Journal des débats 1994-mai-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Yesterday during a response to a minister's statement, the Conservative critic for women's issues spoke about the crisis facing children's aid societies. She noted they have suffered from increased case loads and funding shortfalls.

She said: "The PC Party believes that Ontario's most vulnerable children have been forced to go without this additional support and protective services. I believe, as does our party, that it's absolutely time we...focus on really making children in this province a priority."

Less than 24 hours after that statement was made, the Conservative leader announced his party's economic agenda. Included in his agenda is a promise to cut government spending by 20% in three years. The only areas exempted from the cut would be health care, classroom size and law enforcement. Children's aid societies were not protected.

Why wasn't protection of the most vulnerable children guaranteed in the Tory economic agenda? Do the Conservatives really believe they can say one thing one day and contradict themselves the next without anybody noticing?

By not guaranteeing security for the children who need it the most, those helped by children's aid societies, this so-called Common Sense Revolution has neglected to protect our single most important investment for the future. To me, that makes no sense at all.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Toronto '94 brings together this nation's largest mining event ever. The 96th annual general meeting of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum is the focal point of Toronto '94. Founded in 1898, this association represents 20,000 mining professionals. Associated with this annual meeting is Tradex '94, which provides a showcase for new mining products, technology and services from Canadian, US and overseas companies.

I would like to take a moment to reflect upon how important the mining industry is to our province. Mining provides Ontario with 86,000 direct and indirect jobs and $7 billion in new wealth creation each year.

However, the industry is currently facing a loss of jobs and investment despite our abundance of mineral resources. The reason for these losses is this government. The NDP has generated so much red tape between the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the ministry responsible for mines that it can take up to 10 years to open a mine.

Through our Common Sense Revolution launched today, the Conservative Party has promised to slash the red tape that holds back industrial investment. We look forward to discussing our plan with the Ontario Mining Association when they meet with us next week.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): This is the International Year of the Family. There are currently new approaches being taken for dealing with the persistent social issue of domestic violence. During this year a number of communities are forming partnerships and collaborative approaches in rural and farming areas in Ontario. A focus on domestic violence in rural areas does not imply that violence is more serious in rural areas, but rather that the issue has to be handled differently.

A farm woman has many decisions to make and things to consider when she is thinking of leaving a violent home. She may have the responsibility of animals on the farm. She may be leaving a business that she has helped to build for many years. Unlike many urban women, she must often leave her job and her community. She has an attachment to the land. A farm woman lives with her business partner.

Four projects are presently under way in Ontario as well as across Canada. Fear on the Farm is a positive and solution-oriented video and study guide. It promotes a community partnership approach for dealing with family violence in rural areas. The Canadian Farm Women's Network co-produced the video and study guide with Birdsong Communications. The Ontario Farm Women's Network is developing a project to raise awareness of this issue and to promote community action which will reduce domestic violence in rural communities.

A workshop founded by the Ontario women's directorate has been designed to build on the message from the Fear on the Farm video. The workshop is taking place on May 6 and is called Building Support for Community Action. At this workshop community people, service providers, policymakers and researchers will discuss existing and future actions for dealing with domestic violence, and this will be held in Guelph.

I'd like to thank the Farm Women's Network for this great work that they are doing on behalf of the rural farm families.

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY EMPLOYEES

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Last week I rose in the House to inform members that nepotism was alive and well in the NDP caucus. I shared with members example after example of how the corridors of power were full of NDP family members. Today I rise with yet another example where the NDP has crossed the line when it comes to patronage and nepotism.

Everyone in this House knows that Janet Solberg is a very active New Democratic political adviser. She is the past president of the Ontario New Democratic Party and she currently acts as the NDP spokesperson on TVO's Fourth Reading.

In what has to be one of the most bizarre twists of both nepotism and patronage, Janet Solberg was paid more than $4,000 by the Minister of Education to work on the implementation of the Stephen Lewis report. Stephen Lewis, of course, is none other than Janet Solberg's brother.

I guess there were no experts available from any of the communities affected by the Lewis report, so you might as well bring in his sister to get the job done.

1340

This wasn't the only contract that Ms Solberg has received from the Minister of Education. It would appear that she is also an expert on violence in the classroom. Why else would she be paid $5,000 to be the minister's mouthpiece on a committee of 30? Was no one from the minister's bloated personal staff of 25 able to tear themselves away from the soaps to sit on this? Weren't any Mackenzies available part-time?

The people of Ontario want jobs. They are tired of seeing their family members struggle to find work while NDP family members belly up to the public trough. When will this nepotism and patronage end?

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have repeatedly urged this Legislature to take swift action to deal with the dangers associated with high-risk repeat offenders. My private member's bill on this issue, which has been on the books since 1992, requires persons convicted of a sexual offence involving a child under the age of 14 to register with the local police upon moving into the community. I firmly believe that the public has a right to know if convicted paedophiles and high-risk repeat offenders are living in the neighbourhood.

Last week the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Allan Rock, said, "We have to protect children from repeat abuses by people who have been convicted of these offences." I'm delighted that he plans to put in place a national registry of child abusers.

Mr Rock, along with the federal Solicitor General and the Minister of Health, will be working with their Ontario counterparts to move expeditiously on these matters. I urge the Ontario counterparts to cooperate fully in this endeavour.

It's time that all legislators take responsibility for the fact that the existing law allowed Joseph Fredericks, an eight-time convicted child molester, to be free when he abducted Christopher Stephenson and allowed a high-risk repeat sex offender to be released into the York Mills community even though psychiatrists suggested he would strike again.

Society's interest in protecting the vulnerable victims who've suffered at the hands of paedophiles and sex offenders must take priority over the individual rights of repeat offenders deemed to be high-risk releases.

THE PRINCE CHARLES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): From time to time members of the Legislative Assembly have students from their respective ridings come to the Legislative Building in Toronto for tours, and I want to say that today three groups of students from Prince Charles school in Napanee are visiting the Legislature. The school has a total of 550 students. It employs about 30 people in the Napanee area. Classes range from junior kindergarten to grade 8.

It is a triple-track school. There are three diverse groups of students who attend this school: One is a regular English program group, two is a special-needs group of students and three is a bilingual French and English program.

Today visiting students from Prince Charles school come from two bilingual classes and one English class. I want to welcome them, first of all, to Toronto and to the Legislative Building at Queen's Park, where I hope they have a most enjoyable tour today. They will have an opportunity to learn much about government in the province of Ontario, provincial government in particular.

I want to also say that I look forward to the opportunity that I will have later this afternoon to meet them and their teacher Mike Kelly and to have my photograph taken with them on the steps of the staircase in the Legislative Building, a place where I know many of my colleagues, from time to time, have their photos taken with students from their constituencies.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I was surprised to learn earlier this morning that the Minister of Natural Resources has decided to close eight provincial parks throughout the province.

Aaron, Carson Lake, Devil's Glen, Ferris, Foy, MacLeod, Selkirk and Sioux Narrows provincial parks, which contain over 400 campsites and many public areas, will be closed. The Ministry of Natural Resources is claiming that these closures have taken place in an effort to save costs; however, while the government will save less than $300,000 through closing these parks, it sacrifices up to $7 million in the local economies and many jobs in the local economies and much revenue to the Treasurer of Ontario.

This move makes absolutely no economic sense to the communities of Kenora, Dryden, Brighton, Geraldton, Wasaga Beach, Barry's Bay and Selkirk. It is a desperate move by a desperate government. The government's desperation is revealed by the fact that in the provincial parks guide for 1994, all these parks were open and they were taking reservations until yesterday.

I find that the minister has not said a word about this, but he talks a lot about his Keep it Wild campaign, which has satisfied absolutely nobody.

Minister, your actions have left everyone wondering in this province what your official policy is on the creation and maintenance of parkland in Ontario. It's another example of pay more, get less.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Today a ray of light, the light of hope, shines on Ontario's horizon because today Mike Harris unveiled his commonsense approach to boosting the economy through cuts to income taxes, the elimination and reduction of certain business taxes and control of government spending.

This plan will stimulate the economy and improve consumer confidence and business confidence and spawn hope in Ontario.

Our Mike Harris Task Force on Creating Jobs Through Small Business has been hearing this message time and time again: To create jobs, we must cut red tape, cut taxes and reduce government expenditures.

In Wellington county during task force consultations with the Elora and Maryborough chambers of commerce and the Centre Wellington Economic Development Committee, I was told that the government, through its excessive tax and regulation policies, is stifling economic growth in Wellington county.

All of this interference by big government has led to a stagnant economy in Wellington county which creates too few new jobs, a doubling of our welfare rolls in three short years to over 2,000 in Wellington county alone on social assistance and an unacceptable level of unemployment which since January has continued to go up in our area, not down.

In Wellington county it is small business that is the largest job creator and wealth generator. The message to our small business task force that we've been taking to the government is very, very clear: In order to help create business confidence, government must get off the backs of small business people.

We need to deregulate and detax those who can create the jobs, our small business people, and then call upon them to reinvest and expand and create the jobs we need.

We will continue to press the government to remove its millstone from the back of small business so that communities in Wellington county and across the province can once again prosper.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Happy Education Week to you.

On January 1, 1994, the Middlesex County Board of Education marked the 25th anniversary of its inception. During these years, the board has accumulated a proud history of achievement.

Until the new Middlesex county board came into being in 1969, education in the county had been provided by 22 boards and two authorities under the supervision of the regional office of the Department of Education. A total of 242 trustees served on these small boards.

In December 1968 a new 16-member board was elected. The late John Gummow was appointed as the new director and, with one other staff person, began the monumental task of integration of the former boards and the exciting business of planning for the future.

During the past 25 years, the Middlesex County Board of Education has dealt with increasing enrolments, declining enrolments, building expansions, new policies and programs, financial restraints, personnel changes, the need for a variety of services for all the students attending our schools, boundary changes, transportation requirements, reorganization, annexation, amalgamation, ministers' orders and downsizing. Through it all, Middlesex has provided a quality of education second to none because of our committed trustees, teachers, staff support, students and parents.

Last Friday evening we gathered in Ilderton to celebrate those 25 years and to look ahead to a future in which we will continue to see the best possible education for the students of Middlesex county. As our slogan says, "Today's Child, Tomorrow's Future."

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): My statement is to the Minister of Health. Minister, as you are aware, rural Ontario is having great difficulty in keeping emergency wards open at full service. Today marks a sad day for the Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury, with the closure of the emergency services between midnight and 8 am.

Now this at first blush may not seem bad to you, but it has many ramifications for the people this hospital services. It is now 40 minutes in any direction for that life-threatening injury or illness to be attended to. There's also the aspect of dealing with a much busier hospital once you finally get there.

One of the other aspects that has become a real thorn in rural Ontario's side is the situation the doctors have been put in. Rural Ontario has for some time had a great difficulty in attracting doctors. The doctors we do have have tremendous workloads and have almost ceased to take new patients.

1350

The opportunity to intern at some rural hospitals gives young doctors a chance to get a flavour of rural Ontario. Four Counties was one of those hospitals.

Our physicians have been pushed into a position of choosing office over emergency services, forgoing hospital privileges in some cases, most likely not by choice but by necessity.

The people of Elgin are disappointed in the situation for both the client and the doctors at Four Counties and St Thomas Elgin General Hospital. You are the Minister of Health for all Ontario and we look to you to recognize the value of rural medicine in both the emergency room and the office.

Please do not continue to urbanize services throughout rural Ontario. The people of Elgin pay the same taxes that you do. We need our physicians in our hospitals and would appreciate your understanding in this regard.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, a delegation from the Parliament of Croatia headed by Mr Mladen Vedris, member of Parliament, and accompanied by Miss Vesela Mrden of the Croatian embassy. Please welcome our special guests.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HEALTH CARDS

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Today I would like to announce strong new government action to protect the integrity of our health care system and to preserve it for the future.

We have built a first-rate health care system here in Ontario and we have to look after it. That's why we are taking action to protect Ontario's publicly funded system, by deterring and detecting those who would defraud it.

The Liberals introduced new health cards in the late 1980s, but in their haste to get the red and white cards out, they neglected important security features.

Fraud, abuse and misuse are problems caused by a small number of people, but their irresponsible actions hurt us all.

The Ministry of Health will begin issuing new photo health cards to every eligible person in Ontario. The cards will contain several new security features.

Each card will bear a digitized photograph and signature and a holographic overlay to prevent counterfeiting. The birthdate, expiry date, name, address and sex will be printed on the face of each card. The card will have a magnetic strip and bar code. As we expand the use of swipe reader technology, hospitals and other providers will be able to verify the card every time it is used.

Everyone in Ontario will be reregistered, after which we will begin a five-year renewal cycle. A renewal cycle is essential to maintain security and confirm eligibility. Reregistering people and issuing almost 11 million new cards will take three years. To improve customer service, people will register at the Ministry of Health's 20 regional offices or the Ministry of Transportation's 360 licensing offices.

It will never be possible to determine the exact amount of fraud. Based on expert advice, we calculate that the photo card and additional security measures will prevent about $65 million in fraud and misuse annually.

We will be ready to issue the first card early in 1995, and the cost will be about $30 million a year for three years. Thereafter, the annual cost will be about $19 million a year.

During the reregistration process, and each time a card is renewed, the holder will be required to provide original documents that prove eligibility for OHIP.

The ministry now requires anyone who applies for a new or replacement card to provide proof of eligibility for OHIP before the card is issued.

Starting in August, any new card issued will contain additional information.

The card is the key to a $17-billion health care system, a system that for too long has been neither secure nor controlled. Doctors recognize this, which is why we agreed to a photo card in negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association last summer.

We are taking all the reasonable steps we can to detect and fight misuse of the system by both consumers and providers.

For example, the ministry is currently working with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to expand the Medical Review Committee that looks into questionable billings by doctors.

The ministry also conducts random spot checks on OHIP billings, by contacting consumers to confirm that they received the services being claimed by their health care professional.

Last year we introduced Health Network, a new system that links pharmacies by computer. This system helps prevent drug fraud in the Ontario drug benefit program. It also protects people against potentially dangerous drug interactions.

In the near future the ministry will expand card swipe readers to at least 100 hospitals across the province. These machines will enable the hospitals to verify OHIP cards every time they are used. The combination of the new card and swipe technology will help prevent abuse by both patients and doctors. Any abuse drives up the cost of care and undermines our precious system.

The ministry's OHIP verification unit scrutinizes thousands of files each year. Last year we established an investigation unit to follow up on all suspected cases of fraud. More than 170 cases are now under investigation.

I'm pleased to announce today that we are hiring eight new investigators who will find those people who steal from the health care system through fraud and abuse. The people of Ontario will not tolerate abuse of their health services, and any amount of fraud is unacceptable.

The photo cards, tighter management and security controls and additional investigators will go a long way to protect and preserve our health care system. They are all part of our government's strategy to ensure that Ontario's health care dollars are spent wisely and appropriately. Since the public has become more aware of the fraud problem, the ministry has received hundreds of calls on our toll-free line from people reporting inappropriate use of the system.

I know how much the people of Ontario treasure our system of universal medicare. It helps to identify us as Canadians, as members of a more caring and compassionate society.

In the last three years, our government has done more to protect health services in Ontario than any government has done since health insurance was introduced in 1972. We have brought health care costs under control. We have introduced a comprehensive strategy for cancer care. We have begun to restructure our hospitals, redirect long-term care and reform our mental health system. We have done a great deal, and we will do more.

My announcement today represents strong action that demonstrates our commitment to protecting health care for Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The minister's announcement today is a 1980s answer to health information needs as we close in on the end of this century. She will be spending $130 million over five years to add one new piece of information to our health cards, and that's an expiry date.

Her special investigator admitted in a news conference earlier today that only $120,000 in fraudulent claims are now being pursued through the courts. If that sounds like overkill, think about the requirement that everyone will have to produce a birth certificate or a passport in the original to obtain a health card. I'm asking the minister if she has any idea how long it takes to obtain a birth certificate. In fact, people who are being spot-checked now by OHIP indicate that they have been asked to produce a birth certificate in 15 days, but it takes at least a month and sometimes up to three months to obtain a birth certificate through the Registrar General.

