigorously a streamlining process that is the result of the Sewell consultations round 1, and our extra consultation that has now ended on Sewell 2, so to speak. We intend to be introducing, hopefully, as we work our way through the cabinet process, a series of changes that will streamline the whole planning process. I've been meeting with municipalities, at the township level, the county level, and at the various upper- and lower-tier levels. We will be bringing forward a set of proposals that will streamline the process, and it will protect the environment and also be quite acceptable to developers and builders as well as the municipalities.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): This is the end of oral questions.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I refer to standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, chapter 6, rules of debate. I turn directly to section 23(d). That refers to unnecessarily reading in, during the debate, reports from documents. I think we have certain traditions in this Legislature. We have certain traditions in the House of Commons. We have certain traditions in the mother Parliament in the House of Commons in London, England, that promote lively debate.

I bring to your attention from Hansard yesterday, page 5760, when the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel read at length from a Canadian Federation of Independent Business report. It's my contention that this type of debate is very uninteresting, very dull and it's not within the traditions of this House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I'd like to remind the honourable member that the debate took place yesterday. The point of order should have been made then. In any case, I think you've raised a very good point and perhaps the honourable members will listen to what you've just mentioned.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I listened attentively to what the member brought forward as a point of order. I find that quite strange, having listened to so many of his colleagues on the NDP benches reading verbatim --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I have understood you. I think I've made the right clarification, and the member will understand that whenever there is a point of order, it should be raised immediately.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all the students in the area;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services as its public school counterpart and must do so by receiving $1,822 less for each elementary school student and $2,542 less per secondary school student (based on 1993 estimates);

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now to ensure that Ontario's two principal education systems are fully and equally funded."

That petition is signed by about 500 residents of Etobicoke and by me.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition that's been signed by many of the residents from my riding and across Ontario.

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I sign my name to the attached petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I'd like to present a petition from the residents of my riding.

"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 and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code."

This is signed by residents of my riding, including Eva Becht of Willow Green Court, and I affix my signature.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition sent to me by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and signed by 141 persons. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I affix my signature to this petition.

1520

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring school boards in Ontario to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards while not providing boards with the required funding to undertake those programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating costs of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local boards."

I support this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the minister the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certification course and examination; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I have affixed my name to that petition as well.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have a petition I received last night at a town hall meeting.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no Progressive Conservative support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and future bills which would grant same-sex couples the right to marry, and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

Signed by a number of residents of the riding of Don Mills and of York East, and I affix my signature to it.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition that was sent to me by the Victory Fellowship Baptist Church in Hanover, and they have quite a few signatures. It's to the Honourable 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 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 since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

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

FIREARMS SAFETY

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I have a petition here signed by about 40 to 50 residents of the riding of Niagara South, which is actually not my riding. Basically, people are from Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Stevensville, Crystal Beach. These good folks of this area of Wainfleet, Crystal Beach, Port Colborne and Fort Erie have asked:

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I submit this to the Legislature.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a number of petitions that have been sent to me by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and the names come from my riding.

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition that I present to the Ontario Legislature today on behalf of over 700 citizens who live in my riding, in a community known as Wilmot Creek. The petition is addressed:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;"

I draw this to the attention of the Conservative Party, who've effectively blocked this bill. My constituents say:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows" -- and listen up:

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

This is vital to my community.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I have a petition submitted by Drummond Hill Presbyterian Church in the city of Niagara Falls. There are approximately 40 to 50 signatures. They say:

"As concerned citizens of Ontario, we, the undersigned, wish to register our objection to Bill 55, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code. We do not wish to have sexual orientation added to the present legislation."

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further petitions? The honourable member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I'd like to inform you that I hope the member from Durham over there can listen to this one and be quiet while I'm presenting it, like we did with his.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of the NDP and Liberal majority, but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on the administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the member from Durham for keeping quiet this time.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario sent to me by the many, many hundreds of people of the Subway Mobile Home Park.

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes" -- their homes -- "in land-lease communities; and"

Whereas a scurrilous attempt by the opposition Tories has delayed the passage of this bill; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile homes by the action of this landlord,

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible to interest those very people who have been so severely affected and to expeditiously pass third reading of Bill 21."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Daigeler from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 120, An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property / Projet de loi 120, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les immeubles d'habitation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Daigeler moves that the bill shall be reported and received as adopted.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1532 to 1537.

The Acting Speaker: Would all members please take their seats. We are now dealing with a standing committee report by Mr Daigeler on behalf of Bill 120 from the general government committee.

Those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Daigeler's committee report, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Harnick, Henderson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Runciman, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 58; the nays are 20. I declare the report of the standing committee on general government regarding Bill 120 to be carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated April 19, 1994, this bill is ordered referred to the committee of the whole House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Hansen from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the committee's special report and moved the adoption of its recommendation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Hansen, the member for Lincoln, has moved the report of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. Does the honourable member wish to make a statement?

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I would like to thank all the committee members for the two months that we've had interviews to interview the new Environmental Commissioner. Last night, we decided on whom we would be hiring.

There were a lot of difficult questions that we had. It had to cover the areas of business, farming, environment and the general public. With unanimous consent of all members, we did pick one in the end. I think this committee did a wonderful job and I'll be looking forward, as will the House and our Legislature, to working with the new Environmental Commissioner.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Hansen moves adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? The motion carries.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With your indulgence and the indulgence of the House, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the committee and to introduce the individual that the committee has unanimously recommended to the House to be appointed as the Environmental Commissioner, the first Environmental Commissioner in the history of Ontario, Ms Eva Ligeti, who is sitting in your gallery, Mr Speaker.

Ms Ligeti is currently the principal of Sheppard campus, Seneca College, and chair of the school of legal and public administration. She has been active as legal counsel in a number of areas, including having worked with the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Again I congratulate her and the committee for their work.

The Acting Speaker: It is not exactly a point of order, but it's a point of very important information. The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to speak very briefly with respect to the point that was raised by the minister. He is right that the committee members were unanimous with respect to the appointment of this woman as the new commissioner for the Environmental Bill of Rights. I will say that we feel she is certainly qualified for the position. I look forward to hearing more work from the Board of Internal Economy, which will be dealing with respect to the budget and other remunerative matters with respect to this position.

I will say as well that I wish the new commissioner well in her endeavours, because certainly we on this side have expressed a great concern as to the financial implications of this whole process. The cost will be considerably higher than has been anticipated by the minister. I think he originally gave a quote of $4.5 million.

It is interesting of course that the Environmental Commissioner's office has already been established, notwithstanding the fact that I don't even think the bill has been proclaimed.

Hon Mr Wildman: It has been proclaimed.

Mr Tilson: It has been proclaimed? But it has the same address of course as the Minister of Environment and Energy. There have been a number of office staff that have been hired for a considerable period of time. They're in the provincial directory. There's at least half a dozen to a dozen people who have already been employed. This is even before the commissioner has taken her office.

The two issues that have remained throughout the debate on this legislation are the potential cost of the implementation and the resources of the provincial government, particularly the Ministry of Environment and Energy, to enforce it.

Although I certainly congratulate --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker can't hear the member.

Mr Tilson: Although we certainly agree with this appointment, our party still has a concern with respect to the ability of the government, particularly the Ministry of Environment and Energy, to enforce this legislation. We express grave concern that the cost will be similar to the cost of the commissioner for human rights and the great cost that has been put on that. This is another layer of bureaucracy which at this time of recession we express some concern about.

In the very near future the commissioner's office, we would submit, will be buried with requests for investigations in review. There will be a strain on all the various ministries with respect to the statements of environment that are going to be put out by the 14 ministries. This commissioner has her work cut out for her. She will be asking the Board of Internal Economy for more money, more money that this government doesn't have.

I wish her well in her endeavours, but again I repeat the concern that we always have, the analogy between the Ontario Human Rights Commission with respect to the backups and the speed of processing complaints. We feel there's a potential for a similar scenario arising at the Environmental Commissioner's office, and we feel that certainly exists.

The Acting Speaker: The point of order, please.

Mr Tilson: Yes, Mr Speaker, it's a point of order. It's a concern with respect to the minister announcing this appointment of this woman. Certainly, we speak in support of it, but we're concerned with the cost that's going to be with respect to this government and whether or not the commissioner's office will have the financial resources that it should have in operating. We express a grave concern with that.

Specifically, when you look at already --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member brings a point that has to do with the Board of Internal Economy and the cost. I do not believe it is within the purview of the Chair to allow this debate to continue.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): On the same point, Mr Speaker: I just wanted to point out that the minister omitted one important point, and that was that the person recommended is a graduate of the University of Windsor law school as well.

The Acting Speaker: That's not quite a point of order.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): In the interest of fairness, this has turned out to be unanimous consent and I think the Liberal Party should be able to offer its congratulations as well.

The Acting Speaker: I'm not sure we have unanimous consent, but you're on a point of order.

Mr Callahan: The environment of course is one of the most important issues to young people. I notice that the new commissioner has two young people up there, who I presume are progeny of hers. Certainly, those young people consider the environment to be a first-class, top priority for them. I think it's important that a commissioner --

The Acting Speaker: To the point of order, please, the honourable member.

1550

Mr Callahan: I would like to congratulate, on behalf of my leader, Lyn McLeod, and our Liberal caucus, the new commissioner. I wish her well. I hope that she is given the tools and the opportunities to do something about the environment. Hopefully, she will not be hampered by the fact that there are not funds available. We would hope that it is a true job that she can do, as opposed to smoke and mirrors.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sure these points are very interesting, but I'm not sure any of them are points of order. We still have reports by committees.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Huget from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 143, An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards / Projet de loi 143, Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives à la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton et la Loi sur l'Éducation en ce qui a trait aux conseils scolaires de langue française.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated April 7, 1994, this bill is now ordered for third reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COURTS OF JUSTICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES

Mrs Boyd moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 136, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and to make related amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Justices of the Peace Act / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée et à la Loi sur les juges de paix.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would you have some opening comments?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I do. I'm very pleased to today to move second reading of the Courts of Justice Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 136, which received first reading last December 14.