The minister says $65 million in annual fraudulent claims will be saved by this system, but she can only provide evidence for $120,000. In fact, in the news conference earlier today she indicated that it was very clear there was no real information on how much fraud existed in the system.

The minister will require everyone to line up at a Ministry of Transportation office across the province, but she gives no details about how children will be treated, how the disabled will be treated, how people in long-term care facilities will be treated. Those details are still being worked out, she says. None the less, we should know: Are people going to be expected to register by birthdate? If yes, that means that in a family like mine, with four children, we will have to go to those MTO offices six times.

The minister says that swipe technology will be introduced in hospitals but gives no indication of any consultation or discussions with respect to the compatibility between the health card and the hospital systems.

1400

The minister says that doctors will be required to use interactive voice technology, which the Ontario Medical Association itself has said, and demonstrations in this very House have indicated, doesn't work.

The minister speaks about the drug network, but she doesn't tell us that pharmacies are only able to bring up information about patients who have already received prescriptions within that individual pharmacy. They aren't linked to physicians and they aren't linked to other pharmacies, and so far the network in fact is one that is merely an administrative device for the local pharmacy.

I believe that the minister should be putting the $130 million that she has indicated will be spent into an appropriate health information system that links OHIP providers and patients with information regarding care management, administration and research. Such a system would enable a physician who is treating a patient to know precisely what other treatments and interventions the patient has received, whether that's drugs, lab tests, X-rays or other diagnostic imaging.

We know that a major problem with seniors' health care is overdrugging, and a careful monitoring through an information system would assist with patient care. We're not getting that out of this $130 million.

There is also a possibility that, through a proper information network, duplication in ordering of lab tests and of X-rays could be eliminated in the system.

People have told us that their records are scattered. Such a system could ensure that they would have available in one place their full health record. Further, patients could have a full annual or semiannual report on the costs of their individual health care to the system as a whole. Additionally, patients could also have a full report on who has requested their health information and for what purposes.

Administrative improvements would also result. When we hear that physicians today are filing by disc, what we don't hear is that in fact they are taking a disc out of their computer and popping that disc in the mail and sending that off to OHIP. A new, appropriate system would mean, clearly, more efficient administration and would give a clear picture of physician practices.

The major problem in health care today is inadequate planning information. For planning purposes, an information network can provide non-personal links and epidemiological data to ensure that we have appropriate information to plan.

People in Ontario want to be assured that only those who are eligible for medicare in fact receive it. They also want to be assured that our health care system is planned and operated efficiently and that the technological advances that are considered routine in other sectors are appropriately used in our health care system. I urge the minister to use that $130 million more wisely than she's indicated she's doing with this announcement today.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): It is with mixed emotions that I stand in response to the announcement made by the minister for a new photo ID health card system. After bringing this issue to the government's and the public's attention for the past two years, I am pleased that an attempt is being made to deal with the health card fraud problem.

In their haste to go to the polls in 1990, the Liberals gave Ontario a health card system with plenty of holes. The Liberals gave us a system where health cards were mailed to dogs and cats. The Liberals allowed anyone to register for health care coverage in Ontario without bothering to check whether or not these individuals were even entitled to coverage. The results have been hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud on an annual basis and the issuing of more than 12.5 million cards to a population of just over 10 million in Ontario.

With today's announcement, Bob Rae has borrowed a page from David Peterson's less-than-successful campaign blueprint. It's déjà vu all over again. With the first cards scheduled to be issued in February 1995, the people of Ontario can now start to prepare for an election next spring. However, I would caution the NDP: The public saw through the Liberal strategy, and they will see through Bob Rae's attempt to trick voters into thinking the government has given them an effective, fraudproof health card system.

Last summer, the government announced its plans to bring in a photo health card. In the public accounts committee, the former deputy minister, Michael Decter, said a decision had been made to "add a photo to the card and to move to a renewal cycle." In other words, the deputy made this announcement over nine months ago.

Now, after the fraud clock has ticked for several more months, Minister, you're today making virtually the same announcement, and hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud have gone on since your deputy announced that he would be bringing this in.

Given the foot-dragging on bringing in a new system, I would have thought that the NDP would have investigated other health card options, rather than simply sticking to putting a photo on a flawed system.

This year, the government has undertaken to create three different new cards and systems for the ministries of Transportation, Community and Social Services, and now again Health. Wouldn't it have made infinitely more sense to create one card for all Ontarians that identifies the benefits and entitlements for each resident? Rather than having several gatekeepers for many different ministries, why not just have one?

Simply sticking a photo on a card will not reduce fraud. In fact, I'm told it may help to perpetuate the fraud cycle, especially given the relatively short time lines to reregister the population. It's easy for photos to be replicated on cards, even with digital technology. With a photo now on it, the health card will be viewed as a legitimate piece of ID that will facilitate a further ripping off of our social services system.

I'm also concerned that this photo system is being built on the foundation of an extremely flawed health computer database. Currently, anywhere from 25% to 30% of the addresses in OHIP's computers are inaccurate. There are still tens of thousands of duplicate registrations, and, Minister, you admitted yourself earlier today you have no idea how much fraud is really occurring in the system.

As a result, OHIP has no way of determining who is eligible and who isn't. Combine this with the ease with which people can obtain birth certificates in this province, and you've got an NDP health card system, from a fraud perspective, that resembles the old Liberal system. There is also nothing in this announcement that encourages people to attach some value and worth to their cards like they would to a credit card.

Today, the government had a chance to bring in a Cadillac information system. Instead, they've elected to repair the same old lemon. The system is based on magnetic strip technology that was discovered and introduced during the Second World War. A photo ID does nothing to avoid the duplication and waste that are currently in the health system.

A smart card computer chip system could virtually eliminate fraud and provide the necessary information on patients' needs and medical treatments. The government has argued against this system on the basis of cost. However, a banking consortium offered to establish this system with no startup cost to taxpayers. A similar consortium told my health advisory committee that a smart card system could pay for itself in just two years by virtually eliminating fraud, duplication and waste.

The government says the current Liberal health card system cost taxpayers $30 million, but this figure could be as high as $75 million. Now the government's announcing a new system that isn't much better which will cost taxpayers anywhere from $109 million to $130 million. As a result, Ontario taxpayers have invested anywhere from $149 million to about $200 million in a card system that provides health professionals and analysts with no medical information on patients. We still have no details on how the government will register children. Nine months after deciding on this system, Minister, you still haven't figured that one out.

What we need is a health information system that eliminates fraud and provides information on patients and that prevents duplication and waste. What we're seeing again is a Liberal solution designed to capture votes and trick the public into thinking that Ontario's health card problem is solved. History will judge this government and its solution quite harshly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question today is for the minister of justice. Minister, it's almost a month ago that my leader, Lyn McLeod, leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition, indicated to your government that we were prepared, as an opposition party, to engage not just the government but other members of the Legislature immediately in the justice committee so that together we could move forward to develop a package of proposals that would deal responsibly with the rising tide of public concern around safe and secure communities.

At that time, the Solicitor General indicated, on behalf of your government, that he was quite favourably disposed to that constructive suggestion. Minister, nearly a month has passed and we have no action, no leadership and no response from your government. Will you, as the senior minister responsible for the justice policy field in the Rae government, indicate to the House today what you plan to do and when you plan to do it, in response to the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition almost a month ago?

1410

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): As has been stated in this House a number of times, the government House leader is responsible for negotiating this with the House leaders on the other side, and I refer the question to him.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): It's an interesting question, which has come several times in this House from the official opposition since the opposition leader made her request a month ago.

At the first House leaders' meeting after the leader of the official opposition made her request, the House leader for the official opposition came to that House leaders' meeting and suggested a very narrow focus, two specific topics, which I responded to within a matter of a few days, and we have gone through some discussions with all three parties around that focus. Several items were added and withdrawn during those discussions.

Then, last Thursday, the official opposition totally changed its stance around what it wanted to discuss in that committee.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Charlton: The acting House leader for the official opposition suggested --

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): That's not true.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for St George-St David.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- that we should open up the very narrow focus which his colleague had originally proposed and reopen the entire discussion with the three parties.

When the request is made to seek an all-party, non-partisan approach to violent crime issues, that means reaching a consensus among the three parties. As the opposition parties continue to shift the sands in those discussions, it makes it somewhat difficult to reach that consensus.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: The government House leader has raised most serious and delicate matters of privilege, which will be dealt with by my colleague the member for Bruce.

A supplementary to the minister of justice: I say to the minister of justice that in this question one of the areas about which there is a growing concern in the public has to do with youth gangs. In just the recent past, we have a federal report concerning youth gangs. That report highlights a number of things. I just want to mention a couple of those highlights. A just completed federal report on youth gangs concludes, among other things, "It is now not uncommon to find students in the earliest primary grades committing serious acts of violence." Furthermore, the report just released by the federal government indicates, "The presence of guns, gun replicas and other serious weapons is becoming a widespread presence in schools." It goes on to report, "Extortion and drug dealing are becoming a routine part of the school day in a number of communities."

Having regard to the findings of this recent federal report and again a concern in the public about youth violence and particularly about youth gangs, can the minister of justice for Ontario indicate what her strategy is in dealing with this part of this overall problem?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member's question, which I believe has been referred to me, is a question that I'll certainly take under consideration and discuss with my colleague and get back to the member.

Mr Conway: A final supplementary to the minister of justice about a concern that if it's not a priority for her government, is damned well a priority for the 10 million people in this province: Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the Yonge Street riots in this city, two years ago, a watershed development in the life of this community.

At that time, your government said that in addition to a number of things, including the work of Mr Stephen Lewis, your government was going to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy dealing with the root causes that are sending so many young people into the streets to commit offences and to express their despair and disillusionment about their circumstances. That was a commitment solemnly made by your government two years ago.

I ask you today, as minister of justice for Ontario, what can you report as to the development and the implementation of that comprehensive strategy to get at the root causes that are underlying so much of the problem with youth in Ontario today?

Hon Mr Charlton: My colleague the Attorney General and my colleague the Solicitor General have both set out fairly clearly in this House in the last few weeks a number of very significant initiatives which this government has already undertaken, including some that the opposition was still asking as questions, while we've proceeded over the last several years to implement some of those items, in the absence of any understanding on the part of the opposition.

As I've said, I will consult with my colleague about the content of the member's question, but the member should know that the government has been working to deal with issues around violent crime on the streets of this province as they arise, and both of my colleagues, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, will be making their own statements in this Legislature with respect to the government's initiatives in that regard.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A question to the Minister of Health: Last summer she indicated that she, with her partners in the health care community, was going to develop a new, improved underserviced area program for the province of Ontario. At that time, I believe it was in August, the Minister of Health said that she would develop and make available by I believe the end of September 1993 a new list of eligible communities in the province, which communities could qualify under her new, improved underserviced area program.

Will the Minister of Health today indicate if she has in fact developed, as she promised, that list, and will she today table the list of eligible communities in Ontario, communities that will be eligible under her new, improved underserviced area program?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Last August I negotiated an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association where we jointly undertook responsibility for dealing with the historic problem of underserviced areas and how to attract professionals, particularly physicians, to those areas. As part of those negotiations, there was a provision for a master contract and direct contracts for physicians to go to those communities. In conjunction with that, there was to be a clearer designation of communities where direct contracts would be applicable and of communities that would continue to be designated by their application and the process that had been in place for some time.

I regret that our discussions with the Ontario Medical Association have not been completed or led to the completion of those contracts and so I'm not in a position today to add anything to the way in which communities are designated or to the list of designated communities that has always been there.

Mr Conway: So there is no list and there is nothing to report to these communities.

For the last number of days -- just a few moments ago we had the member for Elgin on his feet, telling a story about his community -- we've had my colleagues from Bruce, from Kenora, from Manitoulin, from Northumberland, myself in the Ottawa Valley, a number of other communities. In Peterborough county, we have the local press reporting about the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs who is rightly pointing to deficiencies in that large urban community of Peterborough city and Peterborough county.

Kenora, Peterborough, Newbury, Goderich, Trenton, Barry's Bay, Mount Forest, Deep River, the list goes on, the beat goes on: Thousands of people living in small rural communities and now in larger centres like Peterborough are asking their members to ask their government, "What is your plan?"

Since you are the Minister of Health, you have the sole and exclusive power to designate communities as being eligible for much-needed general practitioners and specialists. What, Minister, do you say to all these communities that are crying out for action on your part as Minister of Health in this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member in his first question asked me for a list. He then rhymed off a list. I am well aware of the communities he mentions; so are the members for those areas. They are aware of the work that has been done between the academic health science centres, the Ontario Hospital Association, the OMA and my ministry in order to deal with the problems in those communities.

1420

But I hope the member will not fall into the very simplistic view of believing that because a community's name is on a list, that necessarily means the physician goes to that community. I assume that if it had been that simple, the previous government would have designated and dropped doctors into every community on every list. He knows, as we know, that one does not force, under our health care system, physicians to practise in a community or with a community where they do not wish to go.

We have, under our designated areas program and the underserviced areas program, financial incentives to get doctors to go there. That does not necessarily attract the physicians to go there. I happen to believe that our method of remunerating physicians works against encouraging physicians to go to many of these rural and remote areas, and I'm working to do something to change that.

Mr Conway: What I know, Minister, is what you said last summer, and last summer, in August, you stood proudly in your place and you said, "I, Ruth Grier, have a plan, and I, Ruth Grier, will produce a list of communities not later than September of 1993." That is what you said. Now we have a confession of defeat, of inaction and of failure, and the people in Peterborough and Kenora and Newbury and Deep River and many other communities are noticing.

Let me take you back one last time to the Peterborough example. You and your officials are saying: "Oh, there's no problem in Peterborough. Our numbers indicate that there are 118 family physicians in the Peterborough area." The Peterborough community is saying: "Not so. In fact, our numbers suggest and indicate 75 family physicians, and we believe" --

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

Mr Conway: -- "those are real numbers," they say.

My question: Given the Peterborough example, where there seems to be a very real gulf in just the database, can I ask you, since you have no list, since you have no criteria, since apparently you have no action plan, can you tell the people of Peterborough what you're using as a database to explain how it is that you seem to be at such odds with the local community?

Hon Mrs Grier: I hope nobody listening to the histrionics of the honourable member will be under the illusion that by merely naming a community as underserviced one suddenly produces doctors. If the member is suggesting that I go out among the physicians of this province and say, "You, you, you and you, go to Peterborough; that's the way we deal with the health care system," again I wonder why his government didn't do it, because that's not the way the health care system works.

What our government did, and what his government was unable to do, was to negotiate an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association that provided for direct contracts which would have physicians on salary, on contract, in those areas that were designated as difficult to serve.

Unfortunately, the implementation of that agreement has not been achieved within the time frame that I had anticipated last August. I profoundly regret that. I share the member's concern, and I can assure him with respect to Peterborough that the member for Peterborough and I, and the district health council for Peterborough and I, have had a number of discussions around how they can best attract doctors to deal with their particular problem. But I assure the House that merely putting the name of a community on a list, as the member opposite seems to think, does not solve the problem.

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

Applause.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I don't know if they're applauding you, Ruth, or both of us perhaps.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Treasurer. Because the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade are not in the House today and there was no statement today, perhaps I could, to the Treasurer, offer congratulations to the government, offer congratulations to premiers Rae and Johnson on the signing of a historic agreement today, and publicly, through the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, indicate our strong support for the actions taken by the government in securing the trade agreement with the province of Quebec.

However, having done that, I do have a question for the Treasurer in another area. Treasurer, I believe you will agree with me, as we chatted in fact on your way back to your riding last week, that people in Ontario are fed up and they're angry. They are tired of seeing their hard-earned money being wasted. They are afraid that they won't have a job tomorrow and that their children won't have a job.

Minister, to restore confidence in the economy, to send a signal that Ontario is open for business again, and to create private sector jobs, those long-term, meaningful jobs that we need in this province, will you cut the personal income tax rate in Ontario by 30% to give us the lowest income tax rate, in Ontario, and to get our economy moving again? Will you do that, Treasurer?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): May I first of all express my appreciation to the leader of the third party for his comments on the historic agreement that was signed this morning between the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of Ontario. Since the leader of the third party raised it, I really should make a couple of comments about it since he raised it as part of his question.