Bill 136 replaced a previous bill, Bill 68, which was first introduced in the spring session of 1993. This new bill reflects the changes that were agreed upon during consultations in the fall of 1993.

Bill 136 has been the subject of extensive consultation from its inception. We have had many discussions over the past two years with provincially and federally appointed judges, with representatives of the bar and with representatives of the broader community, as well as users of the court system.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank the honourable member for Willowdale and the honourable member for Ottawa West for the time they have taken to comment on this bill. I look forward to this debate and to the discussions which will take place in committee.

The provisions of the bill now include many of the excellent suggestions that were made to us during the consultation. The frank and detailed exchange of views has helped us to balance the competing concerns which arise with respect to these very important issues. I feel very positive about the intensity of the exchange between the ministry and the judiciary, the bar and the community, and I am grateful for the time and effort that were so generously devoted to the consultation process by all the groups that were involved in it.

I would like to remind the members of a number of important changes to Ontario's justice system which this legislation will bring about. The first matter is that of the judicial council. This bill will bring about significant reforms to the Ontario Judicial Council, which is the body responsible for investigating complaints against provincially appointed judges. These reforms are designed to respond to a number of concerns.

As we are all aware, there is increasing public pressure for openness and accountability of governments. The judiciary, as one branch of government, has come under increased public pressure and public scrutiny to be responsible to the community it serves. Measures to address these pressures, however, must be consistent with the independence of the judiciary. This is a fundamental democratic value and it is protected by Canada's Constitution.

The Ontario Judicial Council is an important vehicle for addressing some of these pressures in a manner which is consistent with the principle of judicial independence. However, the extent to which public confidence is enhanced by the current complaint process is limited in a number of ways. For example, public understanding of the nature of the judicial council process is limited and many are unaware that a complaints process exists at all. The council's proceedings are closed and, as a result, the public cannot satisfy itself that complaints have been handled appropriately. The existing process permits only a very limited range of dispositions in response to a complaint and this leads to the perception that only extremely serious misconduct can be addressed.

In addition, our provincial judges have expressed concern about the fairness of the council process and about what they see as an underrepresentation of members of their bench on the council which disciplines them. For the complaints process to be effective, it is very important that judges feel confident that complaints are adjudicated fairly and with a full understanding of the particular circumstances and pressures of their bench.

We have addressed these concerns by introducing reforms which will make the council more open, accountable, effective and fair while fully respecting judicial independence. This will help to reassure the public that complaints about judicial misconduct are handled appropriately. It will also ensure that judges themselves have confidence in the fairness of the complaints process.

Significant reforms include, first, increasing the number of public members on the council to enhance judicial accountability and public input into the handling of complaints. However, in accordance with constitutional guarantees of judicial independence, the judges will continue to hold a majority of votes on council.

Second, the proportion of provincial judges on the council has been increased relative to federally appointed judges, but the Chief Justice of Ontario, a federally appointed judge, will continue to chair proceedings in relation to complaints that are going to a hearing.

Third, public access to the council will be significantly enhanced. Toll-free telephone access and assistance in drafting complaints will be provided and public education about the council will be available in a number of languages. The council will also publish an annual report about its activities.

Fourth, for the first time the council will have a range of disciplinary options available to it. These choices will permit the council to respond to misconduct that does not warrant removal from the bench, conduct for which it currently has no remedies. This range of dispositions will allow the council to respond supportively, where it is appropriate to do so, and to work with judges to take preventive measures.

Fifth, the Chief Judge will be given the power to establish standards for judicial conduct, subject to the approval of the council.

Sixth, the Chief Judge will also be given the power to establish a program of judicial performance evaluations. These will be completely confidential and will permit a supportive system of feedback to the judges.

Finally, the Chief Judge will be required to develop a plan for continuing judicial education.

We believe that standards, an education plan and a program for evaluations can provide valuable supports for the judiciary and we also believe that making those standards and education plan available to the public will help to educate all of us about appropriate expectations of judicial conduct.

The next item that's dealt with in the bill is that of the Family Court. Bill 136 will also create on a phased-in basis a province-wide full-jurisdiction Family Court as a distinct unit within the Ontario Court (General Division).

The Unified Family Court in Hamilton-Wentworth was the first full-jurisdiction family court in Canada. That court has jurisdiction over divorces, annulments, custody of children, support of spouses and children, division of property between spouses, child protection, adoption and young offenders, known at the time that the court was established as juvenile delinquents. It was established as a pilot project in July 1977, with federal cooperation, for a three-year period, and that period was extended a further two years. A conciliation service was established as part of the court operation. The court was an unqualified success, as shown by an independent evaluation done in 1980 and another updated two years later.

1600

In 1982, the Unified Family Court was made a permanent part of Ontario's court system, but until now it has not been extended beyond Hamilton-Wentworth. Our government is very pleased and proud to be able to do so now, with the active support of the federal minister and the Department of Justice.

The new province-wide Unified Family Court will also have full powers over all areas of family law now dealt with by the General Division and the Provincial Division. Consolidation of the family law jurisdiction of these two courts will provide one-stop shopping for families experiencing legal problems and will make available a specialized judiciary for family disputes.

I know the members would like at this time to hear about our plans for the number and the locations of the new Family Court sites. We are still having discussions with the federal minister and the Department of Justice about the number of judicial appointments that will be made available in the first round of expansion, and until those discussions are completed, it will not be possible for me to announce locations. I want to assure members that we are looking carefully at every single county and district in Ontario as a possible new Family Court location in the first round of expansion.

Members will also be interested in the government's plans to provide social service resources, for example, supervised access or mediation resources, in connection with the new Family Court locations. Our government believes that a full-service Family Court should have a full range of social services associated with it if it is to assist families and their members in crisis.

It is for this reason that the bill provides for the establishment of community resource committees to advise the government and the other relevant authorities on the need for social services in any particular location. One of the other functions of these committees is to assist in the development of resources to fill needs in particular communities, with the assistance of the municipalities and the private sector as well as with the government's help.

We want the new Family Court locations to plug into and help augment existing community services wherever that is possible. My ministry will also make the addition of social services resources a priority in those new locations, within the confines of our current fiscal restraints.

Bill 136 also addresses changes in the Small Claims Court. The bill continues the existing model of Small Claims Court, operating with lawyers serving part-time as deputy judges. This model has proved highly effective in providing high-quality adjudication of smaller cases at relatively little cost to the taxpayer. The contribution of members of the legal profession as deputy judges is invaluable and is greatly appreciated by government and the public alike.

In addition, however, the bill will make it possible for parties to have their cases determined by a non-lawyer referee, but only with their consent. We plan to offer this service in a few selected locations, and we will evaluate the experience of those locations prior to any further expansion.

Bill 136 contains a new provision for a formal process to deal with complaints of misconduct by deputy judges. The vast majority of complaints about deputy judges do not in fact involve allegations of reviewable misconduct. However, we considered it advisable to provide for the possibility that such complaints might arise from time to time, as they do in relation to provincial judges or justices of the peace. We have received comments on the draft bill's provisions that indicated it would be desirable to have complaints against deputy judges dealt with on a local level, and I will be introducing an amendment to propose a process that will accomplish that end.

The Courts of Justice Act deals with many other matters. It was last amended in any significant way in 1989. Since that time, we have had the benefit of experience with the new court structure that was instituted at that time. As well, the justice system has evolved in ways that now require statutory adjustments to be made.

Accordingly, Bill 136 makes a number of other important amendments, such as changes in the management structure of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) to create two associate chief justice positions and to revise the terms of office for regional senior judges.

The bill provides a clarification of the rights of parties who speak French to plead their cases in the courts in French in all areas now covered by the French Language Services Act.

The bill enshrines the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee process in legislation as it has developed over the course of the last five years.

The bill also enshrines a fair and independent process for determining the salaries and benefits of the provincial judiciary.

In addition, a number of technical improvements and adjustments have been made to the provisions of the existing act.

In conclusion, I want to say that Ontario has one of the best justice systems in the world. This government is committed to proceeding with changes to ensure that fairness, accessibility and equality for all individuals continue to be the hallmarks of justice in this province. Bill 136 represents changes to maintain and improve an inclusive justice system which is representative of and sensitive to the communities it serves. Our consultation process has achieved a balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence which will foster increased public acceptance and confidence.

I wish to thank again all those who have contributed to the development of this bill. Their thoughtful consideration of the issues has allowed us to advance and achieve another of the goals which this government had established as part of its social justice agenda. Bill 136 has been well received. It brings about some long-awaited improvements to the justice system.

We hope that the bill can be quickly scheduled for consideration by the standing committee on administration of justice and that it will receive final consideration by the House this spring. We accordingly hope that it will receive support in principle from the members today.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? further debate?

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): First of all, we will be supporting the bill in principle. I also want to thank the minister and her deputy, George Thomson, for the cooperative effort with which they undertook this particular legislation. We certainly appreciate it. We met on several occasions with the critics, the minister and her deputy.

I know there was also extensive consultation with the judges and others in the legal profession. However, I'm not sure whether I should compliment or criticize the minister for that process because, as we know, the legislation was first introduced as Bill 68 last July and we are now here in April dealing with Bill 136. The reason that has come to pass is because there had to be extensive revisions. I'm wondering whether I should compliment the minister for incorporating those extensive revisions or perhaps criticize her for not listening properly in the first instance. In any case, we have a bill now that we can support, and we intend to do that.

As the minister indicated, the bill deals with five issues: reform of the Ontario Judicial Council, legislatively entrenching the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, creation of the uniform Family Court, provisions for judicial compensation, and dealing with a number of technical amendments to the Courts of Justice Act.

I do want to comment on some of these provisions and, notwithstanding the fact that we will be voting in favour of the legislation in principle, we do want to express some concerns.

1610

First of all, with respect to the Ontario Judicial Council, we agree with the provisions as they have come forward in final form in the legislation. However, we want to point out that as important as this particular provision is, we have in Ontario tens of thousands of clients in the civil litigation process in particular, and most of them do not have complaints with the judiciary. We have an excellent judiciary in this province. They're professional, they're independent, they're responsible, and I think they deserve all the compliments we can give them.

We have legislation. It's significant legislation. It impacts particularly on the internal workings of the judiciary and people who do have complaints, but this aspect of the legislation does not impact significantly in any way on how the justice system in the province is carried on, particularly some of the very critical issues. We compliment the minister and we support this particular provision, but the number of complaints is extremely small, so the general thrust of what's going on in the judicial system is not really impacted by this particular provision.

With respect to legislatively entrenching the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, this committee was established by the Attorney General in the previous Liberal government, Mr Ian Scott. It is now being entrenched in legislation, and we certainly support that. We do wish to comment, however, that it's not only the structure and the legislation that is important, but it's how a government manages that particular structure.

The minister will be aware that we've had some significant criticism, particularly of one aspect of this committee, in the course of the last year and a half, and that is that the predecessor Attorney General, Mr Hampton, saw fit to have remain as chair of that committee a nominated federal New Democratic Party candidate from the Windsor area. That was raised in the Legislature and nothing was done at the time.

We took great exception to a committee that is supposed to be independent, that is supposed to be independently appointing our judiciary, being managed by a chair who was a nominated federal New Democratic Party candidate. We have some concerns about the management of the particular committee and the appointments that are made to that particular committee, not so much how the committee has operated itself or how it will operate.

I have some comments as well with respect to the uniform Family Court. The minister is aware, and certainly we are aware in our caucus, of the tremendous support from the family law lawyers across the province to extend the uniform Family Court. The Hamilton-Wentworth pilot project has worked extremely well.

We have had very strong lobbies come to Queen's Park from every part of the province demanding a uniform Family Court, because it is one of the few areas in the litigation process, particularly the civil litigation process, where the concept of alternative dispute resolution really works well, where we have the lawyers and professionals working and we have a streamlined legal procedure where we don't have to jump from one judge to another for different aspects of Family Court -- an aspect, incidentally, which really brings the process of the justice system into disrepute in this province. The uniform Family Court concept will be very, very helpful in addressing that type of problem.

But the minister points out that we do need some federally appointed judges to expand this system across the province. What the minister is implying is that the expansion of these uniform Family Courts depends on the decisions that are made in Ottawa, the number of judges who will be appointed to handle these particular courts.

My information from the very highest level of the Department of Justice is that there are some concerns on the part of the federal Department of Justice in terms of the speed with which we expand the uniform Family Courts: that the federal government and indeed the people of Ontario need a commitment from this minister and this government that they will provide the infrastructure, the court space, the professionals and everything else that goes hand in hand in a uniform Family Court, as well as the appointment of federal judges. The federal government is not going to appoint federal judges to handle these courts unless there's a commitment from the province to provide the infrastructure, and that commitment from the province has not yet taken place, at least not publicly.

So I'm asking the minister to give a commitment to this House and to the federal Minister of Justice that she will immediately fast-track the infrastructure and all the internal dynamics that are necessary to establish the uniform Family Courts across this province. Quite frankly, it is long overdue, and this bill, while it entrenches and accepts the concept of a uniform Family Court, is merely saying, "We will install them in two or three more places across the province." That is not even justice for the people of this province, and in my opinion it's not acceptable.

If this minister is going to have priorities, this should be one of the top priorities. Even if you can't extract another dollar from your Minister of Finance, I encourage you to seek money internally, perhaps even to look at the fee structure of the uniform Family Court. But do whatever is within your means to get it up and running in every single part of this province because, in my opinion, it's a priority. In the opinion of the lawyers of this province, it's a priority. In the opinion of the social workers and the psychologists who work in the uniform Family Court in Hamilton-Wentworth, it should be a priority. Once again, I urge you to do this on a priority basis.

Several weeks ago there was a leaked cabinet document, and that leaked cabinet document indicated what the priorities for this government will be between two weeks ago and the next election. The priority focus is going to be on job creation and economic matters. There was even what some people have called a propaganda strategy in that document: what to say and what to do with all these other issues and all these other ministries to try to appease people.

What we see happening in the Ministry of the Attorney General is a process which is directly following that strategy of slowing everything else down and a policy of trying to make appeasement with people who are interested in and impacted by the justice system.

We have seen over the last number of years, including the whole term of this particular administration, very serious concern about the civil backlog in our courts. I received a call this morning, as a matter of fact, from one of the most prominent litigators in the province of Ontario expressing very serious concern about the backlog in the civil courts.

What we have is the minister setting up a pilot project for alternative dispute resolution, once again limited geographically so there's not evenhanded justice across the province, but it's a pilot project for two years. Our caucus and I have been demanding accelerated implementation of alternative dispute resolution processes to bring the justice system up to speed, and what we have is a pilot project. As far as pilot projects go, it's great. We have excellent people involved. Conceptually it's okay, but it's a pilot project, it's limited for two years and it doesn't impact on any other part of the province except Metropolitan Toronto.

1620

That's not acceptable, when you know and your ministry has known for a long time the problem in the civil courts, the problem of backlog, and that it's a problem province-wide. I refer particularly to the eastern district and the Ottawa area, where there are severe problems. I know the ministry and the judges have been dancing around the subject, and they've been doing the best they can, with the means that are available, to improve the backlog, but it still has not made a significant dent. This government and this Attorney General have to be accountable for that.

We have the task force which is set up to look at the civil backlog in the courts, and again there are excellent people involved in that particular process. But the bureaucrats in the Ministry of the Attorney General know this problem has been nagging and gnawing for the whole life of this government.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Not to mention before.

Mr Chiarelli: And before. But you're there now and you're accountable now. We hear a lot of blaming of other people and other levels of jurisdiction, but you do have a certain measure of accountability for the period you have been in government.

What we have is a task force set up, involving the Joint Committee on Court Reform. You have had the joint committee report for over a year now, and a year later you're setting up a task force.

People want action. People demand action. People cannot afford to wait through the civil process, and lawyers who have to work in the system feel they cannot effect justice on behalf of their clients. I'll have more to say about that in a couple of minutes.

We have David Agnew setting the agenda for this government and excluding everything except the issues they think are really --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe on this matter it would be appropriate if we had a quorum present to listen to the debate.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is asking for a quorum call. Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Ottawa West may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Chiarelli: Just as an aside, Mr Speaker, I used to fondly refer to the previous Attorney General, Mr Hampton, as the Minister of Inertia. It seems now that as a result of this cabinet edict to set aside all the other agenda and to have a propaganda strategy to answer why nothing else is coming forward, we're going to have to refer to this minister as the Minister of Near Inertia, thanks to Mr David Agnew.

But getting back to my points of concern and what has not been addressed by this bill, particularly when the bill looks at the management of the court system, one of the most significant problems -- as a matter of fact, it's a crisis right now across the province -- is the matter of the family support plan, the system which automatically deducts support payments from one spouse and then sends it out to the receiving spouse.

There is no other issue in the justice system, as far as my caucus is concerned, because I've canvassed it, where there are more complaints from people across the province that the system is absolutely in chaos. On paper it looks great, particularly when the ministry sends out its regular statistics. I think they send out the statistics every quarter, and they show the number of people receiving payments.

Of course, what this government did was dump all the good payors into the system, when they ought not to be there. They slow up the process and they slow up the bureaucrats and the employees in the ministry from being able to address their time and attention to the people who are not paying. So we have people on both sides, the people who are paying support and the people who are receiving support, complaining by the thousands. Indeed, we have the director of the program even saying that it isn't working, and there are quotes here that I can give the minister, if she wants them, from media clippings. He has given briefings and comments to people in the legal profession admitting that the system isn't working.

When you're looking at reorganizing the judges, impacting the court system in certain ways, and you don't even touch this particular issue, in my opinion it's negligence. In the opinion of many people across the province it's negligence on the part of the government not to deal with this issue.

One of my colleagues will be addressing this issue in more detail, and I don't want to say too much more about it, other than Bill 136 could have incorporated some significant changes. The minister might even have considered involving the judges in some way in managing the system or overseeing the system, particularly when you're looking at setting up a uniform Family Court.

The family support system is intimately involved with the uniform Family Court, and you had every opportunity to take this legislative initiative to set up the uniform Family Court province-wide, eventually, and you could have incorporated some dimension of solving the problem with the family support problem. But you chose not to, and I'm sorry to say there are a lot of people in the province who will continue to suffer by reason of your inaction.

Just a very brief reference again on your agenda, or the agenda of the ministry: This bill affects a very small number of people, as I've indicated. There is no dealing with this ministry on any issue in a significant way with safe and secure communities, an issue which is very prominent. What concerns me and my caucus is that we're dealing with Bill 136 now, which probably will be the last legislative initiative of a justice nature by this government before the election, if we're to believe the cabinet document. So there will be precious little legislative initiative on the order of creating more secure communities so that people in Ontario can feel safe on the streets and in their communities.

Again, there's no action on the special investigations unit, the SIU, which has been an ongoing problem.

What I want to refer to, and they impact very significantly on some of the aspects of this legislation, are some survey results I have. A number of months ago, in my role as critic of the Attorney General, I sent out a survey to over 2,500 lawyers across the province. We received close to a 30% return, which was really amazing and surprised us tremendously. I guess, after thinking about it, we ought not to have been that surprised, given the nature of the problems, particularly given the nature of the results.

The survey was headed up "Issues Affecting Legal Practice in Ontario" and it said: "What priorities should lawyers, the Law Society of Upper Canada and/or the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General be setting for the following issues: (please check one and explain, if desired)?"

It gave them basically four options. It listed 55 issues and then they were to check, "Not a problem; status quo is satisfactory." They could check, "Problem requiring high priority." They could check, "Problem to be dealt with in due course," and there was a provision for comments. There were 11 or 12 issues which impact very directly on the legal profession and the administration of justice, indeed, on the court system.