I would simply say that a lot of credit must go to both the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade because they have come to an agreement on matters such as labour mobility, which is terribly important, and on matters such as government procurement in the broader public sector as well. I appreciate very much the comments of the leader of the third party.

Finally, on this part of the question dealing with tax reduction, I read with considerable interest the leader of the third party's revolutionary document which he presented to the people of Ontario this morning, and I must say there's some of the content of that document with which I agree. As a matter of fact, interprovincial trade barriers was one of them, the restructuring of Ontario Hydro is another. Mind you, we've done both of those, but that's something with which I agree with the leader of the third party. There are a number of areas on which I disagree, but I don't want to get into that until the supplementary.

Mr Harris: There are over 500,000 unemployed people in the province of Ontario who desperately want to work. They have been promised over the last 10 years that hiking taxes and increasing government spending would help them get jobs. Yet year after year after year, that strategy has proved to be an ultimate, unmitigated disaster and failure.

Let's face reality here, Minister. You need the private sector's help in finding them a job. Eighty-five per cent of all new jobs will be created by small business, but they can't create jobs if they're not competitive with other jurisdictions, and right now, they are not competitive with other jurisdictions.

Minister, one of the most punitive taxes on jobs in small business is the employer health payroll tax. Treasurer, to make small businesses competitive and to create jobs, will you exempt all small businesses from the employer health payroll tax that was brought in by the Liberals as one of those dastardly acts that stifled job creation and destroyed opportunity in the private sector? Will you eliminate that tax?

Hon Mr Laughren: I could not help but notice in the document, the revolutionary document, that the leader of the third party presented that the number one reduction in taxes was in the most progressive tax we have in the province, namely, the income tax system, which is based on ability to pay. However, there's a certain element of magic in this whole exercise too, because at the same time he's saying, "Increase income taxes with a new health levy," so he's taking away with one hand and putting it back with the other. I'm not sure that would accomplish very much.

1430

I would quarrel with the leader of the third party when it comes to the competitiveness of Ontario. Ontario is competitive with every single jurisdiction in North America, without exception. As a matter of fact, with payroll taxes, our payroll taxes are lower than those in Quebec and they're lower than the average in the United States, so I'm not sure the leader of the third party is picking the right way in which to address any perceived problems that he at least perceives.

Finally, I would remind the leader of the third party that we have been through a very severe recession in this province, so he should not be surprised that we've been through a very difficult time.

The leader of the third party should recall that when Ronald Reagan thought that lowering taxes would increase activity in the economy and reduce the deficit, the deficit in the United States between 1980 and 1988 went from something like $40 billion to almost $300 billion, so I don't think simplistic solutions are the answer.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer is quite right. If we have runaway, uncontrolled spending, as we've had for the last decade by governments in this province, by the Liberals and by you, in coalition or on your own, you will get into trouble. That's why you can't just tinker with the system or on one side, and the Treasurer will know that.

Treasurer, this morning I outlined a plan to create more than 725,000 jobs. It's a commonsense plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Could the leader of the third party take his seat please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Downsview, please come to order. Leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: This morning I outlined a plan to create more than 725,000 new jobs. It's a commonsense plan. It will revolutionize government in Ontario. Our plan will cut the personal income tax rate by 30%. It will cut non-priority spending by 20%. We'll balance the budget in four years.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I caution the member for Downsview. If he does not come to order, he will be named.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. I would appreciate the cooperation of the House. I do have a responsibility to listen to the question and to the reply. In addition to that, I enjoy it, so perhaps you would allow me the small generosity of being able to enjoy the question period.

Would the leader place his supplementary.

Mr Harris: I should repeat the question then, if you want to enjoy it, Mr Speaker.

Let me get to the point. While you have said there will be no new taxes in this Thursday's budget, at no time have you indicated that Ontario taxpayers can expect a break. I think that's wrong. Clearly, you've read the document. You will know that I think you're heading in the wrong direction. I believe we can cut taxes today. In fact, I believe we must, if we're going to get jobs and the growth in the economy and people back working in Ontario.

Today I tabled a plan, The Common Sense Revolution, a plan to do just that: cut taxes, cut spending and balance the budget. I would like to ask you this, Treasurer, a very simple request: Are you willing to sit down with me and with treasury officials to discuss the merits of this plan for the benefit of the people of Ontario? Are you willing at least to do that?

Hon Mr Laughren: It's been at least four years since I've read a revolutionary document. I would simply remind the leader of the third party that it's a long march from Nipissing to Bay Street.

I want to add in a more serious vein that I did think the document was very professionally packaged, but I think what's glossed over in the presentation by the third party in its document is the impact on vulnerable people. It's beyond me how you can reduce government spending by the degree you say you will while protecting health care, education, municipalities, and still have these massive savings.

It's time the leader of the third party came clean with exactly who would be hurt by this document, what programs he would shut down, what hospitals he would close, what schools he would close, and what public services would end in the province of Ontario according to his Klein-like plan.

Mr Harris: I'd like the Treasurer to know that this document comes from Main Street, from all across this province. This comes from Ontario. This comes from the people who have said, "This is what needs to be done in the province of Ontario."

1440

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is also to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has indicated he would like to know exactly what spending would be cut. This document indicates exactly what would be cut. That's exactly why I'd like to sit down with you and the officials, because unlike any other political document we have seen, this one goes on the record with every nickel of spending cuts and tax cuts.

Ontario government spending has more than doubled in the past decade, from $25 billion to over $53 billion. This document suggests that in non-priority areas we can cut back 20% of that funding. With a more than doubling in the last 10 years, most of it by the Liberals, this document says that in non-priority areas we can cut 20%.

Taxpayers are demanding drastic spending cuts, not just tinkering, and the best place to start is right here. It costs $125 million each year to operate this Legislative Assembly. We must cut back. We must cut the number of politicians in the province. I have two or three in mind today. We must eliminate the tax-free allowances. We must scrap the MPP pension plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Could the leader of the third party please take his seat.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Let me deal with a couple parts of the leader of the third party's question, one to do with the $10-billion cut -- I think that's the right number -- in government spending.

Interjection: In non-priority.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm sorry; I thought it was 20% of spending --

Interjection: In non-priority.

Hon Mr Laughren: Okay. Well, if there's one thing we've learned in government in the last four years, it's how painful cuts can be to people who receive the services. When we established the treasury board and put in place something we call our expenditure control plan, every time we made a move to reduce expenditures, we had members of the opposition yelling and screaming that we shouldn't make those cuts, and people out there in the communities as well. Those public services are highly valued in this province.

I can tell you that if you're going to exempt health and you're going to exempt education and you're going to exempt transfers to municipalities, you're going to have quite a time achieving all those savings in what's left, given the proportion of the budgets occupied by those big-spending ministries. It's a much more painful exercise than the leader of the third party is telling the people of this province.

Finally, the member talks about reducing the number of seats in this Legislature. I don't think the leader of the third party wants us to constitute ourselves as an electoral boundaries commission and make that kind of decision. There is a process for that, and the leader of the third party understands that very well. I did find that part of the report interesting. I might have been more selective in how I would reduce the number of seats in the province. Nevertheless, it was an interesting part of his report.

Mr Harris: The document is very precise. It articulates $6.05 billion that will be cut from provincial spending over three years, and those numbers, I want to indicate to you and to the Legislature and the people of Ontario, are firm. Those are the numbers that are required, with the tax cuts, to get people working, to get prosperity back in this province and to balance our budget and launch ourselves into the 21st century, prosperous and working again, back on top again, where we were for 42 years in this country.

One of the reasons we are in such a mess, Treasurer, is because over the last 10 years spending has gone from $25 billion to over $53 billion. Would you not agree with me that, fully indexed for inflation, fully indexed for the increased population, if we can more than double spending, if we can take it from $25 billion to $53 billion, we can find $6 billion, which will still leave us with more money, indexed for inflation and increased population, than when Bill Davis ran this province, when we had jobs and prosperity and hope and opportunity; that with all the increases we've had, we should be able to sit down -- and I'm offering to sit down and work with you -- and identify the $6 billion in spending cuts we have to make so we can balance our budget and get this province back on track. Would you not agree that makes sense, makes common sense?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't want to be too harsh in my judgement of what the Tories in this province have brought forward, but I must say that there is a very strong element of voodoo economics contained in that document.

For the leader of the third party to say we can take out $4.5 billion by reducing provincial personal income taxes -- that's what he's saying, about $4.5 billion out there -- that we can reduce another $400 million by reducing the employer health tax, that we can protect all the major-spending ministries that deliver the most important services to the province and balance the budget in four years and make the people of this province happy, is quite frankly not a very open and honest process with the people of this province, unless you are prepared to detail -- and you are not in your document -- exactly where all of that money would come from, because that's going to mean cuts for the most vulnerable people in our society.

Mr Harris: The most vulnerable people in our society are not working. They don't have jobs. They're on unemployment insurance or they're on welfare. This plan not only details what non-priority areas will be cut, this plan also offers $500 million to reform the welfare system, to finally implement the recommendations of Thomson and of SARC, to give people on welfare the skills or the jobs or the work experience they need, to give them some hope, to give them some sense that at the end of the day they will not be dependent on the state, they will not be dependent on bureaucrats telling them what they can do and what they cannot do.

Let me ask you this, Treasurer: Since welfare spending has gone up in this province, from 1982 till today, from less than $1 billion to over $6.5 billion, making Ontario now 30% higher than all other provinces in the country, would you not agree with me that it is a worthwhile plan to change our welfare system from a handout to a hand up, and that we get people back to work in this province, that we give them a choice of working, that we set welfare rates 10% higher than all the rest of the provinces and give them the opportunity for training in a job? Would you not agree that makes more sense than what you and the Liberals have done for the last 10 years: pay them more and more money to sit home and do nothing? Doesn't this make more sense?

Hon Mr Laughren: It's becoming clearer, the more the leader of the third party speaks, exactly what his attitude is to the most vulnerable people in our society out there. I would say to the leader of the third party that you cannot have it both ways: You cannot at one breath say that you're going to protect the most vulnerable people and the next minute say you're going to take it out of the hides of those same people. That's simply not fair.

Second, I would say to the leader of the third party that we have in place in this province a program now that is designed specifically to remove barriers for people who are on social assistance, to provide training and a subsidy to the private sector to get people off social assistance and give them the opportunity to get back into the workforce, properly trained with meaningful employment.

We are doing that, and the program that does the most in that regard you want to bring to an end. Make up your mind whether you really want to encourage people and provide incentives for people to get back into the workforce or whether you simply want to bash them. It sounds to me like it's the latter.

1450

JOB CREATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance and it's about jobs. The budget that will be presented on Thursday I know will have jobs as its number one priority, for the fourth straight year, I might add. Every single budget that Premier Rae has presented has been about jobs being the number one priority.

We now, however, have the report card on the success of the jobs program for last year's budget. This is your government report for the 12 months ending March 31, 1994, the year of the last budget. Here's what your government report says about the job situation in Ontario:

"A review of developments in Ontario's labour market over the past 12 months shows employment growth has been weak relative to the rest of the country. At the Canada level, employment grew by 177,000, but in Ontario the job growth was only 9,000."

British Columbia had plus 67,000, Quebec plus 59,000, Alberta plus 40,000. Mr Minister, the job growth for the 12 months of your budget that just ended was 9,000 jobs. In the budget, you had promised that we would see job growth of 90,000 jobs. We achieved 10% of your target.

My question is this. As we look ahead to the budget on Thursday, what has been the reason for the failure of the job growth in the last budget that promised so much growth?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): If you go back a year, roughly, to when we brought down our 1993 budget and you were to compare the projections in our budget along with the projections at the federal level, with the projections by independent forecasters and banks and so forth, you would find that we were right in the middle of the pack of those independent forecasters. We did not exaggerate any numbers. What we put in our budget was exactly what we anticipated would happen, as did everyone else.

The fact that the recession has lingered on longer and has been even more severe than we anticipated is why the numbers are not as good as we would like to see. There's nothing secret about it. It's very open and it doesn't apply just to Ontario, it applies elsewhere as well.

Mr Phillips: I'm sorry, it doesn't apply elsewhere. Your own report says that at the Canada level, employment grew by 177,000 people, but in Ontario it was only 9,000. Your own government projections, Mr Minister, said that we would see job growth of 100,000 jobs in the province. We're hearing a lot of rhetoric from the minister and the government about job growth, but your own reports indicate that it has been a failure.

I'm particularly worried, I might say, about young people. Your own report here says young workers in Ontario lost 25,000 full-time jobs and 32,000 part-time jobs over the 12-month period, March 1993 to March 1994. The incidence of unemployment among youth is substantially above average. As a matter of fact, the unemployment rate among 15- to 19-year-olds is 30.2%.

There is no question that the job program has been a failure in terms of job creation in the province of Ontario. So while we hear a lot of rhetoric here about Jobs Ontario Training, Jobs Ontario Youth, your own factual report indicates the unemployment rate among the 15- to 19-year-olds is 30%.

I'll go back to the same question and that is, why has your job program, the program that would have seen jobs created in this province for young people, been such a failure, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Laughren: Because the economy performed slower than anyone predicted, I wouldn't say that means automatically that our job programs are a failure. Secondly, it is not only the public sector that creates jobs in this province, I would remind the official opposition. It's the private sector, and in particular the small business sector, that creates most of the jobs. So pointing your finger at us and saying we're solely responsible for the slowness of the economy simply makes no sense whatsoever. If you talk about creating a climate, who created the climate for the recession that started in 1990, my friend? Well, let me tell you something: It was not this government.

I would tell you, when we talk about the Jobs Ontario Training, which both opposition parties do, the Jobs Ontario Training program has created 45,000 jobs. That's saving --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who believes you?

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, we've got the statistics to back it up.

That has saved over $150 million in social assistance costs alone.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: The opposition can rant and rave all they like, but perhaps if you read the headlines in today's paper you would see that the mood out there is much more buoyant now than it was before. We do feel that the worst of the recession is behind us and everybody is getting on board except the opposition in this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is also to the Minister of Finance, and I might say first of all that I read the paper yesterday and it said that there were fewer people employed today in Ontario than there were four years ago.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is about the forecasting ability of the Minister of Finance in another area, specifically the deficit. Mr Minister, a year ago you forecast the deficit for this year to be $6.8 billion. Now, from what I understand, you're estimating about $9 billion in terms of a deficit, and that would bring the total debt in the province of Ontario to nearly $90 billion and take, I might say, over 16 cents of every revenue dollar just to pay for the interest on that debt.

When you came into power, we had in Ontario an AAA rating. We've had three downgrades, the rating now is an AA- and there's a great deal of concern that there will be another credit downgrade. If there is, that will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. The problem is that the financial community does not believe your forecasts on the deficit. They do not think that you have the will to lower the deficit to balance the budget.

My question to you: Minister, have you given up on the deficit and how high do you think the deficit will go before the province of Ontario is subjected to another credit downgrading, a costly one to the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I think that's an interesting question. The fact is that if the critic for the third party would once again go back a year and see whose numbers were spot on in the last year in terms of their deficit, he would find out that everyone was off on their deficit projections, not just Ontario. The federal government was way, way, way off on the deficit that the Tories left the Liberals in Ottawa. So don't point your finger only at ourselves here in the province. Others as well had a problem with projections.

I do think about the credit rating and the importance of maintaining the credit rating at least as high as it is now. I have made the commitment that the deficit, the year that just ended, will come in in the neighbourhood of $9.5 billion and that we'll be lowering it the next year.

I believe that as the credit rating agencies see our serious efforts at expenditure management, our serious efforts at getting the deficit down, they will understand that with the worst of the recession now behind us, we are on a track that will get the deficit down and at some point in the future return to a balanced budget.

Mr David Johnson: I will not accuse the minister of being spot on, I can tell you that. This year apparently the difference between his forecast and the actual for the deficit will be about $2 billion, last year about $1.5 billion, the year before that about $3 billion, Mr Minister: $6.5 billion over three years. That's not spot on.

But today Mike Harris, the next Premier, has brought forward a program to balance the budget, a four-year program to eliminate the deficit. It can be done. What it takes is that it requires expenditure cuts across the board except in areas such as health. It requires the foresight to look at reducing taxes, to eliminating Bill 40, to abolishing increases on Ontario Hydro, to reducing workers' compensation premiums. These are measures that, if they're taken, will promote jobs, will promote economic growth and will bring in revenues that help to balance the budget. That's the way you balance the budget.

1500

My question to you, Mr Minister, is, what commitment will you give today to the people of Ontario that you will tackle that deficit, reduce that deficit and preserve the credit rating of the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wonder where the member for Don Mills was when the federal Tories needed him and Bill Davis needed him, because I don't recall the former Premier Bill Davis balancing a budget when he was the Premier.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Not once.

Hon Mr Laughren: Not once. Not only that, but when the federal Tories left office, they said there was going to be a deficit of $32 billion federally. It turns out it's $45 billion: not going down, going up. So I would say to the member for Don Mills --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, it's very difficult not to be provocative in this assembly, because everything I say the third party takes offence at.

I would say to the member for Don Mills, if I can speak to him over the shouting and ranting and raving of the member for Willowdale, that we have made a commitment that we are going to get the deficit going down, and I believe that's an important signal to send as the recovery clicks in and we start creating the jobs in this province that everybody wants to see being created.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is to the Minister of Health. Many Ontarians are extremely concerned about your recent changes to out-of-country health coverage and how it affects them when they leave the country. Since your announcement, my office has been inundated with queries about the changes in coverage. Almost all the queries claim they heard in the media that they are only entitled to $100 worth of out-of-country health services.

Minister, I would like to know, just what are you doing to out-of-country health coverage?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I know there is a great deal of concern about the announcement and the way in fact it has been portrayed and I welcome the opportunity to say to the members of the House that there are two aspects of medical costs: There are the hospital costs and there are physician services.

We used to pay $400 a day for the hospital bed out of country. That did not go nearly all the way to meet the costs of some US hospitals, which run as high as $2,800 a day, so everybody was required to have, and it was important that they have, private insurance. We have now reduced that amount to $100 a day.

But in addition to hospital care there are physician services or lab tests. Those will continue to be paid for by Ontario at Ontario rates, as they always have been.

Let me end by saying once again it was never wise to leave this country without having health insurance and I hope that everyone who intends to leave home will not leave home without their insurance.

Mr Abel: Thank you, Minister. I'm sure that will clear up many of the misunderstandings that have been generated by the media.

I'm fully aware of the enormously high costs of care in the United States. Two years ago my son was in a serious skiing accident in New York state. He broke his neck, leaving him paralysed from the chest down. He had to remain in a Rochester hospital for a period of 10 days before he was able to be airlifted back to Canada. That 10 days' stay totalled almost $50,000.

Having gone through that experience, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of having insurance when travelling outside of Canada. Minister, when someone requires medical attention while out of the country, how can travellers be sure they have proper medical coverage?

Hon Mrs Grier: As the member has said, his own personal experience has certainly brought home to him the need for everyone to have insurance before they travel abroad. It's available in a variety of ways, through one's credit card, through one's company's insurance. Everybody is wise to inquire how best they can get a plan that suits their needs or suits the kinds of occasions and frequency with which they travel.

Supplementary health insurance has always been part of the cost of travel; it continues to be so. I think the people of Ontario see supplementary health insurance as a fair price to pay for the privilege of leisure travel and for the privilege of maintaining our health care system here for our children and for our children's children.

I want to quote from the federal Minister of Health, seeing that her name has been raised in this House in conjunction with this issue. Writing just today to the Globe and Mail, Diane Marleau said:

"The Canada Health Act rightly requires that provincial/territorial health-insurance plans pay the physician fee component of a medically necessary service no matter where it is provided, in a hospital or clinic."

We do that. Ontario is respecting the Canada Health Act.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. I want to ask the minister a question on behalf of Ontario's college and university students and the applicants to those institutions.

I'm not going to ask him about his party's promises to freeze and even eliminate tuition fees. I don't want to ask him about his party's legacy to Ontario students, which is going to be to have increased tuition fees by 42%; in fact 46% when you compound the increases. I don't want to ask him if he has been working closely with the Conservatives on this, because I see from their campaign platform released this morning that they too intend to increase tuition fees dramatically. I won't ask the minister these questions, because I don't want to embarrass him.

But I will ask the minister about his promise to use this year's increase in tuition fees to create new spaces in our colleges and universities. Minister, keeping in mind that there are many, many more qualified applicants for our colleges and universities than there are spaces available, and keeping in mind that applications are now in for our colleges and universities and students are waiting to receive word, how many more spaces will be created this year with the additional $100 million your fee hike will generate?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The member asked, basically, a series of questions about tuition, and I can understand why he asks a series of questions, because when I look at the document that he created, called Critical Issues in Post-Secondary Education, a discussion paper by Dalton McGuinty, MPP, all it is is a series of questions.

There are no answers from the Liberal caucus at all. There's nothing at all. It's 14 pages of questions, because the Liberal caucus never takes a position on anything when it comes to education. They just want to harp and criticize and say: "Throw more money into the system. Lower taxes, lower the deficit and spend more money." I don't know how that happens in our system.

What I can tell the member is that we intend to continue to increase enrolment. We've looked at the historical increases in the college and university system. The money that we've decided to reinvest in the education system because of the tuition increases and our commitment to maintain transfer payments means that our students will continue to have accessibility, as opposed to whatever policy your party takes or doesn't take or chooses to refuse to say.

Mr McGuinty: If the minister is offering to exchange places with me so that he can ask questions and I can supply answers, I'll gladly do so on condition that I can take all my colleagues with me over to that side of the House.

At the time that the minister hit Ontario students over the head with a 20% fee hike, he tried to soften the blow by promising them that they wouldn't have to pay any new ancillary fees unless they first agreed to them. Ancillary fees, as the minister knows, are those fees charged by colleges and universities above and beyond tuition fees for things like student activity fees and athletic fees.

Talks have since been held and they've broken down. Universities are maintaining that all they've got to do is consult students before charging them more for ancillary fees. Students are saying that the minister's promise means they are to be given a right of veto when it comes to new ancillary fees. I believe the students are correct. Minister, do you?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think we indicated on the day that we announced the tuition increase, and the university and college system is aware of this, that any additional, new increases in ancillary fees that had not already been announced will be subject to a process with the students.

The college and university system has been discussing this with our ministry so that we can take that policy and practically implement it. That is something the students have been asking for for years, and we intend to implement it. The university system has agreed.

I might, just for the member's information, indicate to him that just since we've been in power, so that he understands, enrolment at the college system is up and is approaching a 30% increase in enrolment. The university system has double-digit increases as well. So we've done pretty well in our short term in office.

1510

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I want to address a point of privilege under section 21(a) of our standing orders, which indicates --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Halton Centre has the floor.

Mrs Sullivan: The rule with respect to privileges of members of the House reads, "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

The practice, usage and custom with respect to members' activities are that members will serve as advocates and as agents for their constituents frequently, depending on the rules as set down, by example, under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and by rulings made by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner with the written authorization of the constituent.

Recently I have received in my office, and I understand that all members have received in their offices, explicit instructions from the family support plan of the Ministry of the Attorney General which indicate that members are not allowed to call directly to the office of the family support plan on behalf of their constituents when the constituents come to them. In fact, there are new instructions related to how constituents can be served by their members of the assembly with respect to the operation of that plan.

We are told that the client must call a 1-800 number, which is not a real person on the other end of the line. At the other end of the line there is a voice-activated response. Secondly, the client must write. Thirdly, the client must wait for 30 days after it is assumed the family support plan receives that letter and then must wait for a response from the family support plan in that instance. Only after that period of time -- by now, of course, we could be well into a two-month period -- is the member instructed that the member is allowed to participate, to act as an advocate on his or her constituent's behalf.

I want to let you know, Mr Speaker, that when people from my constituency call me and people from other constituencies call their members with respect to issues that are associated with the family support plan, they do so because they are seeking assistance, because they cannot get responses, because they cannot get information about cheques that are garnisheed from their spouses' wages in order to provide support for their children -- in other words, to buy food and put it on the table, to ensure that there is shelter over their heads -- because those cheques are not coming through. People who are calling their members are calling in desperation.

I suggest to you that, as is indicated under the rules, the practice, the usage and the custom with respect to the responsibilities of the members of the House are to serve their constituents and to be their advocates. This particular instruction from the family support plan violates those privileges and indeed those responsibilities, and I'd ask you to look into that.

The Speaker: To the member for Halton Centre, I am not sure if she has a point of privilege or not, but I would be very pleased to consider the matter. I am not familiar with the document to which she refers. Perhaps she would be kind enough to forward that to me. I will endeavour to take a look at it and report back to the member as soon as possible.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege in reference to question period: I did not want to raise this to interrupt question period or take the time to do that, but the government House leader responded to a question by my deputy leader with regard to the issue of the justice committee.

While I have not seen Instant Hansard, I have had it confirmed by a number of my colleagues that the government House leader made reference to the fact that the acting House leader -- and I think he was referring to me, since I have been in a number of those meetings when my House leader was unable to be there -- for the opposition attempted, I believe he said, to expand or broaden the discussions.

Mr Speaker, as you well know, when House leaders meet on a regular basis to discuss these issues, there are often suggestions made by all three members acting in good faith within the context of representing their caucus. I would just like the government House leader to know, and I think it is a point of privilege, that I take great exception to, first of all, the fact that he would totally misrepresent something that I might have proposed at a House leaders' meeting. In fact, I think what he is referring to is a meeting that occurred in the west lobby -- he's now shaking his head.

Interjection: I can hear him.

Mr Mahoney: He can hear him. In any event, he's saying that's not what he's referring to. The reality is that in doing the job as the acting House leader, trying to negotiate an opportunity to get this issue to the justice committee, I did exactly the opposite of what the government House leader suggested, and suggested that we narrow the focus of the debate down to the issues of guns and bullets and that we bring forward Bill 151, our private member's bill.

I believe what the government House leader has done here today in an attempt to deflect the criticism of having taken from April 7 until today -- and I have a chronology for you, sir, to look at as to the number of times that interventions and questions and House leader meetings have taken place and the facts of what has gone on at those House leader meetings, which I, unlike the government House leader, am not going to read into Hansard.

I take great exception to the fact that he would try to imply that I, as the acting House leader, in some way have created a problem in these negotiations. I think that at the very least the government House leader owes me and my House leader and my caucus an apology for such an inference, because it is totally contrary. We are the only party that brought forward a list. We put it in writing; we submitted it.

The government House leader admitted that this was not even discussed at caucus as long ago as April 14. It has been almost four weeks that the government has had an opportunity to respond to a non-partisan suggestion by my leader, and they have failed to do so. They're trying to throw it back on our plate and back at me in attempting to do the job, and I take great exception to those remarks.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On the point, Mr Speaker, it's an interesting perspective from which the member opposite has raised his point of privilege, because he's correct -- and I have no intention of continuing the House leaders' discussions here in the House this afternoon. If the opposition party hadn't attempted on three and today the fourth occasion to carry House leaders' discussions to question period, then perhaps the response today would have been a little bit different.

The member is exactly right: House leaders' discussions are not an appropriate topic for here in the House, so the House leaders can get on with dealing with a very important matter without the opposition party exploiting those issues day after day here in this House while we attempt to reach a three-party consensus.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No, this is fairly straightforward.

Mr Mahoney: I think there is another point of privilege.

The Speaker: If there is some other point of privilege, I will hear it.

The member will know that he does not have a point of privilege. There is obviously a disagreement, and when one member takes offence at remarks made by another member on the other side of the House, there is no particular role for the Speaker in that regard. But clearly there is a difference of view here, and I can be of no assistance to the member, I regret.

1520

You have an additional and new point of privilege?

Mr Mahoney: It seems, Mr Speaker, every time the government House leader opens his mouth these days he's causing me, at least, to feel as if there's another attempt to misrepresent what has gone on. Our party did not attempt to exploit the issue, as he has suggested. We did not raise House leaders' business --

The Speaker: No. This is not a new point of privilege at all.

PETITIONS

ST JOSEPH'S GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a very important petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the city of Elliot Lake is a service centre for a number of North Shore communities and the Ministry of Health has decided to cut hospital funding in that city;

"Whereas the city of Elliot Lake has been forced to diversify its economy following the cancelling of uranium contracts by Ontario Hydro;

"Whereas those diversification efforts include the successful marketing of a residential retirement program and the subsequent influx of several thousand retirees, all of whom will require inpatient and outpatient hospital care at one time or another; and

"Whereas St Joseph's General Hospital, which has already made every conceivable effort to restructure in the face of the social contract cuts, is now forced to close 31 inpatient beds,

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

"To seriously re-examine the ministry's funding-cut formula for flaws and reconsider Elliot Lake's position, bearing in mind the changing demographics in the community and the reliance of the North Shore communities on the health care services offered by the Elliot Lake hospital."

This is signed by hundreds of my constituents from Massey, Webbwood, Sagamok First Nation, all along the North Shore, and I agree with this petition and have signed it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition from the villages of Flesherton, Priceville and Markdale. It's 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 since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all reference should be removed from the code."

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that will follow up on the statement I made earlier today in the House.

"Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury, Ontario, provides 24-hour emergency services to an area that covers the four neighbouring corners of Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Lambton counties. Approximately 16,000 people live in small towns, villages and rural sections of this area.

"Due to the shortage of doctors in the area, the hospital has had difficulty in providing medical coverage for its emergency room on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis. If the hospital cannot get enough doctors to cover, it will have to close its emergency departments for part of the 24-hour period. The nearest emergency departments are 40 to 60 minutes' driving distance away.

"We, the residents of the hospital's service area, need 24-hour emergency coverage and want the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the critical issue of medical coverage of rural emergency departments immediately.

"We have attached our name and signatures to the petition."

I have attached mine as well.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I have a petition signed by the residents of Kitchener:

"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 in 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 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."

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition which was just read a little earlier by the member for Elgin, but I'll read it on behalf of the member representing the constituencies of Kent. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Four Counties General Hospital of Newbury, Ontario, provides 24-hour emergency services to an area that covers the four neighbouring corners of Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Lambton counties. Approximately 15,000 people live in the small towns, villages and rural sections of this area; and

"Whereas the hospital has had difficulty in providing medical coverage for its emergency room on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis; and

"Whereas if the hospital cannot get enough doctors to cover, it will have to close its emergency department for part of the 24-hour period. The nearest emergency departments are 40 to 60 minutes' driving distance away.

"We, the residents of the hospital's service area, need 24-hour emergency coverage and call on the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the critical issue of medical coverage of rural emergency departments immediately."

They have attached their signatures, and I, as the representative of their riding, present their petitions forward.

ADOPTION

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have a nine-page petition 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:

"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario, ARCO, brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;

"Whereas ARCO believes that existing adoption secrecy legislation, although originally based on unresearched good intentions, is outdated and unjust;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, these rights are denied to persons affected by secrecy provisions in adoption laws of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts in Ontario;

"Whereas 10% of persons in Ontario are directly affected and 20% are indirectly affected by restrictive rights to personal identifying information on themselves and on birth and adoptive relatives in the Ontario Child and Family Services Act and other acts;

"Whereas the birth certificate issued to an adopted person is a legally sanctioned erroneous document;

"Whereas the current system for disclosure of adoption information is discriminatory, psychologically cruel and expensive with unacceptably long waiting periods for indeterminate results;

"Whereas research shows that not knowing basic personal information has proven harmful to adopted persons, birth parents and other birth and adoptive relatives,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to move as quickly as possible to:

"Permit unrestricted access to full personal identifying information to adopted persons, adult children of adopted persons, birth parents, birth siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted person reaches age 18;

"Permit access to identifying information to adoptive parents of minor children and emancipated minor adoptees;

"Allow adopted persons and birth parents to file a notice stating their wish for non-contact;

"Eliminate mandatory reunion counselling;

"Encourage and support client self-determination;

"Permit access to agency and court files when original statistical information is insufficient for identification and contact with birth relatives;

"Recognize open adoptions in the law."