1630

I want to refer to some of these. The ones I've picked out basically are the areas where they've indicated it's a problem requiring high priority. Very quickly, I want to touch on several of these. Some of them have to do very directly with the legal profession in the province of Ontario, and the minister will be aware that the legal profession in Ontario is a very unhappy profession. It's a profession with a lot of problems. The minister has done very little to solve the problems; indeed, the law society has done very little to solve some of the very significant problems in the legal profession.

Question 10 in the survey, "The number of lawyers admitted to the bar each year in Ontario," that's the issue: 40% indicate problem requiring high priority; 36% status quo is okay; 26% problem to be dealt with in due course. So we have 40% of the lawyers surveyed who responded to this survey indicating there's a problem with the number of lawyers. The minister will know that the medical profession --

Hon Mrs Boyd: Too many?

Mr Chiarelli: Yes, too many. Obviously too many.

This government deals with the problem of numbers of doctors in the province, and it negotiates up front and it restricts numbers in various ways. The legal profession is running rampant in terms of numbers. It is affecting the economic viability of the profession, and it is therefore impacting very directly on the level and quality of legal service which the people of Ontario are receiving.

Another question, "The economic/business aspects of private practice in Ontario" of lawyers: 48% of the lawyers who responded indicate it's a problem requiring high priority.

"The system of legal aid in Ontario": 67% of the lawyers, problem requiring high priority; 18% are satisfied with the status quo; 15% say it's a problem that should be dealt with in due course.

"The communication and public relations effectiveness of the legal profession in Ontario" doesn't directly affect the ministry, but it certainly goes to the very serious unhappiness of the lawyers in the province. It indicates 42% consider it a high-priority problem.

The next two are really directly on point in terms of the Courts of Justice Act and the types of initiatives which this minister has taken which do not go far enough. The issue is defined as, "The legal system's ability to effect justice for clients." Fully 58% of the lawyers who responded said it's a problem requiring high priority.

This bill does precious little and the ministry is doing precious little concrete action now. There are all kinds of task forces, plannings, pilot projects. The problem is on the ground now and the solutions are in the future, and that's not acceptable any more under the present circumstances.

The next issue defined in the survey is, "The administration of courts in Ontario." That's the issue that's set out or defined, and 66% of the lawyers across the province who responded indicated it's a problem requiring high priority.

The minister is setting up task forces, pilot projects, everything in time while the system crumbles. That's not an acceptable level of response and it's not an acceptable awareness on the part of the ministry of the urgency of a number of the problems that we have.

Another issue on the survey is defined as "Equal access to justice": 47% of the lawyers who responded said that it's a problem requiring high priority. There's also provision for write-in and this issue had so much response it was unbelievable, and it was a whole range. It had to do with legal aid, but surprisingly, what it had to do with was the inaccessible justice system to the average person, the middle-class person, who can't afford the system, can't afford to wait for the system, can't afford to upfront all the fees that are involved in the process.

What we have now is a whole class of people in the province of Ontario who are being excluded from the justice system because they don't qualify for legal aid. The system cannot respond to them today and they don't want to wait for task forces. You have all kinds of means of alternative dispute resolution which you could implement immediately in many aspects of the administration of justice. You can also give more power to the judges to straighten up the system and the backlog and make it more accessible to the middle class in the province, and you're not doing that.

Another issue, "Level of legal disbursements for court matters": 48% said it's a problem requiring high priority. The minister will know that her government significantly increased fees everywhere, in every ministry, and the Ministry of the Attorney General and the court system certainly was not excluded. So what these lawyers are saying -- you can judge from their comments -- is, who funds these fees and disbursements while they're waiting five years to get to trial?

There are so many people who had to settle improperly, not being able to make their claim, not getting equal justice, because they couldn't fund the system and they didn't qualify for legal aid. You have not set up a quick system for speedy justice in the province of Ontario. What, at best, has happened is you've stabilized it, the minister has stabilized it, at its present level while task forces go out and do their work.

There are a number of other areas which I won't go into at the present time, but I guess there are one or two I will touch on. It has to do again with the legal profession, keeping in mind it's the legal profession that the public has no choice but to rely on. If they want access to the justice system, they need a lawyer. So if the legal profession is not working properly, people are not getting proper justice.

The issue in this survey is defined as "Psychological and emotional rewards of practising law": 43% who responded said it's a problem requiring high priority. That comes from all kinds of matters, including the fact that they say here it's a high priority that they can't effect justice for their clients.

It's time that a lot of these issues have a much higher priority by this government and this minister.

One other point, and my last point, from this survey which went out to 2,500 lawyers across the province: The issue is defined as "Administrative effectiveness of Ministry of the Attorney General": 36%, over one third of the lawyers represented in this survey, said it's a problem requiring high priority. It's no wonder that the joint committee wants the judges more actively involved in the administration of the courts. It's because the Ministry of the Attorney General is a fat bureaucracy which is not responding, which sees issues in academic terms, which sets up task forces and studies and pilot projects till it's blue in the face, while the lawyers on the ground and the people on the ground who need access to justice aren't getting it.

1640

In conclusion, I will say that we are supporting this bill. It impacts to a very limited extent on the people of this province. I only wish we were here voting on legislation which created more access to justice and a significantly better justice system in the province of Ontario. We haven't seen that legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'd like to comment on my colleague's presentation, particularly with reference to the question of the Unified Family Court.

It's interesting to note that many people who have to wait or be jockeyed around or take proceedings in two different courts are suffering from extreme emotional upset. It's a very trying time in their lives. It's probably more upsetting than civil proceedings themselves. The net result is that women particularly sometimes have to find ways to fund it. Sometimes, if they can find a lawyer who's prepared to carry them for a while -- it goes on for a considerable period of time. I tell you, Minister, matrimonial situations are fraught with much more danger than criminal trials, and the longer they go on and the longer the parties are denied justice, the heat gets hotter.

We've seen one instance, a tragic instance in Toronto with a lawyer who was shot. I've heard of instances from colleagues of mine where in fact the police had to back them up; they had to come into court and actually protect the lawyers and the participants.

So I submit to you that the Unified Family Court will solve that in some respects. It will put all the eggs in one basket, as it were, and it will create justice for people in this particular area, which is an emotional trauma for anyone where there's a breakup of a marriage, custody of children, access to children and so on. The enlargement of this whole process so that it will eventually be a system that is not just a patchwork quilt -- and that's not a criticism of you, Minister -- but will in fact do a great deal, go a long way towards maintaining the friendship of these people when they do break up so that the children, who are the real sufferers in these particular situations, don't suffer that greatly.

Justice delayed is justice denied. That's an adage which is wholly true.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The honourable Attorney General.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'm not going to try to answer all of the comments of my colleague now but will tend to do that during the wrapup. I would remind him, however, that this is the Courts of Justice Act and many of the issues he's raised refer to such acts as the Family Support Plan Act, the Law Society Act, the Legal Aid Act and so on. This is a particular piece of legislation that is directly focused on some changes in the justice system that have been demanded over a long period of time and it's important for the member to understand that this particular piece will be part of the larger picture.

Many of the issues the member raised are issues that do not require legislative change; they require administrative change and management change. In terms of the whole issue of court management, I don't disagree with the issues the member raised about the problems, but the member also has to realize that we've entered into a great many changes in the court system that are meant to remedy those.

For example, our government has entered into the first formal arrangement ever with the Chief Judge of the province and the chief justices to give them the budget and the personal responsibility over their offices, and we're working together with them to reach mutually satisfactory arrangements for accountability and authority in those areas. The whole issue of alternative dispute mechanism is a good example. We are working with the judiciary to ensure that there's a buy-in by all those who work within the court system. We can only get alternative dispute mechanisms where there is that support and we're working together to build that support.

I'm confident that many of the issues the member raises are well in train and that in fact we will see the results before the end of this government.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Ottawa West has two minutes in response.

Mr Chiarelli: I can accept a lot of the comments the minister has just made. However, I think the nature of the problems in the justice system are such that perhaps we could have had legislation initiated and brought forward which is a little more omnibus in nature, rather than isolated issues dealt with in legislation piecemeal.

I think the minister has to be made aware of the fact that some of these issues are so critical that they need to be fast-tracked and it cannot be business as usual in the Ministry of the Attorney General and in the justice system until we get things up to speed, because the problems get exacerbated probably more quickly than your ability to respond to them at the present time. As I've indicated in the past, what we see is the problems in the justice system developing in geometric progression yet the ministry's response on an arithmetic basis, and they're just getting farther and farther apart.

There are so many issues that need to be dealt with which are critical, and I think there are a lot of people who don't realize how fragile the justice system is becoming in the province. I think people have to be made aware of that, and I wish the minister and the Ministry of the Attorney General would acknowledge it and deal with some matters which are indeed at crisis proportions. They can't be dealt with as business as usual.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It's indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate a justice bill, because over the course of this government's life we've had very few of them before the Legislature. The bill that we have before us now, I agree with the Attorney General, is a very important and very significant piece of legislation.

I'd like to thank the Attorney General for providing us with briefings as the bill developed. I'd like to also thank her for pulling the predecessor of this bill, because, as my colleague from Ottawa mentioned and I reiterate, there were flaws in that bill.

We've had a number of bills from this government in a number of different areas, not just the Attorney General's ministry, where the bill ends up looking so different by the time it gets to committee and there are more and more amendments coming at you that you never really have an opportunity for debate on the bill that is originally presented.

I think the Attorney General has done us all a favour in providing us with a comprehensive package that is going to look, when it's passed, very much the way it looks today. I think that process has certainly been a good process and I appreciate her help and her advice in keeping us informed and involved in this.

It is an important bill. It's an important bill because it deals with a number of very significant areas. It deals with the Unified Family Court, it deals with judicial appointments, it deals with judicial discipline and a number of other housekeeping areas.

I want to try and make some comments about each of these areas, but I want to start at an area that everybody neglects in the justice system. I think it's probably the busiest court in the country, or pretty close to it, and that's the Small Claims Court in the province of Ontario.

The Small Claims Court is a court that is available to citizens in this province where they are encouraged to resolve disputes without necessarily having to incur the cost of a lawyer. Although somewhat of a formal process, it operates now with deputy judges, who are very much volunteers doing a judge's job for a day -- I guess they're paid about $233 a day, less tax -- and I am very concerned about how those volunteers, essentially, are being treated by this bill.

I am aware that the Attorney General wants to make sure that if judges misbehave, they are properly disciplined and that there is a process and procedure that is open, accessible, not intimidating, necessarily, to do that. But this bill deals with deputy judges in very much the same way it attempts to deal with other judges, and it creates a very formal process.

1650

When I take a look at section 33 of the bill, it really lays out a procedure that I think is almost like shooting a fly with an elephant gun. It goes way too far. It sets up a Deputy Judges Council. It goes on to say who is on that council. Then it talks about the function of the Deputy Judges Council, "to review and approve standards of conduct for deputy judges...to review and approve a plan for the continuing education of deputy judges...to deal with complaints against deputy judges...." It has a subcommittee. It has an investigative procedure.

It really very much mirrors the discipline procedures for full-time judges. It also goes on to say that if a deputy judge misbehaves, his conduct is grounds for sanctions, and it sets out what those penalties can be. It can be a warning to the judge, a reprimand to the judge, an order that the deputy judge apologize, an order that the deputy judge take specified measures. It can deal with a suspension for up to 30 days -- pretty tough when you're a per diem judge and you might do this once a week. It says that you must "inform the deputy judge that his or her appointment will not be renewed" or "direct that no judicial duties...be assigned to the deputy judge."

I don't think that's necessarily bad or wrong, but what concerns me is that you're losing sight of the fact that this court operates with judges who are essentially volunteers. It also, as a court, deals very much with cases at the low monetary end of disputes. A great many of these cases are $500 and less. It's significant that you know that cases that are $500 or less in the Small Claims Court are cases that proceed without a reporter. They are cases that are not appealable. I suspect that they are the bulk of the cases in terms of what the Small Claims Court does. In that setting, how can you have a process that is so formal to deal with judges who are there as volunteers?

If a judge gets into trouble at the Small Claims Court level, he's just going to turn around and say: "Look, I don't want to put up with this craziness of judicial reviews of my performance. I'm just going to walk away. You go find somebody else to do this job for $233 a day."

I would urge the Attorney General to take a look at these sections, back off and do what has been done up to now in the last few years. I understand that a complaint might be made to the Chief Justice. He refers it to a judge within the General Division who generally oversees what goes on in the Small Claims Court and he deals with the problem in an informal way, because remember, we're not dealing with full-time judges; we're dealing with volunteers. You can't do this to volunteers. It's too onerous.

So please, Attorney General, review that, and let's see some amendments. Let's see at least some common sense in this particular area. I think you've gone too far, and that's going to be detrimental.

Let me just for a moment deal with the judicial council. I don't deny that we need the judicial council and I really don't have any complaints about the form of the judicial council, the makeup of the judicial council and what the judicial council does in terms of a complaint against a judge, as set out in Bill 136. What I am concerned about, and what I think the Attorney General has to be cognizant of, is the fact that we're walking a very fine line when we try to deal with this particular issue of judicial conduct. The fine line we're walking is the line of an Attorney General overseeing judicial conduct by developing an act that suits the Attorney General of the day in terms of controlling a judicial process.

I know how difficult it is for the Attorney General to avoid the political fray and do the other aspect of the Attorney General's job, which is to look after legal affairs of the government. It's a very fine line that has to be walked, and it seems to me that the one fear we can have when we start to deal with formalizing this process to the degree we've now formalized it is that we might intrude on the independence of the judiciary.

I would like the Attorney General at some stage to comment on that aspect of these procedures. I'm not criticizing the Attorney General and alleging that she is in fact usurping the independence of the judiciary, but a statement from the Attorney General about her position in all of this and about turning over control to the judicial council for these matters is very, very important. I think judicial independence is something that everybody in this province cherishes but that we often take for granted.

That leads me to discuss the issue of performance evaluations of judges. I note that the careful wording of the bill says that the Chief Judge "may" implement performance evaluations of judges. I hope the Chief Judge of this province does not do that.

I don't have any objection to judges taking courses -- maybe they're sensitivity courses, legal education courses; they might be courses in how to write better judgements or how to be aware of certain emerging issues of the day -- but I really start to wonder about a judge's independence as an individual on the bench when other brother or sister judges are looking over that judge's shoulder. I have some real misgivings about that. I don't have problems with continuing education, but I do have problems with the implementation of performance evaluations.

The Deputy Attorney General's response, when I had a chance to discuss this with him for a few moments, was, "If a judge is doing something wrong and could get into trouble, we really should tell him." I would hope that would happen anyway, without any kind of formal evaluation procedure. That's why we have a Chief Judge and associate chief judges and senior regional judges.

I don't think it's in the guise of judicial evaluation that you warn or advise another judge that they may be on the road to some difficulty because of a quirk in their behaviour or a bias that they are perceived to maybe be showing. But I think you go too far when you start to deal with formal performance evaluations. When you cross that line, I believe judicial independence suffers.

1700

I hope the Attorney General will scrap this aspect of the bill, and if she doesn't, I really hope the Chief Judge and all his or successors will never implement the performance evaluation aspect of this. I think it's wrong, and it's not an answer to say that no one can obtain those evaluations through freedom of information requests. I just think it's fundamentally the wrong thing to do. It gives too much power to the Chief Judge. It gives a power that the Chief Judge was never intended to have. As judges, they are all equals on the bench, and one cannot evaluate the performance of another. I think that's a very wrong concept.

I want to deal for a few moments with the Unified Family Court. I have some concerns about an issue my colleague raised earlier. That is with the infrastructure of the court. The act is completely silent about whether any infrastructure is going to be available. All the act says is that there will be a resource committee in the area where the court happens to be that will look at resources within the community to see how we can make use of those resources.

The Attorney General knows full well that the success of the Unified Family Court in Hamilton has been because that court has offered the human elements necessary to make decision-making in matrimonial issues possible. There's a certain humanity that exists in the Hamilton unified court because of the infrastructure that exists as a backup to the work that court does. There are social workers, there are mediators, there are facilitators. I don't see anything in this bill that is going to make the equivalent resources available as the Unified Family Court expands. I even have a fear that what is now existing in Hamilton will be taken away so that that court will look like all of the new unified courts as they're being set up.

I have some real concern about that, and I think the Attorney General owes it to those who are concerned about this issue to make a statement about that. What resources are going to be available, what budgeting is going to be available to give this court all the attributes that the successful Unified Family Court in Hamilton already has? It's a very, very important issue. I can tell you that those who work in this court or will be working in this court are very concerned about it.

There's another issue and it deals with the appointment of judges. As I understand it, many of the judges who will be appointed to the expanded Unified Family Court are now judges who are judges of provincial court status doing family law within the jurisdiction of the provincial courts. They are not allowed to deal with matters of divorce and they're not allowed to deal with matters of property division until they become section 96 superior court judges.

I understand that there will be a great number of provincial court judges who will become section 96 judges as the Unified Family Courts are expanded. Those judges, once they become section 96 judges, will now be paid by the federal government. There will be a net saving of probably $130,000 to $140,000, if that's close to the salary of a provincial court judge.

Hon Mrs Boyd: It's $124,000.

Mr Harnick: It's $124,000, the Attorney General tells me. I appreciate that. If there are 10 or 20 or 30 judges who are transferred from the provincial bench as provincial judges to superior court judges, the saving to the province will be $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, $5 million potentially, depending on the number of judges who are transferred from provincial jurisdiction to superior court jurisdiction. I hope the Attorney General will ensure that every penny of that amount of money that is being saved by the provincial treasury will go back into the Unified Family Court system to provide extra infrastructure and resources and startup costs to make this project successful.

I know how many times the government makes savings or collects money from elsewhere and that money ends up going into general revenues, never to be seen again. Here we have what could be a significant sum of money. I think it is incumbent on the Attorney General to tell us that whatever money is going to stay in the provincial coffers, because the federal government is now going to be paying for these judges and not the provincial government, whatever money is saved is going to stay in the Unified Family Court for use in that court. I hope the Attorney General will at least consider what I'm saying and give us that assurance, because I think that could be potentially a significant amount of money once that court is operating in every jurisdiction in the province.

There are a couple of other concerns I have, dealing with the Unified Family Court, and they are probably less obvious than the ones I've discussed so far. One of the fears I have is that when you formalize another superior court you are formalizing a court that in people's minds costs more. Lawyers who do work in superior courts I think fancy the fact that they're working in a superior court somewhat more than they fancy the fact that they might be working in the provincial court on Jarvis Street.

I would hope the Attorney General will do everything possible to recognize that costs in superior courts tend to be much greater than costs in provincial courts, and that will have an impact on the legal aid plan if more work that traditionally was done in lower courts is now done in a superior court. Sometimes the cost of legal aid expands to deal with the level of court that the work is taking place in.

Far be it for me to ever criticize lawyers for earning too much money, but I think the public, in matrimonial cases, is very conscious of the cost of litigation. If you don't qualify for legal aid, the cost can be astronomical and the cost will rise exponentially with the fact that you're now moving into a superior court. If you don't have legal aid and you're now going to get a lawyer who traditionally does his work in the Supreme Court of Ontario, now called the Ontario Court of Justice, I would hope that costs to those litigants will not rise, particularly to those who are not able to qualify for legal aid, because matrimonial disputes have been known to break many a person. I have a concern about that.

I want to make a couple of brief comments about judicial appointments. I really don't have any objection whatsoever to judicial appointments being on the basis of a formalized, recognized committee that will set up the qualifications that it is looking for in judges, but the quality of the justice system is directly proportional to the quality of the judges who are serving in that system. As much as I believe it's proper for judges to reflect the makeup of the community and the people they serve, it's also every bit as important that merit, qualification and experience be the cornerstones in the way we choose judges. I don't think it's an area where political correctness should lead the way.