I've signed the petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

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

"Whereas the previous 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 these programs; and

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

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

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high as a legacy of that Liberal government,

"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 school boards."

I totally support this petition. It's included in our Common Sense Revolution, and I have endorsed it as well.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition today from some 170 constituents in my riding, both year-round and seasonal, and it states:

"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."

1530

SALE OF AMMUNITION

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

"Whereas it is imperative that we make our streets safe for law-abiding citizens;

"Whereas any person in Ontario can freely purchase ammunition even though that person may not hold a valid permit to own a firearm;

"Whereas crimes of violence where firearms are used have risen at an alarming rate; and

"Whereas we must do everything within our power to prevent illegal firearms from being used for criminal purposes;

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

"To immediately pass Liberal Bob Chiarelli's private member's bill, Bill 151, to prohibit the sale of ammunition to any person who does not hold a valid firearms acquisition certificate or Ontario Outdoors Card."

This is signed by a large number of people who appear to be in Metropolitan Toronto.

FIREARMS SAFETY

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

"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 Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or have 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 and 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 support this petition and I've endorsed it as well.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible to third reading of the bill."

Fred Moffat signed the top and said to please sign below him, so I'm going to do exactly what Fred suggests and sign below it.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a great number of petitions from Manitoulin Island, Sault Ste Marie, the riding of Algoma:

"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 have 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 have signed this petition.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition that is 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 -- 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."

There are about 40 people signing this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have a petition signed by a number of people from the Ottawa area:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 45 will delete the words 'of the opposite sex' from the definition of 'marital status,' this would redefine the family and allow for homosexual marriages; homosexual couples would be given the same status as married couples;

"Whereas Bill 55 attacks our freedom of speech and religion; ministers will no longer be able to call homosexuality a sin; parts of scripture, for example Romans I and II, will no longer be allowed to be read off the pulpit; a fine of up to $50,000 will be imposed upon anyone convicted;

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

"We earnestly request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing Bills 45 and 55. We earnestly request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to initiate a broad public consultation on the issues in question."

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Marchese from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act / Projet de loi 113, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les alcools.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 113 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

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

Bill 157, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 157, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles Morin): Mr Winninger, if you want to make a brief statement.

Mr David Winninger (London South): This bill would amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to ensure that all workers will continue to be paid if an employer shuts down all or part of the workplace because of a worker's refusal to work in unsafe conditions or pending correction of those conditions.

TOWNSHIP OF TAY ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr105, An Act respecting the Township of Tay.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles Morin): Before we move to orders of the day, I would like to read the following:

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Renfrew North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the government House leader concerning crime, and this matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

1540

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES IMMEUBLES D'HABITATION

Consideration of 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.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Mr Chair, I would like to bring members of the Ministry of Housing staff to the floor.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Certainly.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Since this is a very important piece of legislation, I think the government should honour its responsibility to provide a quorum.

The Chair: Please verify if we have a quorum.

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

The Chair ordered the bells rung.

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

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Could you advise us how we are going to proceed this afternoon in terms of time?

The Chair: Yes, I do plan to do that.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Could I begin by indicating that there is a government amendment. It is the last of the government amendments.

The Chair: Before we start, let me read the following:

"That one further sessional day be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 4 pm on that day. Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5:45 pm on that day. At 5:45 pm, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession."

Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and, if so, to which sections of the bill? Minister?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, if I could just at the beginning indicate, an amendment which we have tabled is one which we will have to amend very slightly. It affects the short title of the bill. It is our final proposed amendment. It currently reads that this section provides the short title to this act, the "Residents' Rights Act, 1993," and that will need to be changed to "1994."

The Chair: Do you want to list the sections where you have amendments?

Hon Ms Gigantes: That was section 49.

The Chair: The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, you have laid out how we're going to proceed. However, I don't think it's clear whether we're going to allocate the remaining time proportionately to all three caucuses. You described how we would vote and that they would be deemed to be moved, those amendments that hadn't been moved. In fairness, because we are under time allocation, I would ask that the remaining time of the afternoon be distributed equally between all three parties.

The Chair: If there is consent that the time should be divided equally, then we'll proceed that way.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, I don't know how you can move through amendments on an equal allocation of time. The committee of the whole is intended to deal with amendments by each party. There's no way, given the fact that each party has amendments and will wish to speak to them, that we can guarantee that there will be an equal distribution of time. We're certainly prepared, on the government side, to move with as much dispatch as possible in order to deal with the amendments before us.

The Chair: Therefore, there is not unanimous consent, and we'll proceed as normal.

Mrs Marland: I just want to be very clear, then, that because it's committee of the whole, it is possible, without the concurrence or agreement from the government, that one member or one party may speak from now until 6 o'clock on one amendment. Is that what we're dealing with?

The Chair: Hopefully, this will not happen, and it's questions and answers, and that's the way we'll proceed.

1550

Are there any comments or amendments, and if so, to which section of the bill?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Subsection 1(1), subsection 1(2), subsection 1(3), section 2.1, and again to section 2.1, section 2 --

The Chair: Excuse me, Minister. You've listed three amendments that we don't have here at the table. I'm referring first to subsection 1(1), subsection 1(2) and section 2.1. We don't have them here.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Should I begin again, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Yes, please.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Subsection 1(3), section 2.0.2.1, subsection 5(1), subsection 5(3) --

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I am not familiar with us going through committee of the whole with a bill where the minister stands up and lists off all her amendments. I would have thought she would move her amendments in order numerically, at which time we would rise and speak individually to those amendments, as we will rise and speak to our own amendments.

The Chair: The member for Mississauga South, there's nothing abnormal. We've always proceeded that way. Once the minister has listed her amendments, I will do likewise with the member for Lawrence and also with you. That is the normal procedure.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): That's the way it's always done in here.

The Chair: Just a minute, Minister, please. To explain to the member for Mississauga South, it's normal to ask that, because the table has to know what will be debated. How else can we find out?

Mrs Marland: You have them there.

The Chair: We have to ensure that we have all the amendments. That's the only way to operate. Minister.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I did subsection 5(3), right? Section 6, section 9, section 14, subsection 18(1), section 20, subsection 26(3), subsection 26(4), subsection 27(1.1), subsection 27(2), subsection 33(1.1), subsection 38(4), subsection 40(1), section 44, section 47, section 48, and section 49, to which I have noted a change from "1993" to "1994" in the title.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Subsection 1(1), subsection 1(3), subsection 1(3), subsection 1(4), section 2.2, section 2.0.3, section 2.4, section 2.5, section 2.6, section 2.6.1, section 2.7, subsection 4(1), subsection 5(1), subsection 5(1), subsection 5(1), subsection 10(3), subsection 12(5), subsection 26(1), section 28, section 28.

Mrs Marland: Pertaining to Bill 120, I am moving amendments to subsection 1(1), 1(1)(i.1), subsection 1(1), subsection 1(3), subsection 1(3), subsection 1(3), subsection 1(3); one that I just tabled this afternoon which is to section 2.1, sections 2.2 and 2.3, of which I gave a copy to the Clerk and to the Liberal critic and sent a copy to the minister; subsection 2(1), subsection 2(2), subsection 2(3), subsection 2(4), subsection 2(5), section 3, section 3, section 26, section 36, section 37, section 37, section 37.1, section 37, section 37, section 38, section 39, section 40, section 40, section 42, section 46, section 47, section 47, subsection 207.2(3), as set out in section 47, section 47, subsections 48(2) and (3).

The Chair: We'll now deal with section 1. I believe the member for Lawrence has an amendment on subsection 1(1), if you will read your amendment.

Mr Cordiano: I move that clause (b) of the definition of "care services," as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be amended by inserting after "rehabilitative," "respite, convalescent care".

The Chair: Do you have any comments?

Mr Cordiano: In the very limited time we have, it is obviously difficult, but it was necessary to go back to this section in the bill to ensure there was no mistaking the instances where there was respite and convalescent care being undertaken at these homes; that in fact the kind of care being administered would be precisely taken in with this addition, that is, that included in the definition would be respite and convalescent care homes. That definition would in particular capture the essence of what we were attempting to capture with the rehabilitative, and I think "respite" and "convalescent" care would add to that definition so as not to have any uncertainties about the need for that to be included in those care homes, since a number of them did provide convalescent care or the kind of respite care which we felt would not be captured with the simple use of the word "rehabilitative."

Of course there's an amendment to follow, so those are my brief comments on that section.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any comments?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The government will not be supporting this amendment. We feel that the addition of this amendment would confuse the intent of the act.

Mrs Marland: We support this Liberal amendment because we believe it expands the definition. But I want to say I am appalled that we are concluding debate on Bill 120 under time allocation with only one afternoon for the committee of the whole House to consider this omnibus bill. When I contemplate the Bob Rae government's decision to restrict debate on Bill 120 and its refusal to accept constructive criticism, I think that tells us more than anything else about the New Democrats.

They are not, apparently, supporting this amendment. These amendments have come out of a lengthy process, and I feel very strongly about the process we've just gone through.

1600

The Chair: I would ask you, please, to speak on the amendment.

Mrs Marland: I am speaking to the amendment, Mr Chair.

The Chair: The amendment that was proposed by the member for Lawrence: Please speak on that issue.

Mrs Marland: I am speaking to that issue, because I am speaking to why the amendment is here. The amendment is here because we had four weeks of public hearings. Both the critic for the Liberal caucus and myself as the critic for our caucus are bringing a number of amendments, including this one, to the committee of the whole House because we are responding to the needs that were identified by the people who came to us in the public hearings of the committee.

This amendment is an important amendment, as are many of the amendments we will not even reach this afternoon because we are under time allocation. The reason I am appalled is that we have a government that makes very self-righteous statements about the importance of consulting people. We went through a committee process -- a very expensive committee process, I might say -- with four weeks of public hearings, and now I wonder why the NDP even bothered to hold public hearings at all on this bill, because now it is refusing to consider the opposition amendments that responded to the concerns raised during those hearings.

The government's actions also tell us we cannot believe its statements about caring for tenants and people with special needs. This Liberal motion before us now is dealing with people with special needs, and when it comes to vulnerable people who need a special tenancy arrangement, the Bob Rae government won't accommodate their special needs.

My party has tabled 40 amendments responding to the concerns of the groups and individuals who made presentations to the committee. They are important amendments, as is this one that is on the floor now. Our amendments addressed many critical issues. We are still concerned about the fact that many of those issues are not being accepted by the government, as it is not accepting this amendment. They are not being accepted as being important to this bill.

In speaking to this amendment, I simply say that in supporting it, we wish we had the cooperation of this government, which also had members sitting on that committee, which also heard the same cries for help and the same appeals for consideration that we heard. Consultation for this government is an absolute sham, and where it becomes irresponsible is when we go through an exercise of public hearings, at the expense that involves, and now we are in committee of the whole --

The Chair: I would ask you, please, to speak to the motion.

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: The motion, Mr Chair, is part of the whole scenario of trying to deal with this bill, and my comments, without the interjections from the minister -- the minister had lots of time to speak during the committee, and of course now she's going to chip, chip, chip and chirp, chirp, chirp away during our committee of the whole even though they are forcing us to be under a time allocation. This minister has proven herself in committee to be one of the most difficult ministers that any of us in opposition has ever had to tolerate.

Hon Ms Gigantes: If the member who just spoke took a good look at the amendment, and I believe this will be true of the Liberal critic too, what they would both realize is that with this amendment there's a possibility of reading the act so that it would apply the Landlord and Tenant Act to short-term transitional care. I doubt that is their purpose.

The Chair: Are we now ready for the question? Mr Cordiano moves that clause (b) of the definition of "care services," as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be amended by inserting after "rehabilitative," "respite, convalescent care."

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry? The motion is lost.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, what are we doing with the individual voting at the end of the day on all the amendments? You did say that the amendments that hadn't been voted on by the end of the time allocation would be deemed to have been moved. Does the full House only have the opportunity to vote on all these amendments at third reading?

The Chair: It's only the committee of the whole that votes on the amendment.

Mrs Marland: But at 5:45. You just said the amendment was lost.

The Chair: I asked the question, shall the motion carry? I heard the nays. I didn't hear anything else. Therefore, the motion was lost.

Mr Cordiano: Mr Chair, have we not agreed to have all the amendments stacked for voting?

The Chair: I've explained to you how it normally operates.

Mr Cordiano: Okay, then let's carry on that way.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. If you don't agree with the motion and you oppose it and you want a vote on it, five people must stand.

We will now proceed to the next amendment on subsection 1(1) by the member for Mississauga South. Please read your motion.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, on procedure, how would you treat it if five stood in opposition to each individual vote? Then will you stack the votes till 5:45?

The Chair: That's correct.

Mrs Marland: Then I guess that's what we'll have to do.

I move that clause (b) of the definition of "care services," as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be amended by inserting after "services," "for any type of care that involves treatment and support or assistance to overcome addictive or substance dependency or physical or mental challenge."

The definition of "therapeutic or rehabilitative services" is not set out anywhere in this bill. This definition sets out the guidelines to understand the services. Obviously, when this bill was drafted, as we've said before, the fact, first of all, that it has been drafted as an omnibus bill dealing with two very well defined, separate, unrelated areas, we had a great deal of concern about Bill 120 because it did bring these areas together. As far as we were concerned, it was terribly important that those areas be treated individually and independently. The fact that there is a reference to care services but no definition of what those are is pretty significant of a bill which is poorly drafted. As I have said many times before, we probably are going to end up with a lot of money being made by a lot of lawyers in this province when they come to interpret this bill at the expense of people who need it interpreted.

1610

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Minister, do you wish to respond?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The government will not be supporting this amendment. It is the government's concern that to approve this amendment would mean that we would be limiting what is meant in clause 1(1)(b) by "rehabilitative or therapeutic services" to those expressions noted in the amendment; in other words, that involve "treatment and support or assistance to overcome addictive or substance dependency or physical or mental challenge."

That would be a limitation on what might be considered rehabilitative or therapeutic services. There are other kinds of rehabilitative and therapeutic services which this bill should apply to. We will be defining, through regulation and through a process of consultation before regulation, exactly those elements of care that we would consider to be covered by the bill. We don't wish to limit it, in particular the rehabilitative or therapeutic services application, to only those services that are outlined in the amendment.

The First Deputy Chair: Further debate?

Mr Cordiano: Just to touch on what the minister said earlier with respect to expanding this definition, I think it's quite appropriate to include this when the minister undoes what has already been approved by the legislative committee with regard to rehabilitative services and those centres providing rehabilitative services.

We've passed in committee the 18-month clause, which would effectively act as an exemption to those centres. Obviously, we'll get to that section in a moment, but I think it's important to include these additional definitions. When you do away with the 18-month clause and reinstitute your six-month clause, which is I think as you intend to do in your amendments in committee of the whole, it becomes vital to have that expansion of definitions. Therefore, I cannot accept the minister's explanation for that. I think anything to expand that definition would help, and that's the direction we need to go in.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further comments?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Just as a very brief comment, there are services, such as psychosocial guidance and life skills training, that can be understood to be rehabilitative services. I think that to narrow the definition by way of this amendment is going to exclude those kinds of facilities, and I know that's not the intent of the Liberal critic, and it probably isn't the intent of the member who has moved the motion, but that would be the effect.

So what we're doing when we're considering this amendment is looking at an amendment that doesn't expand the number of facilities that would be covered under the care services definition, but it may well restrict, and that is the reason the government is not supporting the amendment.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further debate on this motion by Mrs Marland? Seeing none, are you ready for the question? Shall Mrs Marland's amendment to section 1(1) carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Are there further amendments? The next amendment is Mrs Marland's. Would you care to move the next amendment?

Mrs Marland: I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"1(1) Section 1 of the act is amended by adding the following definition:

"'fast track,' in respect of a care facility" --

The First Deputy Chair: Excuse me, Mrs Marland. The one I have before me is a PC motion to subsection 1(1): "I move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out." Could we deal with that one first?

Mrs Marland: I think I'd rather try amending it before I strike it out.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): No, no. It works the other way.

The First Deputy Chair: Yours is a different section. We'd like to complete this first section before we go on to that one.