1710

What we look for in judges are people of integrity, people of compassion, people who are wise in the ways of the practice of law and in their experience in that regard, and I would urge the judicial appointments committee to ensure that merit is the cornerstone of the way judges are chosen in this province in the future. I know that the Attorney General's department has striven to accomplish that over the last few years, and I'd like to publicly recognize that, but I think we have to be ever vigilant that it remains the case.

There are a couple of other issues that I wish to raise very briefly. The Attorney General, I think quite rightly, says that Ontario has one of the best justice systems in the world, and as a person who's had the opportunity to practice within the justice system, I would agree with that. I would agree with that, but I would also say that doesn't mean the justice system in this province does not have its problems. One of the problems I perceive, and I perceive it from the point of view of being a politician, is that so much of what goes on in the justice system is contrary to what the public would like to see.

I was disturbed when I asked the Attorney General a short time ago about her position on the Young Offenders Act. I was disturbed when the Attorney General was not prepared to recognize the work that my party had done in going across the province to ask people what they thought about certain justice issues that impact on community safety. At every single stop along the way, we were told that the Young Offenders Act was absolutely the most disgraceful piece of legislation that existed, in either provincial or federal books, anywhere, any time.

I recognize that it's a federal statute. The Attorney General of this province has ample opportunity to ask and to lobby the Minister of Justice in Ottawa to make significant changes to that bill. The Minister of Justice appears to be starting to do that, but I don't see any significant impact on the Minister of Justice from the Attorney General of the province of Ontario. I don't see any desire on the part of the Attorney General to go to Ottawa and reflect what members of the communities across Ontario are telling us. I'm disturbed about that.

I will tell you a story, and it's no secret that I still carry on a bit of a law practice. A client of mine was a student at Ryerson. This particular individual came here from Iran to make a better life for himself. He was working to put himself through school at a Mac's milk store and he was robbed one night at gunpoint. He was robbed, and in the course of the robbery, one of the perpetrators of the crime picked up a litre-and-a-half glass bottle of Coca-Cola and smacked him over the head. He will never work gainfully again. He was the epitome of the victim of crime.

We were able to get a small amount of money, considering the damages he suffered, from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, although the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board refused to pay him anything towards his future loss of income, coming to the conclusion that he would have only remained a Mac's milk store worker, and workers' comp was paying him that loss, in spite of the fact that he was a student at Ryerson and on his way to becoming an electrical engineer. That complaint is quite apart from the essence of what's important in this story.

This individual is brain-damaged and he's going to suffer for the rest of his life. I issued a statement of claim and I'm suing the people who injured him. I got a phone call recently from one of those individuals and he said to me, "I got this statement of claim." He was very polite. He said, "I plan to put in a defence, but I just want to let you know one thing." I said, "What's that?" He said, "When this happened, I was a young offender and as a young offender, because I was under 18 at the time that I was involved with this gentleman getting smacked over the head with a litre-and-a-half bottle of Coca-Cola, I bear no responsibility because I'm a young offender."

It struck me, not quite as hard as the bottle that struck my client, that that is the attitude of young offenders in the community today: "Because I'm a young offender, I bear no responsibility for the actions that I've taken and you can't do anything to me." That's what he told me. I can appreciate, as an Attorney General, you may hear stories about what goes on out on the streets, but I don't think you hear stories quite as close to home as that.

Attorney General, I am livid with your attitude in terms of the way the Young Offenders Act operates in the province of Ontario. I cannot and I will not abide by permitting this act to continue the way it does.

There are stories in the Ottawa Citizen. On April 4, I think it was, there was a story of a 14-year-old on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen. It was a kid talking; he was a student. He wasn't doing very well at school. He was frustrated by the school process and he just decided, "I don't care any more."

He and a few of his friends, for a couple of years, went on a binge of crime. They couldn't have cared less whether they were caught or not, because they only had to face the wrath of the Young Offenders Act. They, too, came to the conclusion that the Young Offenders Act meant that they bear no responsibility for what they do.

I'm going to ask people who are watching today, if you don't like the Young Offenders Act, write me a letter so I can carry them over to the Attorney General and tell her what people in this province are saying. People are concerned. If the Attorney General won't listen to them and won't take their concerns to Ottawa, then the system of justice in this province is breaking down, because the moment we stop listening to what people are saying about the justice system, that's the greatest fear we have.

I know from this bill that the Attorney General says we have to have a judicial council. We have to deal with complaints against judges. We have to have an open process. We have to have a process that is not intimidating. We have to have a process that people can use, that's aboveboard and that shows them that the justice system works. We have to listen to people. That's what people are telling us and that's why we're enacting this kind of a piece of legislation. I say to you, Attorney General, it's the same thing with the Young Offenders Act. It's the same thing. People are telling you and you're not listening. The result is that the justice system is breaking down.

1720

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Oh my God, give me a break.

Mr Harnick: The member from Cochrane wants a break. He's asking me to give him a break. Do you know that I was in the town of Angus on Wednesday night? The town of Angus is a small hamlet close to Barrie. I was holding a crime forum with the member for Simcoe West. I was absolutely shocked when people there in this small hamlet talked about being afraid to walk on the streets after dark. I had to pinch myself to remind myself that I wasn't in a great big metropolitan area. This was Angus, Ontario.

In Angus, they are livid about the Young Offenders Act. In Thunder Bay, where I also held a crime forum, they're livid about the Young Offenders Act. They're livid about the Young Offenders Act in Metropolitan Toronto. They're livid about it in Cornwall. We've held crime forums there. We've been almost all over the province. We've been to London. They're livid about the Young Offenders Act, and when the Attorney General doesn't listen to those concerns, the system of justice breaks down.

I appreciate that the Attorney General -- what's true is true -- is very receptive to listening to what the public says about certain issues, and Bill 136 is one of them. I congratulate the Attorney General, but there's another side to it and you have to listen to the fears that people have, fears to live in their own communities, fears in Angus, Ontario, to walk out on the street after dark.

One young lady who was at this crime forum asked me a question. I really couldn't give her a very satisfactory answer, but this is Angus, Ontario, and she said: "We would like the right to carry pepper spray. Why can't we do that? I'd feel much more comfortable if I could carry a can of pepper spray so that if I were accosted, I could pull it out and protect myself." This is Angus, Ontario. I can appreciate the member from Cochrane doesn't like what I'm saying, but these are the concerns of the people of Ontario, and if the justice system is to prevail, then you have to listen to the concerns of the public.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): If there's anyone who would know the concerns of the public, it would be Charlie Harnick.

Mr Harnick: The member for Downsview says if there's anyone that would know the concerns of the public it would be Charlie Harnick. I appreciate the compliment, because I spend a lot of time going from community to community, going across my riding and listening to what people say. I think if my friends across the way, who only want to shout at me because I'm trying to debate Bill 136, did the same things I did, we might have a better justice system.

I also want to talk for a moment about court reorganization. The former Attorney General decided that we needed a single court, and he set up a huge bureaucracy and we now have that single court.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The Liberals.

Mr Harnick: That Liberal government. I'm sorry. I'm corrected quite properly by the Attorney General. I'm talking about Attorney General Ian Scott, the Liberal Attorney General.

It's very interesting to note that a short time after the creation of that new court that's now called the Ontario Court of Justice, which got rid of every county and district court and amalgamated all of those with the high court, the Supreme Court of Ontario, into the Ontario Court of Justice, the Attorney General has now announced the formation of a committee in conjunction with the Chief Justice to look at the way the civil courts work in the province of Ontario.

If ever there was an indictment of a court system, that's the indictment, because it only took four years or five years from the time that court was set up to already be looking at the fact that the civil aspect of that court is failing. Not only is the civil aspect failing because of cases that aren't proceeding as quickly as they should, and not enough courtrooms and not enough judges, but we also saw the failure of the criminal aspect of the creation of that court when we had 60,000 or 70,000 cases dismissed because of Askov.

I can appreciate, when I speak to the Attorney General about some of these bills that are brought forward, that the state of the justice system is not the fault of this government. They inherited a system gone amok, and they inherited the system gone amok because the Attorney General of the day, starting in 1985 and going through 1990, did not listen to what people in the legal community were telling him. I urge this Attorney General to listen to the people in the legal community and to listen to the public because, at the end of the day, the public knows best.

I tell you, Attorney General, from the time I spend around the courthouse, the conditions at 361 University Avenue have become appalling. I had the opportunity to tour the jury rooms. They're a disgrace. I've had the opportunity of watching claims being filed in room 110 at 361 University Avenue. The office is a disaster, and morale among the staff who work for the Attorney General is absolutely at the lowest ebb I have ever seen in my life. I have never seen people who have to be serving the public and running our courts who are so unhappy. It's a tragedy, and I hope the Attorney General will visit 361 University Avenue and talk to the people who work in her department and find out what the impact of a middle level of bureaucracy, as created by the Liberal Attorney General, has meant to the operation of a smooth justice system.

No, all the court managers in the world have not made the system work. That's why you're reviewing the civil courts. You're reviewing it because all the managers in the world, who have made the bureaucracy bigger and bigger and bigger, have caused the system to break down faster and faster and faster.

For the life of me, I could never figure out why we have a trial coordinator at 361 University Avenue with an office that runs in a very professional and competent manner in spite of the difficulties with the system, and we have someone on Bay Street who's supposed to be doing the same job. It doesn't make sense. The court system operated without court managers and regional managers for years and years, and it operated better then than it does now.

I can tell you there's nothing so appalling as walking into the Hamilton Court House and seeing a courtroom on the main floor that used to be a courtroom for the public to come to, to resolve their disputes, and a regional manager sitting in it with an office, and nobody knows what the regional manager does. For the life of me, I wish you would just take a look at what you're doing and go back to where you were and start over, because you're just watching the system grind to a halt.

At any rate, I've diverged from my discussion about Bill 136. I suppose it can all be tied back into the Courts of Justice Act, because that's the act that regulates the courts in the province of Ontario and regulates the way trials and disputes are resolved. I hope the Attorney General will listen to some of the suggestions I've made about Bill 136, I hope she'll listen to some of the tangential comments I have had the opportunity of making, and I hope we can get this bill in a form that will be acceptable to the judiciary, the public and the politicians, because if it will help the justice system work more effectively, it's a bill that I think is worth passing.

1730

Mr Callahan: I want to address the question the honourable member raised about the reorganization of the courts. I agree that there's been an ever-increasing amount of work for judges in terms of the criminal bar as well as the civil bar, but the net result of that reorganization was to make judges available on a very much more available basis. We now have regions in which judges are available, rather than sitting in a particular county or sitting in Toronto or London, where the pre-existing Supreme Court judges sat. I think the purpose of it was to make justice as available as possible on a timely basis for the citizens of this province.

As in everything, this province is growing rapidly, the major urban centres are growing rapidly, and this of course has put tremendous pressure on the existing case load. I suggest that my friend's comments about the failure of this reorganization by the former Attorney General are most unfair. I suggest to you that the system itself makes sense, that it would make use of the judicial time as well as the crown attorneys' and the court facilities and so on on the best possible basis, but because of the growth of the community and the growth of crime and civil disputes in this province, that has not taken place; also because of the fact that significant further judges have not been appointed or facilities are not available.

The Attorney General came out to Brampton and opened a courthouse, or at least indicated that we will have a shovel in the ground -- and I'm relying on you, Attorney --

Mr Harnick: How many more courtrooms are you going to have?

Mr Callahan: Well, it's not a significant amount, but the best thing, and it was something I always envisaged when we were in government, is that all the courts are brought together to enhance what the Attorney General started: an attempt to put all justice together so you get the best possible results from it.

Mr Bisson: I want to touch on the Young Offenders Act. It's an issue the member has every justification in raising as one of concern to the people of Ontario, and all of Canada, for that matter, but I think we need to clarify a little what the Young Offenders Act is and who in the end is responsible.

Yes, as provinces we administer the Young Offenders Act, but we are very much governed by the regulations as set out in the legislation under the federal government. I am speaking to comments that were made by the -- excuse me. I thought the Speaker was about to say something.

Just to finish the point, I understand what the member is trying to say around the Young Offenders Act. There are a lot of concerns in terms of how people feel about how the Young Offenders Act works, or doesn't work, in certain circumstances, and the high level of frustration on the part of many people not only within the province of Ontario but all of Canada in regard to that act.

But in fairness, we need to point out that the Young Offenders Act is governed through the House of Commons. It is a federal piece of legislation that, yes, we as provinces administer, but we are very much constrained by how the legislation is written and what we find within the act itself.

I know the member is well aware that this government takes its responsibility in regard to the Young Offenders Act quite seriously and is actually working with the federal government because the federal government has indicated it is prepared to take a look at that issue and to move forward to address some of the concerns the member raises.

To leave the viewers of this debate with the impression that somehow the Attorney General of Ontario can snap her fingers and all of a sudden fix the Young Offenders Act is a very large leap of faith, because the member should know, as I know he does, that it's federal legislation. In the end, we have to have the changes at the federal level to be able to change the act to deal with the concerns he raises. I just wanted to clarify that point.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the member for Willowdale has two minutes in response.

Mr Harnick: There is one matter I want to touch on and it arises out of what the member for Brampton South just said. It's interesting that he talks about the courts being busy and congested and that his government tried to address that issue. One of the ways they tried to address that issue, to tell you how off the mark they were, was that they decided they were going to get rid of all the masters of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and in fact this government is continuing on with that process.

The masters deal with interim procedural arguments as a lawsuit proceeds to the day it goes to trial. This government and the previous Liberal government decided to scrap all these masters who really do all this interlocutory work, this interim proceeding work in Toronto, London, Windsor and Ottawa.

What they've decided to do is get rid of the masters by attrition. As the masters retire, they don't replace them, but every day, at 145 Queen Street, in the city of Toronto, the masters look after some 200 matters every single day. When they're all gone, I want to know, who's going to look after these matters?

The judges are overworked now. There are not enough courtrooms to put them in and all of a sudden they're going to get 150 more issues every day than what they already have and nobody is addressing this problem. I hope that with this committee the Attorney General and the Chief Justice just set up they will look at the issue of masters and will wonder who's going to do this work if these people aren't here, because the judges sure don't have the time and the litigants are having to come back day after day just to get reached on the list because they don't complete the daily lists.

I hope the Attorney General will take note of that as well, and I thank you for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the second reading of Bill 136?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I should explain first off why it is I decided to participate in this debate. For those who are just joining us in the chamber or tuning into these proceedings by way of the parliamentary channel, I just make note that we're debating a rather innocuous, a rather insignificant piece of legislation, in the scheme of things, dealing with some reorganization of some things relating to what the people out there call provincial courts.

If I had to give a title to my speech, I would describe it as a speech about why this Legislature is so often an irrelevant body and why so often the people who elect us are so disappointed with what they hear from us and what we do, in particular in this Legislature. I think this bill, set in this context at this time, gives me an opportunity to make the point as best I can.

Let's just start with a summary of what this piece of legislation does. It amends the Courts of Justice Act. Oh, well, big deal. What does that mean? Firstly, the bill gives the Ontario Judicial Council expanded responsibility for dealing with complaints about provincial judges.

The bill gives the Ontario Judicial Council an opportunity to deal with the ever-increasing number of complaints against provincial judges. It's a very big problem in Ontario these days. People complain about provincial judges and their complaints seem to go nowhere. That's the first thing the bill does.

The second thing the bill does is, "The Chief Judge of the Provincial Division is given power to establish standards of conduct, a plan for continuing education and a program of performance evaluation for provincial judges."

That means that now we've got a Chief Judge of the Provincial Division who has legislative authority to make sure there's a continuing education program and standards of conduct. Again, read something into that, Mr Speaker, about what that means. The government says here, in this legislation, that the standard of conduct of our provincial judges is not sufficient and we want to embody, in the laws of this province, an opportunity for that Chief Judge to set standards of conduct.

1740

Number 3, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, which is charged with screening for new judges, is put into law. We've had this committee for choosing judges for quite a long time. Attorney General Ian Scott set it up. It was a good body. The current minister has continued it and put it into law. That's no change at all; it's just that now it's in the law that it has to be and that's the statutory way of choosing judges, and isn't that great?

Next, number 4, "A framework is provided for the extension throughout Ontario of a Unified Family Court, to be known as the Family Court" of Ontario (General Division). Good stuff, that's fine. Family court matters were being taken care of and now we're going to have this system of Unified Family Courts all across the province, and that's some little bit of reasonable substance. But we don't really do it here; we just establish a framework for doing it as and when it's convenient to do.

Number 5, "A framework agreement dealing with provincial judges' remuneration" is put into the law. Oh, good. We're dealing with provincial judges' salaries here. Oh, great. This is a problem that people have phoned me about day and night. I get calls at 3 o'clock in the morning, "When are we going to have the law on provincial judges' salaries?" Oh, good. We finally got it here in the law.

Number 6, "A Deputy Judges Council is created to deal with complaints about deputy judges of the Small Claims Court." Oh, good. Now when there are complaints about deputy judges in the Small Claims Court, there's a statutory means by which we can deal with those complaints. More opportunity to complain about judges.

I want to tell my friends in this Legislature what the people in my riding and the people I talk to all across Ontario are complaining about: Not the salary of judges, not whether or not we can get our complaints about judges heard; they are complaining, they are worried, they are terrified about crime. You know it and you know it and you know it and you know it and I know it.

I'm not sure if every bit of that fear that is now gripping Ontario is based on reality, but I know that's what the people are talking to me about. They are worried. Yet when they tune into this Legislature or they come to hear us in the galleries, we're talking about judges' salaries and enhancing the ability of the average citizen to lodge an effective complaint against a judge.

The reason we are seeing this increase in crime in Ontario is certainly not because people don't have an effective way of complaining about the conduct of judges. I don't know what it is. I don't know what's going on out there. I don't know why the shooting in Just Desserts took place a week and two days ago at 11:15 at night. I don't know why that happened. But I know that for me and for so many people who have talked to me since that day, it was like a wake-up call. You listen to the radio and you listen particularly to the phone-in programs and that's what people are talking about.

There's a new fear there and I don't know what to do about it as a legislator. For two or three days after that murder I heard politicians on the radio and I heard people phoning in on the radio and I heard people saying to me, "We've got to do something about this." When I hear that, that's code for me as a politician. When I hear that, I know that's a call to me as a representative of the people to get busy. I know that because when people say to me, when people honestly ask me as a politician, "What are you going to do?" I haven't got an answer. I don't know.

I know that we have a rising crime rate. I know, as the federal Justice minister said today in Ottawa, that fundamentally the administration of justice is all right, but I know that in Ontario at least there is this dramatic increase in the use of firearms, that they have become prevalent in our society, that particularly among young people there is this attraction and allure to violence. We see it in every aspect of our society.

I say to the Attorney General, who is also the minister responsible for women's issues, that I had those responsibilities once and that I understand this increasing violence, not only against women and children but wantonly against someone who just happens to be there. I see it, you see it, we all see it, and yet we're not doing anything about it. We are talking about judges' salaries here.

The day after that murder in the Just Desserts, I went to my own caucus colleagues and I said, "We've got to do something, because we don't have the answers as a party." I don't think the government caucus has the answer. I don't think the Tories have the answer. I don't think the police commission has the answer. I don't think any of us have got a grip on this stuff yet.

I said to our leader, "Perhaps we could encourage the government to bring together a select committee so at least we could start talking about it in a public way," because often that kind of discussion does give rise to the breakthrough answers. Often it does get us going, at least, in the right direction. It gives people the opportunity to come before their elected representatives and, if not provide the answers, at least express on behalf of their neighbours and their friends and the people in their communities the extent of their fear.