Mrs Marland: Okay, Madam Chair. You'd like me to move 1(1)?

The First Deputy Chair: Yes.

Mrs Marland: I move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any comments or questions to that amendment?

Mrs Marland: We believe that the Landlord and Tenant Act should not apply to care homes and services. Obviously, we're going to vote against this section of this bill if our amendments aren't accepted, but we feel very strongly that care homes and the services they provide will not benefit their clients by being under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Obviously, further into the bill we have very grave concerns where we talk about those kinds of care homes and services that were discussed yesterday in this House, as a matter of fact, by a question of one of the NDP government members to the minister, namely, on the Vanier Centre for Women. It's rather interesting to note that in the minister's reply yesterday, she told --

Hon Ms Gigantes: It's the Massey Centre. You've got your governor generals wrong.

Mrs Marland: Thank you; the Massey Centre. The minister has made that correction for me before and I appreciate it, Madam Minister.

The member for -- is it East York?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Don Mills.

Mrs Marland: No, Mr Malkowski.

Mr David Johnson: York East.

Mrs Marland: The member for York East yesterday had a tremendous concern about the Massey Centre. This minister said in her reply that she had met with them and that the ministry was willing to work with them and so forth and so on, but the minister still will not agree to exempt the Massey Centre from the Landlord and Tenant Act. That's why we are moving this motion.

1620

I spoke this morning to the executive director of the centre, Nancy Peters, and unfortunately she still has to maintain that they cannot continue to run their program if their facility comes under the Landlord and Tenant Act. In fact, not only will they not be able to run their program, but they may be faced with tremendous court costs by their clients taking them to court because, if it's under the Landlord and Tenant Act, then they cannot access the units of those mothers.

I think everyone in the House is familiar with the program at the Massey Centre. We're talking about young mothers, for the most part a lot of teenage mothers, with their first experience with infants. The staff want to do preventive monitoring of vulnerable infants with these inexperienced young mothers. In order to do that, they have to be able to enter units occasionally. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, of course, the mother may refuse that entry.

How absurd will it be where the staff, because this section of the bill will be approved by the government today -- what will they do, make appointments to visit and check up on these little babies? Get permission from the mother to come into the unit to check up on the baby? I think what this minister is doing is totally destroying a program that has been demonstrated to be very successful and very much needed.

The double irony, of course, particularly when you speak about the Massey Centre, is that the program is funded by the government. If the government doesn't think it's a wonderful program for these young mothers, then it should never have been funded by the government, but the truth of the matter is that it is an excellent program. In fact, in fairness, I think it was introduced by the Liberal government and there have been further announcements since the NDP government has been in office, because I have copies of press releases where it is sounding the fanfare for the program at Massey Centre. Millions of dollars have been spent by the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Community and Social Services to make this program happen.

With the passage of this bill and in particular this section of the bill, that program will no longer be able to continue, and frankly, I think it borders on criminal irresponsibility on the part of the government because this is the political party in this province that claims to care about vulnerable people. To use people the way they do on the one hand and say, "We want to implement all the concerns that are identified in the Lightman report," and, "We're the fighters for the people who need us most in terms of special needs and vulnerable adults and children" -- in this case we're talking about vulnerable infants, and I'm sure the rest of the minister's caucus hasn't had the advantage that Mr Malkowski has had in fully understanding what the program's about. He fully understands it; he is fully concerned; that's why he asked the question yesterday and he received a very unsatisfactory answer from the minister.

This program is vitally important to this city, and in fact this program should be expanded, not curtailed. It's a tragedy and a travesty that under the Landlord and Tenant Act these young mothers will not be protected from unwanted visitors in their accommodation because there will be no way that the staff can go in and help them remove people who are putting them at risk at the time that they're at risk.

There are programs other than the Massey Centre. There's the Emily Murphy second-stage residences. They're concerned about the same things.

I think that this government and every member in that party who votes for this bill that destroys these programs will have it on their shoulders. It won't be on mine and it won't be on any one of the Progressive Conservatives, because we will vote against it, but we will not carry with us the fact that this program is no longer viable or being able to be continued for those people who need it most.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mrs Marland. I just wanted to explain to you that if we were dealing with the whole section, the correct process would be to vote against it, but this is a subsection so we're dealing with it as a separate motion.

Minister, would you wish to respond?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. What we're dealing with here is the introduction of a proposed new definition in the definitions section of the bill, and the definition would give us a definition of a so-called fast-track eviction.

I should say at the beginning that it's not the purpose of this legislation to provide such a tool. Part of the difficulties that people have faced in care homes over the years has been precisely that such fast-track evictions have taken place without the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act, and it has been the cause of evictions in which --

Mrs Marland: You're on the wrong section.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Am I on the wrong section?

The First Deputy Chair: Minister, that is the next amendment, actually.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm leaping ahead. I will hold my fire. Excuse me.

The First Deputy Chair: Is there any further debate on Ms Marland's motion that we are dealing with at this time?

Mr Cordiano: I would just simply say that I can appreciate where my colleague the critic for the Conservative Party is coming from on this and suggest that yes, of course the Massey house will be adversely affected and be caught within the Landlord and Tenant Act as a result of this section.

But I would also add that with the amendments that we have put forward, which of course the government refuses to accept now, after having been approved by a majority of the committee -- that is to say, the 18-month exemption will be thwarted and we will revisit the six-month rule as put forward by the government once again. Of course I'm angered by that, and I think it's difficult to understand why the government simply does not come to the same conclusion that we all have on the opposition benches: that their failure to recognize that rehabilitative centres must not operate under the confines of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

The case being made by my colleague the critic for the Conservative Party, the case she is making on Massey house is but one of many groups that we heard that said, "We cannot function if we are caught by the Landlord and Tenant Act. We have to have the rules that are necessary for us to operate," in the very effective way that they have till this point in time.

There was endless debate in the committee around the linking of services, what the Ministry of Health intended to do with its services, what the Ministry of Community and Social Services intended to do with its services, and that is to separate the services they provide from the housing that is being provided under the guise of the Ministry of Housing.

1630

We don't have the time, and this is the most frustrating aspect of dealing with time allocation, to delve into these matters at great length. I think it would deserve the kind of debate which we failed to achieve in committee. I would say to the minister it's little fault of ours on the opposition benches that we could not fully debate these matters with respect to the recommendations made by Dr Lightman, because they deserve more fulsome debate; they deserve a real public airing.

We heard from deputants, we had hearings, but we were not given an opportunity in committee to deal with these clause-by-clause sections of the bill around Dr Lightman's report. We simply didn't have the time to do that.

Getting back to this amendment, it dovetails with the 18-month exemption that, again, will be refused to be accepted by the government and will be struck down. I think the government will amend the motion that was passed in committee and once again we will see the advent of the six-month rule which will be devastating to all of those centres.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Madam Chair, might I? Now that I've focused on what we're dealing with I've leapt ahead because the amendment before us is one which removes the definition of "care services" under the bill, and the intent, as the mover has mentioned, essentially is to remove the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act to all operations which provide accommodation plus care services. That being the very intent of the bill, it actually is out of order, as far as I'm concerned.

On the question of whether we have allowed adequate time in committee on this bill, we had several weeks of submissions by members of the public and we had a further six days of clause-by-clause work which didn't see us through clause 2.

Mr David Johnson: Just to elaborate a little more on the motion put forward by the member for Mississauga South, she mentioned the Massey Centre, for example, as one facility that came to us and recommended that the bill be amended somewhat in the vein, for example, that the member for Mississauga South is suggesting, but there were a number.

If the minister is concerned why it took so long to go through the committee, why it took so long to deal with two clauses, the reality is that through the deputations we heard from group after group, house or facility or home after home that came to us and said that this bill will cause problems, will cause all sorts of problems in their operation in the future.

The committee was trying to reflect those problems and deal with those problems. We could have simply ignored those problems, I guess, and rammed the bill through in a hurry, but I don't think that we'd be serving our purpose here if we did that.

The Massey Centre, for example, said that the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act will have grave security problems for them. I raised this in the Legislature; the member for Mississauga South has raised this in the Legislature; the member for York East, a member of the same party as the minister, has raised this very problem: that because of the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act, those in authority and supervision at the Massey Centre, where they house unwed young mothers, mothers 17 years old, 18 years old, even younger, will not be able to control violent visitors.

Under the present situation, because the Landlord and Tenant Act --

Hon Ms Gigantes: That's nonsense.

Mr David Johnson: The minister says, "Nonsense." Those who are responsible for providing the service say it's fact. Well, I can tell you who I'm going to believe, and they've come to us time and time again and said this is going to be a problem when violent visitors come, as they will. Many of these young women are escaping from drug dealers and pimps and violent males, and when they come and attend, the only way, once this bill is put through the way the minister wants to see it put through, is for the young women, the 17-year-olds, to contact the police, and these are the young women who are under threat.

The representatives from the Massey Centre and the young mothers themselves came to us in a press conference that was held here about a month ago, and I wish the minister had been there to hear not only the administrators of Massey Centre, but the young mothers themselves.

What kind of position does that put them in, the young mothers? If they contact the police, there will be reprisals. These are young people who are under severe duress.

Mrs Marland: They're 13- and 14-year-olds.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Mississauga South says as young as 13 and 14. It's totally unrealistic to expect that to work. That's one situation.

Another situation, for example, was put forward by Ecuhome, which runs a number of houses in Metropolitan Toronto and vicinity for hard-to-house people. They came to us time and time again and said the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act will provide them problems, different kinds of problems.

St Vincent de Paul: I believe there was a facility called St Michael's that came to us. Their problem was that they have a facility for recovering alcoholics, and they say that with the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act they will not be able to evict people who live there but refuse to be involved in the alcohol recovery program. In other words, if they decide to drink in a shared facility -- in a living room for example that's shared, in a kitchen that's shared -- they could drink in front of the other few residents in the house, perhaps 10 residents in a facility, and what kind of an impact would that have on the recovery program?

The operators are saying it'll have a disastrous effect. The other people will be under such strain that the recovery program will be lost, and this kind of facility, over a period of time, will simply become a residential accommodation under the control of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

There's group after group coming to us telling us that, and the member is putting forward an amendment that would address that situation, but we have yet to convince the government. I hope that over the next hour or so, they'll take another look at it and understand the implications of the bill the way it is on many operators who are providing an excellent service.

The First Deputy Chair: Minister, did you wish to respond? Are there are further comments with regard to Mrs Marland's motion? Are you ready for the question?

Shall Mrs Marland's amendment to subsection 1(1) of the bill carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Are there any further amendments to this subsection?

Mrs Marland: I move that subsection 1(1) of the bill be struck out.

The First Deputy Chair: We have dealt with that section.

Mrs Marland: I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

(1.1) Section 1 of the act is amended by adding the following definition:

"'fast track,' in respect of a care facility, means a process whereby the landlord or care giver causes a resident to vacate his or her unit immediately in order to leave the residence entirely or to be moved to another, more adequate, unit."

The First Deputy Chair: Are there questions or comments to this amendment?

1640

Mr Cordiano: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I have a list of the amendments from the Conservatives, and I don't seem to have that. In the list I have before me, the motion to strike out 1(1) of the bill comes after that section we were referring to.

Hon Ms Gigantes: If she couldn't get it taken out, why would she want to amend it?

The First Deputy Chair: It is in order to deal with this amendment at this time. Mrs Marland, would you like to comment?

Mrs Marland: Yes, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, I have to be brief because of the irony of what we're dealing with. I have a motion here dealing with a necessity for fast-tracking which the minister is going to vote against, and yet she's fast-tracking this bill. It's kind of ironical.

For the government not to understand why we have to include a definition of a fast-track eviction is beyond me. Again, this is the government that pretends to support the recommendations by Dr Lightman, and a fast-track eviction was something proposed by Dr Lightman and has subsequently been ignored by the ministry.

Care homes have also called such an eviction necessary in order to get rid of people who create problems for other people or for whom the home can no longer care, for whatever reason. For the care providers who are professionals not to be able to have control of the people under their care is a total contradiction of what care services are all about. In most cases, all these care services are funded by one level of government or another, so either you believe in a program, you fund it, you hire the right staff who know what is going on in these facilities and know whether they have control over the program and the people in that program, or you don't do anything.

It's like saying to people: "There is a need for this program, and we'll fund it, we'll hire the staff. But we're going to tie your hands behind your back." If the professionals in these facilities, the professional staff are telling us they need it, if Dr Lightman has identified that it's needed, I have to ask this minister today why she would not support this amendment or has not included this possibility in her bill.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It is not, as the member suggested, that the government does not appreciate or understand the issue that is raised around fast evictions, nor is it a question that the government has ignored consideration of the development of a fast eviction process. We are fully aware of the reasons Dr Lightman talked about the possibility of having a fast eviction process when he did his very good work in reporting on care homes and the problems that were encountered by residents of care homes in Ontario.

However, the member will recall that when Dr Lightman came before the legislative committee, he agreed it was a very difficult matter to develop a fast eviction process under the Landlord and Tenant Act that would provide the kind of protection he thought important for residents of care homes.

We understand fully why operators would be interested in seeing a fast eviction process. We understand why Dr Lightman considered it worth recommending that we look at the development of such a process. But in fact we have never heard a satisfactory explanation of how you can have a fast eviction process while protecting the rights of residents.

The reason we have to protect the rights of residents of course is a reason addressed very fully by Dr Lightman in his report to the government. What he documented was a situation in which residents of care homes have, over a long period of time and throughout the province, been vulnerable to excessive behaviour by operators. We all know there are operators and operators and operators, and the member for Mississauga South knows that too. There have been in the past very grave instances of actions and activities by operators of care homes in this province which have been the cause for large public concern and in fact the reason this government asked Dr Lightman to take on his report.

The member is suggesting that if we do not have fast eviction processes and if we provide coverage under the Landlord and Tenant Act, then young women and babies who are benefiting from programs such as the program she described at the Massey Centre or indeed drug rehabilitation or alcohol rehabilitation programs or programs of all kinds -- we can always give examples of where there are going to be problems. There are problems where people live.

Landlords in the private sector deal with problems too and they live with the Landlord and Tenant Act, because in this province, and it was a Conservative government that did it, we decided there had to be protections not just for landlords but also for tenants. The right of secure tenure is basic to the security of tenants and it is basic to the establishment of the rights of residents of care homes.

Mrs Marland: We're talking about people in a care facility; we're not talking about people in apartments.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I know the member for Mississauga South and her party do not support the notion that we should develop Landlord and Tenant Act coverage for tenants and residents of care homes or that we should have rent control coverage for them. She doesn't support that. She likes to say she thought the Lightman report was wonderful, but when you get right down to it, she doesn't want to do any of the things out of the Lightman report that mean real change. I don't take her attitude seriously. I think she speaks one way and then turns and speaks another.

I find that this proposal, which is a definitional proposal and which would be applied right across the board in care homes and in apartments in houses throughout this legislation, is not acceptable. There's an issue of principle involved here.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Madam Chair: You might like to ask the minister to withdraw her comment about how I speak and how I think. I don't appreciate her imputing motives to what I say and what I think.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Madam Chair, I just sat and listened to the member for Mississauga South declare that I was criminally irresponsible in putting forward the proposals in this legislation. I didn't complain. I would hope her skin is a little less thin it appears to be. There's a matter of principle here, Madam Chair.

The First Deputy Chair: I would ask the minister to reconsider her remarks, please.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I said she spoke one way on one side and turned and spoke another way on the other side. I don't believe that's unparliamentary. I will apologize if you will ask her to retract an accusation that my proposals legislatively are criminally irresponsible.

The First Deputy Chair: No. I just ask the minister to reconsider her remarks and use a different phrase, please.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I will withdraw that phrase, Madam Chair. I hope the point is made that the member finds it fine to use colourful phrases herself but she finds it unacceptable if other people do.

There's a principle involved here. The principle is that people who live in apartments in houses covered by this legislation and people who live in care homes covered by this legislation shall have the same rights of protection: security of tenure, the right to have their rent increases controlled. These rights should apply to all tenants in Ontario, and the people who live in apartments in houses, the people who live in care homes in Ontario, who are among the least rich, the least powerful, in fact the most vulnerable of people who rent accommodation in this province, deserve that protection. The fast-track proposal really is to strike at the heart of security of tenancy, which is the basis for the protection of tenancy.