I heard from people in St Catharines, for example, that they're not coming to Toronto any more -- they're just not coming. They're not coming to baseball games. They're not coming to the Exhibition. They're not coming to the theatre here. They're not coming. That's not good.

I repeat that it was kind of like a wakeup call. I have my own children and they love to go into the city in the evenings for concerts and to meet their friends, and the extent of my fear and my worry is heightened.

So I suggested to our leader that we encourage the government to bring us all together in a sort of non-partisan way -- a select committee we call it; what's that but a group of seven or eight or 10 of us in this Legislature -- to hold some public hearings and raise the issue and start talking openly and honestly and consciously about the problems we have.

In fact, on Thursday, April 7, our leader put a question to the Solicitor General. She said, "I raise the issue because I believe we must make sure that as legislators we are doing everything we possibly can to respond to the fears and to the uncertainties that so many people are feeling today."

In her supplementary, she said as follows:

"I would like to ask whether you would refer this issue, the matter of what steps we can take to address this problem, to the standing committee on justice on an emergency basis so that all three parties can determine what indeed we, as legislators here in the province of Ontario, can do to help people feel safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods. Will you agree to make the referral so that we can respond to the growing concerns about violent crime in our neighbourhoods?"

That was a week and a half ago. I don't know what's been going on since then. I ask, on a regular basis, my own House leader and anyone who meets in those councils as to what the agenda for us as legislators is going to be, whether we're going to have the committee. That's the one I want to be at. That's the one that I'm concerned about. That's the one where I, as a legislator and as a representative and a politician, would like to devote my energies and my time.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know we have a problem out there and I don't believe it's just better gun control measures and I don't believe that it's just amendments to the Young Offenders Act and I don't believe that it's just more judges and I'm not sure that it's just more police officers, but I think it might be.

I'm not sure what the answer is and the people in my riding are knocking at my door and calling my office and saying: "You have a responsibility to start to deal with this. That's the very kind of thing that is your duty as a legislator."

1750

What are we doing here this afternoon? We're debating a bill that deals with judges' salaries and how to more effectively complain about provincial court judges' conduct, sets up a system so that the Chief Judge can create standards of conduct, and provides a framework to one day create unified courts all over Ontario.

I'm not so much criticizing the Attorney General for bringing this bill forward; I know these things work their way through the system. I'm just taking this opportunity to somehow plead, on behalf of the people who have been pleading to me, to get these issues dealt with quickly and get on with those other issues.

I've been saying: "Let's have a select committee. That's the way in which we deal with matters of urgent importance." I know that one more death, one more shooting, one more murder, isn't an emergency; that somehow those who accuse us of turning our back on the other murders, the murders that happen in domestic disputes and the murders that happen in the booze cans that operate all night long and the murders that happen on the edges of the drug deals -- "How come you weren't concerned then? It's just because the café that your kids go to is the venue. That's why you're concerned." Well, I accept that criticism and I ask people to forgive me for the fact that we haven't raised it sooner.

But we are having gangs breaking into people's houses in the evening. It's not burglary any more. It's not sneaking in and taking when no one's home. It's rapping at the door and bursting in and humiliating and terrifying people. That's new and that's different and that's urgent, and we should be dealing with it, rather than judges' salaries.

So I'm using this debate on an issue dealing with judges' salaries to say, "Please, let us set up that forum," because, number one, it is important, and it becomes increasingly important. It's important for so many reasons.

I have this terrible concern that we are going to, in our society -- because the accused in the Just Desserts café happened to be someone with a black skin, I know, in fact, that for thousands of people out there, they have now fixed in their head that crime in Toronto, in Ontario, is a black problem. We've got an obligation as legislators to make sure that those ideas do not take hold in the minds of the people of Ontario. We must do that.

We, as legislators, have an obligation to get the irrelevant stuff aside, get the judges' salaries stuff aside and get the standards of conduct stuff aside and get enhanced complaints about the provincial court judges aside, get rid of it -- those are not priorities -- and to get on with the priorities. Because if we don't, then those who say that what we talk about is irrelevant and what we do is insignificant and, "You people are so insulated from what is really happening in Ontario," those accusations hit home.

I don't know if we are ever going to have those hearings. My own suggestion to my leader was that if the Premier or the Attorney General or the Solicitor General did not want to create that kind of forum for discussion, we should do it ourselves as a party. I don't know if we're going to do it as a party. The Tories say they've already done it and they've got all their answers in their silly little brochures about setting a new course, or whatever it's called. That's the worst of all. When you say you've got all the answers, "You just have to read our book," that, to me, is closing your eyes to it.

If we have a frank discussion, we know that this is a problem. It's a serious problem, and we've got to get on with that discussion.

In order to direct our energies and the power of the Legislature and the power of a standing committee to the thing that for obvious reasons is gripping the people of Ontario, I simply tell my friend the Attorney General that I have no problem in voting for her bill. That's easy. I have real problems with the fact that in the face of the events of the past couple of weeks and the quantum increase in and very real concern about crime, we have yet to do anything here in this Legislature or in our committees or in government, for that matter, to respond. That's our real obligation, and I hope we might take up that challenge and fulfil those obligations.

It being five minutes to 6 of the clock and knowing that the business of the House has to be stated before we adjourn at 6 o'clock and knowing that there may be some questions and comments, I'll complete my remarks now.

Mr Callahan: I think my colleague elevates the debate on this to an issue that perhaps isn't directly related to the bill itself, but elevates it to the point where this is a very important issue. This is one of the most important issues in which this Legislature, as he has said and I would say, is to be looked upon as being an effective tool in trying to protect society, and there should in fact be a non-partisan committee. It's an opportunity for us to come together in a non-partisan way by a select committee. I would certainly want to serve on that, because this is a significant concern not just to people in Toronto but a significant concern to citizens throughout this province in terms of being able to walk the streets safely after dark, of being able, as my colleague said, to live safely in their homes. The old adage of England that your home is your castle doesn't seem to be the case any more.

We're seeing things such as drive-by shootings. It's amazing. I saw in the press recently where the press is going to police violence in their television programs and in their newspapers. Perhaps what we should be doing is turning off the television set when we get those wacko programs from the US or indications from the US of the things they're doing, the fact that you get shot if you happen to cut somebody off on the road. That's going to come to Ontario, because for some reason we have a great love affair with the United States, and everything we see there as being trendy we emulate. The young people emulate that in terms of the way they dress, in terms of the statements they're making.

I was at a conference the other day at Cardinal Leger high school which was on racism, and the panel was amazed to hear two young people come before them who had Iron Cross rings on which represent, for those of us who can remember the Second World War, the Holocaust and all sorts of other things. These kids did not think that. They were wearing it because it was cool jewellery. Well, whoever sold it to them knew what it was for. We've got to get to that issue, and I think that's what a select committee could do.

Mr Turnbull: The only reason I'm making any comments about the member for York Centre's debate is his closing comment where he referred to "our silly little book which claims to have all the answers." That is intellectual dishonesty. There has never, ever been any suggestion by our party that we have all the answers, but we have at least listened to the people. We have gone around the province and listened to literally hundreds of people who have expert knowledge, and also people who have suffered from crimes. They put forward their views, and we have come forward with a set of recommendations. We're not hiding behind what the polls are saying at the moment. What we are doing is that we're saying, practically, what we believe would improve the quality of life in this province.

When you talk about silly books, talk about the latest silly book the Liberals brought out, in which they said they were going to reduce half the red tape. They're not going to reduce all the red tape. Red tape, as far as I understood, was the unnecessary paperwork, not the essential, useful paperwork of government. But they're going to reduce half of the red tape. That's what the contribution of the Liberals is instead of talking about real, serious concerns that the electorate have and coming forward and having the guts to say what you would do, in the knowledge that you may have some people who don't like what you're saying.

But at least we're prepared to put a platform forward. I think that is the difference between the Liberals and the NDP and the Conservatives. At least the NDP and the Conservatives are prepared to say what they will do. They may not agree, and we may have different ways of achieving different things, but at least we are prepared to say what we will do. The Liberals look at the polls perpetually and come out with their silly little books after they see that somebody else is doing a job.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for York Centre has two minutes in response.

Mr Sorbara: Very briefly, I want to remark to my friend the member for York Mills and I guess apologize for referring to it as a silly little book.

My problem was simply this: In the face of our call for a select committee of Parliament to look at the issue of crime, the response of the member for Nipissing, Mike Harris, the leader of the Conservative Party, simply suggested that there was no need for hearings, that that didn't have to be done. "All of the answers," he said, and went like that, "are right here in New Directions, Volume Three, and you just have to read that and you'll see what the solution is."

To me, that's making politics out of it, and that was wrong. Obviously, all the answers aren't there. We've all looked at it and there are some interesting ideas -- I concede to my friend that there are some interesting ideas -- but all the answers aren't there.

If we as legislators would get down to work and start to look at the issue, we wouldn't come up with all the answers either, but we might just come up with two or three initiatives we could implement and get ourselves on the road to safer and more secure communities. That's the plea of my speech today, sir. With that, I would move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: It being 6 o'clock, would the government House leader have an outline for next week's legislative schedule?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Yes, I do. Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, April 25, we will begin second reading of Bill 146, the corporations tax act.

On Tuesday, April 26, we will give third reading consideration to Bill 143, Ottawa-Carleton. Following the vote on that, we will resume second reading of Bill 110, the employer health tax act, and Bill 138, the retail sales tax act.

Wednesday, April 27, we will give committee of the whole consideration to Bill 120, the residents' rights bill.

On the morning of Thursday, April 28, during private members' public business, we will consider ballot item 51, second reading of Bill 114, standing in the name of Mr Stockwell, and ballot item number 52, a resolution standing in the name of Mr O'Connor. On Thursday afternoon, we will continue second reading consideration of Bill 136, the courts of justice act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): As we close down the Legislature this afternoon, I want to thank our hardworking pages. Very dedicated they have been. They have just spent their last day here at the Legislature, and may they enjoy a safe return home and may they return to visit us again.

It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 25, at 1:30 pm.

The House adjourned at 1803.

21 avril 1994