1650

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any other comments or questions to Mrs Marland's motion?

Mr Cordiano: Let me address this question with respect to fast eviction. We too have a proposal under section 2.6.1 which addresses fast eviction. It more specifically is dealt with in the Landlord and Tenant Act under section 107, and I think this would be the appropriate way to deal with the matter.

Having said that, obviously this motion is an attempt to deal with the need for a fast-track eviction, and I would say to the minister that she must be reminded of the fact that what we're talking about are congregate living situations in which people share kitchens, bathrooms, lounge areas. These are situations in which, living with someone in close quarters, if a tenant is a threat to other tenants, to remove that person, by choice or by prompting of others in the home who run the home, is a very difficult practical set of circumstances which is not easily achieved.

I remind the minister that we heard numerous examples while in committee of instances where there were such cases of threats made to other tenants, of tenants who were difficult, to say the least, to other tenants. What we're talking about here is respecting the right of those other tenants to live in those congregate living situations without fear, without the kind of harassment that was expressed to us in committee by those tenants.

The use of a fast-track eviction process is one which I would also remind the minister was supported by Dr Ernie Lightman, and he called for it in his recommendations. The matter is a difficult one, I admit, to deal with in practical terms, but on the other hand, leaving no alternative for those tenants who are victimized, for those tenants who are in an insecure position as a result of the kind of harassment and the kind of fear they would have to live with, is I think also untenable and also unacceptable.

Let's not confuse the issue. Extending protection -- that is, for those rents to be covered under rent control -- is not really the issue here. The issue is, how do you deal with a hostile tenant who threatens other tenants?

This fast eviction would permit, under a very tight set of circumstances, at least in our motion as we put it forward, the landlord to act in accordance with section 107 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which provides for fast eviction. That's not inconsistent with what's in the Landlord and Tenant Act, and we extend that fast eviction to this act, which is entirely consistent with the extension of those rights in Bill 120. We support that.

The other difficulty, Madam Minister, and I would say this as a general comment, is that on the one hand we support many of the initiatives which were recommended by Dr Lightman, but we find ourselves in a very difficult circumstance: not being able to support other sections of this bill on principle, not being able to support sections of this bill as a practical reality because some of the sections of this bill are unworkable, to say the least.

It is precisely because of the omnibus nature of this legislation that we are frustrated. We have said this repeatedly. I would say over and over again that we've reached the point where parts of the bill are supportable, on principle and as a practical matter, and many parts of the bill we find ourselves not able to support, particularly with the refusal of the minister to accept some of our amendments, particularly the one dealing with the extension of the exemption from six months to 18 months, which I think would deal with practical difficulties around congregate living situations, particularly those rehabilitative centres which, as you might have heard in committee, provide for those types of living situations which, from time to time, result in difficult circumstances for the tenants who live there.

Congregate living situations are the kinds of situations, I would add, that are not similar to living in a high-rise apartment building or any other form of housing where you can lock your door, in a self-contained unit, and not have to see your tenants if you choose not to. Fellow tenants who live in a congregate living situation have to eat together or at least have to be in the same kitchen at times or in the same lounge area or use the same washroom facilities. That is the reality of congregate living situations, and for the minister to stand in her place and say "We are not in favour of extending protection to those tenants" is to obscure the issue. The issue is to protect those tenants from other tenants who make their lives difficult and, at the end of the day, very dangerous in some circumstances.

So let's not make this into a minimum issue; it is one that is very important to those tenants. We heard this repeatedly from those centres, from tenants themselves who came before the committee and expressed their fear, absolute fear that would result from the lack of control that would, at the end of the day, be missing for those landlords who would have to deal with these difficult circumstances.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further comments to Mrs Marland's motion? Seeing none, are you ready for the question? Shall Mrs Marland's amendment to section 1(1.1) carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

Now we will move on to subsection 1(3). I believe there is a PC motion.

Mrs Marland: Subsection 1(3): I move that clause (h) of the definition of "residential premises," as set out in subsection 1(3) of the bill, be amended by inserting after "Public Hospitals Act" in the second line "the Homes for Special Care Act, the Homes for Retarded Persons Act."

The First Deputy Chair: Mrs Marland, would you care to comment?

Mrs Marland: I had hoped that it wouldn't be necessary to move this amendment. I really thought that the Housing ministry staff would have seen their omission and cleaned this up with their own amendment.

The Homes for Special Care Act and the Homes for Retarded Persons Act -- and I hope some time some government in this province will change the name of the Homes for Retarded Persons Act. I think it's time that we used the kind of language in acts that is used today in this province. It's unfortunate that we still have an act with that kind of terminology. However, those two acts are both exempt under the Rental Housing Protection Act in Bill 120, clause 27(2)(b) of the bill. We would like them to have continued exemption from the Landlord and Tenant Act, as they currently have. Frankly, we just believe it's an oversight of the ministry not to have included them in here, in this section of the bill.

1700

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments with regard to Mrs Marland's motion? Seeing none, shall Mrs Marland's amendment to subsection 1(3) carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the motion lost.

Now we have another amendment to that section; I believe it's a Liberal amendment.

Mr Cordiano: I would like to withdraw this next amendment but to continue with the following amendment, although I would note that if what we're dealing with is the bill and the manner in which it was passed in the committee, then this amendment is also redundant, if that's the way we're proceeding. That is to say that the bill, as dealt with in committee, approved this particular amendment, clause 1(3)(i.1).

Hon Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Can I ask which order we should be addressing this in? The government does have an amendment to subsection 1(3).

The First Deputy Chair: We're first dealing with the Liberal amendment, then the PC amendment and then the government amendment.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Very good. Thank you.

Mr Cordiano: Perhaps, on this item, clause 1(3)(i.1), I would withdraw this amendment as it would no longer be logical to continue with this. This is inconsistent with the previous amendment having been defeated.

Moving on to the next amendment --

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Cordiano, could I just clarify. That is the amendment with regard to definition of "residential premises"?

Mr Cordiano: Right.

The First Deputy Chair: Okay, thank you. Is it agreed that amendment be withdrawn? Agreed.

Mrs Marland: Could we just be clear, because there's more than one dealing with residential premises here. It is clause (i.1), as set out in subsection 1(3)? Is it the second one of your amendments, Joe?

Mr Cordiano: Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

Mrs Marland: That's fine with me.

Mr Cordiano: Moving on to the third amendment that follows --

The First Deputy Chair: Would you like to read the amendment that you are withdrawing, just so that the other parties are very clear as to what you are withdrawing?

Mr Cordiano: Subsection 1(3): I move that clause (i.1) of the definition of "residential premises," as set out in subsection 1(3) of the bill, be amended by inserting after "rehabilitative" in the third line "respite, convalescent care."

I'm just explaining that it would be illogical to continue with that, seeing as how the first amendment was defeated.

Moving on to the next --

The First Deputy Chair: I would like to deal with them in the order that I have specified. If we could go to the PC motion next to section 1. Mrs Marland, this particular amendment is out of order. Subclause 1(3)(i.1)(ii) is no longer part of the bill.

Mrs Marland: I'll be happy to withdraw it in that case.

The First Deputy Chair: Now we have a government motion to the same subsection.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I move that subclause (i.1)(ii) of the definition of "residential premises" in section 1 of the act, as set out in subsection 1(3) of the bill, as amended by the standing committee on general government, be amended by striking out "18" in the fifth line and substituting "six."

The First Deputy Chair: The Minister of Housing has moved that subclause (i.1)(iii) of the definition of residential premises in section 1 of the act, as set out in subsection 1(3) of the bill, as amended by the standing committee on general government, be amended by striking out "18" in the fifth line and substituting "six."

Minister, would you wish to comment?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, Madam Chair. Our purpose in this section is to provide an exemption for care programs, and the basis on which we are doing that is to suggest that where the person who is resident in accommodation which also has care services cannot really be considered to be a stable, permanent resident and hence protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act until six months of the program have passed.

The proposal in committee had been that we extend that exemption for the full period of 18 months. It is my view and the view of the government that 18 months is far too long for a person to be resident in accommodation without having the rights of the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act apply, and therefore we are seeking to amend this section of the bill which had been changed in committee.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate on the government amendment?

Mr Cordiano: I would say that the minister once again has rung the death knell for these rehab centres, and obviously that's the intent of the government. They have no intention of seeing that these centres and these programs survive. You want to absolutely kill them, because that's what you're in effect saying. With the 18-month extension for the exemption, the centres would have been permitted to exist and to do what they've done so well for so many years. You obviously see it unworthy to save these centres from this aspect of the bill. As I know to be true, we heard repeatedly from many, many witnesses who said they could not function properly.

Then, again, Madam Minister, there is a hidden agenda here. There is the full intent of your government to do away with these rehab centres once and for all because you're delinking services and you see these centres as no longer viable, and no longer necessary, for that matter, because you're going to delink services and ring the death knell for those centres.

Hon Ms Gigantes: That's perfect nonsense, Joe, and you know that.

Mr Cordiano: Why don't you just come out and say that? At least come out and say that straightforwardly to these centres which are groping at the prospect of having to exist in an environment, in a legal framework which makes is awfully difficult for them to function. You know that very well, Minister. You've heard that repeatedly.

This is a very serious matter for those centres. They face the prospect of not being able to cope under the weight of this legislation. That's been proven, time and again, in committee, but obviously your government has no intention of seeing that these centres survive.

You're taking the chicken way out rather than saying straight up front and straightforwardly to these centres and these providers that their services are no longer necessary, nor are they wanted by your government. You want to simply destroy them, and you're using the vehicle that's called Bill 120 to do that.

1710

As I say, it's the chicken way out. It's less than courageous, and I would prefer it if we had a full debate around what delinking of services means. This is much more complex, and this is why, Minister, I take personal offence to any overtures in every way possible that has been indicated by your government that we tried to obstruct the process that was undertaken in this committee. There is much more than meets the eye to this Bill 120, much more that's affected by what you're doing by this bill in the communities that are affected by this right across the province.

You simply refuse, because of your determination on the one hand to act fiscally responsible in the way your government sees as appropriate, to kind of shroud yourself with the veil, and not being able to see through that veil, for most people, to see what the real intent of the government is.

At the end of the day, you really don't want to have this honest to goodness debate about what it is that you're doing with these rehab centres, and that is, destroying their very essence. At the end of the day, you really do not want to see them survive, so why don't we just have that debate around what delinking of services means and the kind of difficulties that are going to be experienced in the communities that are affected.

You know this very well, Minister. I know you feel this in your heart to be the truth, and at the end of the day, you can't come out and say this will lead to better services. It will lead to the kind of housing you're talking about, but it certainly will not lead to the kind of services, because there's a vacuum there that you've created.

You have not addressed that. There isn't new money for the kind of services that are going to be at a loss once these centres collapse. The prospect of these centres surviving after Bill 120 is very slim. There's just no chance for most of these centres to operate under the weight of this legislation. We heard that, as I said, repeatedly.

At the end of the day, it would have been much more honest for your government to come forward and say, "Look, we're going to do this in a different fashion." Of course. The problem is you don't have the funding that's necessary in the interim to do what is a lofty goal, and at the end of the day the practical reality for most communities is that you're going to let them fend for themselves, because there isn't going to be the funding that's necessary for what's implied with delinking of services.

That's why this amendment infuriates us, and that's why I think it's totally unacceptable.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further comments?

Mrs Marland: I'm inclined to just say "Ditto" to the comments of the Liberal critic, except that this is too important to go without putting something on the record, because what we have with this amendment by the government is a reversal of an amendment which passed in committee.

In order for an amendment to pass in committee, obviously the committee is structured, as all committees are, with a balance of power with government members. So obviously, for an amendment to pass in committee, the opposition members had to have the support of government members, and we did.

The amendment that was passed was in fact a Liberal amendment for 18 months. We as Conservatives also had an amendment to the same section, which was going to make it 24 months as an exemption cap. The only reason the Liberals and ourselves had those amendments was because we were responding to what we were told by the public who came before those committee hearings.

Now we have this government coming into committee of the whole House and of course using the prerogative and the power it has to reverse the work of the committee, which again, as far as I'm concerned, points out the fact that we might as well have saved thousands and thousands of dollars. I don't know what the cost of the committee hearings was for the month we sat in January and February, but it would be over $100,000, I would estimate, if we include all the staff time, the translators and everyone else who supports a committee going through a public process.

If government is going to be blatantly dishonest with the public -- I said "if" government is going to be blatantly dishonest with the public, so I'm choosing my words very carefully, Chair -- if that is the case, then we could never have a better example than we have now. What we have now is a process where, under the proceedings of this House, legislation is referred to committee, the committees hold public hearings, and we ask the public for their input, we ask the providers of these services in these special facilities, in these special programs for people in crisis in their lives, whether it's substance abuse or other kinds of traumatic problems in their lives. We have these programs, and again I say these programs are funded by the government. These professional people came to us and said, "We need to have 18 to 20 months as an exemption." Now we have the government saying, "No, we're going to take it back to the original six months which was in the original bill."

It is incredibly frustrating to be going through this process this afternoon, because we are working under the pressure of time allocation. This government has closed the debate in committee that was taking place on this bill after 20 hours. I added up the number of hours that we had in debate on this bill after we had heard from the public. So we hear from the public for a month and then we debate it for 20 hours and the government says, "That's enough." It's not like we're at the end of the session. It's not like it's Christmas Eve. The closure motion on this bill was moved in April. This House sits till the end of June. As far as I'm concerned, we had a process of democracy taken away from us.

In the same bill, we have a tremendously important section coming up, and that is the section dealing with the legalization of basement apartments in all kinds of residential dwellings, from single-family homes all the way up to town houses and row housing.

This section of the bill being dealt with in this particular amendment is terribly important to the future lives of thousands of people in this province who need that specific kind of treatment. We, as Progressive Conservatives, recognize that need. We want to protect the program for those people who need it, and we support the concern that was brought to the committee by the people who provide the programs.

We are totally frustrated by the fact that we're now down to our last 40 minutes of complete debate on this bill except for third reading, where we probably will get 20 minutes per party to summarize our concerns about the bill, which cannot be addressed through an amendment process any more because the government has closed us out.

This amendment by the government is so pitiful, because what this amendment is saying, more than any other amendment, is: "We don't care what the public in Ontario say. We don't care what the professionals say who came before the committee and told us about their programs and what the impact of this legislation would be on those programs. We don't care. We know better. We don't even care that our various ministries are funding those programs." Aha. Maybe that's the hook: They want to play games; they want to destroy the programs because they don't want to fund them.

1720

For a political party like the New Democratic Party, as I said earlier this afternoon, that champions every cause -- Mr Cordiano and I have been in this House nine years as of yesterday, as a matter of fact, May 2. We were in this House when representatives of the New Democratic Party were on this side of the House. Indeed, the Premier himself, sitting as a member of the New Democratic Party, brought people into the private members' gallery with all kinds of problems, the same kinds of people these programs serve that this amendment will destroy.

No one has used people to the extent of this political party. Nobody has brought people into this House to the extent they have to demonstrate their passion and concern for people who are ill and downtrodden and ill advantaged. Nobody has used -- and abused -- people to the extent that the New Democratic Party has. This amendment throws everything out and into the faces of those people they claim to care about.

It won't give me any pleasure to campaign in the next election telling people what the New Democratic Party is truly about, but it will be factually supported by the demonstration of this amendment and what this bill does to those people in need. In all the ridings the New Democratic Party will have candidates in, in all 130 ridings in this province, there will be great ammunition for the people running against them to say: "These people pretend to care about people in Ontario, but in fact they really don't. They will bring in legislation that will destroy programs for the most needy, the most vulnerable people, who need the programs most."

It's just like the previous motion, when the minister stood and said she's worried about these tenants. It makes about as much sense to say: "I worry about tenants. I don't care if they all live together in one house." As was said by my colleague, they share the bathrooms and the kitchens and the living areas. "I don't care if one of them goes on a blind drunk or is in a substance abuse overdose situation where they become violent, physically abusive. I don't care, because that individual tenant has a right," according to this minister, "over the other tenants in a communal setting."

Well, that poor tenant who has that substance abuse condition will not even be able to access the programs for treatment they need. Even if you really want to protect them, this minister says, "They can stay there because tenancy is a right." Now we're going to deal with them having the rights of tenancy over the rights of other people living in the same space, no matter how abusive or physically violent they might be. The best part is, because of this amendment and because of this legislation, those people won't even have treatment to help them overcome their problems. It is disgusting.

Hon Ms Gigantes: This amendment has obviously engendered a huge amount of resentment, if I could put it that way, from the opposition members. I'm going to take a moment to go through what it is we're doing in this bill, because I think they need to be reminded.

You will recall that the work of Dr Lightman documented in painful detail the situation that exists for people who live in residential care settings in Ontario when they don't have rights. We have had years of difficulties that included direct abuse that has led to death in some cases. Dr Lightman did not set out on this task with a light heart and easy mind, saying, "All's going to be right if I suggest that the Landlord and Tenant Act should apply and the Rent Control Act should apply." He took this very seriously. He said very clearly to the government and to anybody who wanted to read him carefully that it was enormously important for the residents in such settings to have access to some legal handles on power for themselves so that they couldn't just be evicted at the whim of an operator.

We all know that most of the settings in Ontario are not the kinds of settings that cause concern. There are elderly people in retirement homes in Ontario and there are people with various special needs living in care settings in Ontario who live in excellent settings where the services that are provided for them are first-rate, equal to the kinds of services you would find anywhere in the world.

In fact, it is the intent of this government to improve the services for people who need them in this province. We have done that and we are continuing to do it. Within my own ministry, for example, we have encouraged and continue to encourage the development of supportive housing, housing which is affordable and housing which provides people with the kind of care services they need if they have special needs. That's one of the goals of the non-profit housing program.

So why is it that Dr Lightman said to us, as public representatives in Ontario, "You have got to provide the kind of situation in which a resident doesn't have to depend on being in accommodation in order to receive services"? It's important to delink; it's important for a resident to be able to say, "I will take my services from a community-based service agency if I'm not satisfied with the services that you're providing here." But in order for a tenant to be able to do that and to exercise that kind of choice, the tenant has to have security of accommodation. It cannot be the case that the landlord, the operator, can simply say: "Out. You don't like it? Out." That's what's been happening, and we all know that. It has happened across this province year after year after year.

For the opposition members to tell people at this stage that this government is trying to delink accommodation and services in order to shut down the very fine care home services that we do have in this province is a perfect nonsense. It is a perfect nonsense for them to say that.

It is also a fact, and it appears they need to be reminded of it, that some very excellent non-profit care home operators in this province have operated for years with the Landlord and Tenant Act as their legal framework and served some of the people with the highest special needs in this province.

How come some people can do it and other people can't, according to the opposition? I'd suggest to you that the problem is that there are operators, and there are a lot of them and some of them are excellent operators, who are not familiar with the Landlord and Tenant Act and they have tended to fall into anxiety, if I can put it that way, at the thought that they're going to be asked to operate within the Landlord and Tenant Act. It is perfectly possible, demonstrably possible, and it has been demonstrated that it is possible for people to operate a very good care home service for people with special needs and operate within the Landlord and Tenant Act.

1730

What we're talking about here is, where do we draw the line? Should there be exemptions? The government believes there should. If there is short-term accommodation provided, if the accommodation is for less than six months, then it hardly seems appropriate to call into play the full protections of the Landlord and Tenant Act. We're dealing here with temporary accommodation. But beyond that, we think it's terribly important to provide those rights which Dr Lightman told us were required if we were going to protect people living in care homes across this province.

We have provided another amendment later in the bill which speaks to some of the concerns that some operators have raised, and that is the concern that, once given protection by the Landlord and Tenant Act, people within a program which may last for up to two years may not want to move on.

We think that's a serious concern and we put forward an amendment that would provide an extra ground of eviction for care home operators where no person in the accommodation provided actually stayed there for longer than two years. Once the program was complete, the understanding on the length of the program having been laid out at the beginning of the program, the individual's enrolment in the program, then the operator could say at the end of the term, within two years, "You have to move because we need this place for another person who needs to come for therapeutic or rehabilitative purposes."

We have certainly been sensitive to the issues that have been raised, and we will be undertaking a very proactive effort to help all those operators whose anxieties I think have been raised by claims which are inaccurate by members of the opposition about how impossible it is to run a good care home service and still operate under the Landlord and Tenant Act. We will assist them in that process.

Mr Cordiano: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I would point out to you that the claim was not made by the members of the opposition.

Hon Ms Gigantes: This is not a point of order, Mr Chair.

Mr Cordiano: It was made by those providers.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. It's not a point of order.

Interjections.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, I heard the member for Mississauga South say it was false --

Mrs Marland: I will say it again --

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- and she is not permitted to. That is a point of order.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order.

Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: The minister has said that the opposition said certain things, and that is false.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Certainly in the previous remarks by members of the opposition, motives were imputed to the government, motives were imputed to me personally. I didn't take objection, but the opposition is supersensitive, I understand. I understand the reason for that too. The reason for that is that the kind of views that they are trying to broadcast and trying to make people accept really don't stand up to good discussion.

The Second Deputy Chair: I want to remind the minister, we are dealing with the amendment.

Hon Ms Gigantes: That's right. Yes, and I was dealing specifically with that and explaining to you, Mr Chair, precisely why it was that we wished to see the exemption period being no longer than six months, which is the purpose of this amendment.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate on the government amendment? Are we ready for the question?

Shall the government amendment to subsection 1(3) of the bill carry? Agreed?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The amendment carries.

To the honourable member for Lawrence, his amendment to subsection 1(3) is now out of order. Would you care to withdraw?

Mr Cordiano: I would withdraw.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mrs Marland, the member for Mississauga South, has an amendment to subsection 1(3).

Mrs Marland: Subsection 1(3): I move that clause (i.1) of the definition of "residential premises" -- is this the correct one? -- as set out in subsection 1(3) of the bill, be amended by striking out subclauses (ii) and (iii).

The Second Deputy Chair: I believe, from earlier debate, the member for Mississauga South indicated that subclause (ii) was to be deleted from your amendment because that part is no longer part of the bill.

Mrs Marland: That is correct.

The Second Deputy Chair: Therefore, Mrs Marland moves an amendment to subsection 1(3), that clause (i.1) of the definition of "residential premises," as set out in subsection 1(3) of the bill, be amended by striking out subclause (iii).

Mrs Marland: There are so many important amendments that we wish to deal with, and I'm not going to make any comment on this amendment at this point.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate on Mrs Marland's amendment? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment to subsection 1(3) carry? No? I declare the amendment lost.

Further amendment to subsection 1(3).

Mrs Marland: I move that subsection 1(3) of the bill amending section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act be amended by adding the following clause:

"(1) and the Massey Centre for Women, located at 1102 Broadview Avenue, Toronto."

Hon Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We don't appear to have a copy of that amendment.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Mississauga South, some remarks on the amendment?

Mrs Marland: I've already given my arguments earlier this afternoon about why the program at the Massey Centre for Women must be continued and, therefore, the necessity for this amendment.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The government will not support this amendment because it would single out -- apart from the fact that we don't intend to make such an exception, it certainly singles out one program. There are many other programs much like the Massey Centre for Women and it would be inequitable to treat one differently from others.

I've discussed this whole question with representatives of the Massey Centre and they said to me, "Why can't we make an exception for the Massey Centre?" The problem is, if you make an exception for one case, then you're going to have to make an exception for many cases and then you end up in a system where you're going to have to develop a whole set of guidelines and adjudicate on where exceptions are made and where exceptions are not.

The better way to do it is within a piece of legislation which has an overall, reasonable framework, which we believe this has, and to assist these centres in working out how their programs will operate within the new guidelines provided by Bill 120. That we have offered to do and that we will do very energetically.

1740

Mrs Marland: That's a very pointless argument that the minister has just given. The reason that we put this amendment was we thought, "Well, we might as well try for the Massey Centre." It's very obvious that this minister doesn't care about any of these programs or else we wouldn't be having to deal with these amendments in the first place. Thank goodness the member for York East cares about the program.

It's well demonstrated, because I say to the minister, who's not even sitting in her seat, the fact is that this minister, if she cared about these programs, would've supported our earlier amendments this afternoon. It's well demonstrated that she doesn't choose to listen to the providers of the program. She's happy to have the bill go through and destroy the program. We just thought we'd give her one more chance to defend one program that is directly funded by two ministries of this government. But that's fine.

Mr Cordiano: I wasn't going to make any comment, but I was twigged by some of the comments by the minister with regard to the exceptions. It is precisely that reasoning that goes towards the extension of the six-month rule to the 18-month exemption, which would not make it an exception; it would make it the rule.

I say to you that this is another case of another group which will not survive through Bill 120, and at the end of the day, the Massey Centre for Women will be adversely affected. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Massey Centre will be adversely affected and its program. I fail to see how they can survive this. Their program, obviously, is one of those that runs 24 months, and even an 18-month exemption would be difficult for them to achieve, but at the very least, it would give them an additional year, and they could tailor their program to something more reasonable and something that could be achievable by the Massey Centre. But six months certainly will not do that for them, and I think we'll see the end of the Massey Centre as a result.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I agree with the minister when she says we can't make exceptions to the rules. I have a letter that's been signed by the minister saying, "At the same time, we have been careful not to introduce measures which would negatively affect the operations of many legitimate and well-run care homes which can be found across the province." Can you explain this? If you say you will not make any exceptions, so you're saying only the mismanaged homes --

Hon Ms Gigantes: That's a foolish question.

Mr Grandmaître: Well, this is what your letter is saying. Can you explain the content of your letter, Madam Minister? No answer. Thank you.

Mr David Johnson: I know we're coming up to the bewitching hour, and I guess the votes are going to take place in about two minutes. It's a shame we didn't get to talk about the aspects of basement apartments as well, and the fact that when I inquired of the East York Fire Department, as the minister suggested I do, as to how many homes it was able to get into to inspect to make sure they were safe, the response I got was, out of 10 homes, it was able to get into three. The other seven they didn't get in because people weren't home or people would not allow them to get in. That's the ratio.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't see what this has to do with the amendment that's before us.

Mr David Johnson: This has to do with the whole bill, but to speak to the amendment that's before us, I did mention earlier the problems that the Massey Centre has in giving service to unwed young mothers, ages 13 to 17, and the problem that this is going to impose upon them.

I will say, because the minister makes it seem as if it's just the opposition that's holding this up, that I have a letter which arrived in my office a week ago from the board of health of the borough of East York -- I hope the minister is listening to this; from the board of health, Minister, of the borough of East York -- recommending that an exemption be made for the Massey Centre. That's not the opposition. That's not us holding it up; that's the board of health for the borough of East York.

The Second Deputy Chair: I have a document which reads as follows:

"At 5:45 pm those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House."

This time has now come. The first one we are dealing with is the amendment which was on the floor at 5:45. It is Mrs Marland's amendment to subsection 1(3).

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mrs Marland's amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment defeated.

We now move on to a Liberal amendment to subsection 1(4).

Mr Cordiano: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I'm not following the procedure here. I thought that at 5:45, the bill would be called and we would be dealing with the entire bill. If we're going to proceed through clause-by-clause amendment by amendment, I misunderstood that.

The Second Deputy Chair: Every amendment is deemed to have been moved, and we have to deal with them individually.

Mr Cordiano: Well, Mr Chairman, I'm not sure what time we have to take us through that process. Will this become a matter for another day?

The Second Deputy Chair: We are going according to the motion. We have to deal with the amendments individually and we are now proceeding with that process.

Mr Cordiano: Thank you, Mr Chairman,

The Second Deputy Chair: We are now dealing with a Liberal motion, amendment to subsection 1(4).

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the Liberal amendment to subsection 1(4) carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

Shall section 1 of Bill 120, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare section 1 of Bill 120, as amended, carried.

We now move to section 2.

Shall section 2.0.1 and section 2.0.2, without amendments, carry?

All those in favour of that portion without amendments, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The motion without amendments is carried.

1750

Mrs Marland: Is there not a Liberal motion to 2.2?

The Second Deputy Chair: We have not got to that section yet, member for Mississauga South.

We now have a government motion adding section 2.0.2.1 to the bill, amending section 89 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. This government motion presently is out of order, and the only way we can deal with it is with unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent? Yes.

We then will deal with the amendment adding section 2.0.2.1 to the bill. Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion carry? Agreed.

Mrs Marland: Earlier this afternoon, there was another amendment to section 89 which I understood was ruled out of order because section 89 of the act was not being opened. This motion also deals with section 89.

The Second Deputy Chair: We had not dealt with anything to do with section 89 until the immediately previous amendment, which we got unanimous approval to deal with.

Mrs Marland: So that's why. Thank you.

The Second Deputy Chair: The Liberal motion adding section 2.0.3, amending section 89 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, is also out of order. Do we have unanimous consent to proceed with this Liberal motion? Yes, we have unanimous consent.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Liberal motion adding section 2.0.3 of the bill, amending section 89 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, carry? Agreed. I declare the motion carried.

A further amendment adding section 2.1 by the Progressive Conservative Party is also out of order because it is beyond the scope. Do we have unanimous consent to deal with it? We don't. Therefore the motion is out of order and will not be considered.

We now have a Liberal motion adding section 2.2. The motion is in order. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Liberal amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

We have a further amendment, Progressive Conservative Party, to section 2.2. This is out of order because it is beyond the scope of the act. Do we have unanimous consent to deal with this amendment? No. We therefore shall not deal with the PC amendment to the motion.

A further Progressive Conservative amendment to section 2.3 is also out of order because it is beyond the scope. Do we have unanimous consent to deal -- no. We therefore shall not deal with this amendment.

We have a Liberal motion amending section 2.4. This is also out of order because it is beyond the scope. Do we have unanimous consent? We do not; we shall not deal with it.

We have a Progressive Conservative motion amending section 2.4, also out of order. Do we have unanimous consent to deal with this amendment? We do not; we shall not deal with it.

I have a Liberal motion amending section 2.5, also out of order. Is it -- no. We shall not deal with it.

A Conservative motion amending section 2.5. This is also out of order. It is beyond the scope of the section. Do we have unanimous consent? The member for Mississauga South on a point of order.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, it is helpful, if they are out of order, that we are told why. You've just said that my motion was out of order because it was beyond the scope --

The Second Deputy Chair: Of section 107 of the act.

Mrs Marland: Right. The previous motion of the Liberals, section 106 of the act, was also out of order, but you didn't explain why.

The Second Deputy Chair: Exactly the same reason.

Mrs Marland: It's out of scope. Thank you.

The Second Deputy Chair: We have a Progressive Conservative amendment to section 2.5, out of order; it is beyond the scope of the section. Do we have unanimous agreement to deal with it? We shall not deal with it.

We have a Liberal motion amending section 2.6, also out of order; beyond the scope. Do we have unanimous consent? We do not; we shall not deal with it.

A Liberal motion amending section 2.6.1, out of order; beyond the scope of section 107. Do we have unanimous consent to deal with it? We do not.

A Liberal motion amending section 2.7, out of order. Do we have unanimous consent? We do not.

Shall section 2.0.3, as amended, of the bill carry? Agreed?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the section carried.

We are now dealing with a Progressive Conservative motion, the Progressive Conservative amendment to section 3, and the note here from the legal adviser is, "The proper process is to vote against this section as opposed to striking out." Therefore, we will be dealing with this amendment in voting against the section as opposed to striking it out.

We are now dealing with the PC motion to section 3. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Progressive Conservative motion to section 3 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the amendment defeated.

Shall section 3 of the bill carry? Agreed.

1800

We now move to a Liberal motion amending subsection 4(1). Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment defeated.

Shall section 4, without amendments, carry? Agreed.

We now move to a government motion amending subsection 5(1). Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion carry? Carried.

We now have a Liberal motion amending subsection 5(1). Is it the pleasure of the House that the Liberal motion carry? No.

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

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

A further Liberal motion amending subsection 5(1).

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

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

A further Liberal motion amending subsection 5(1). Is it the pleasure of the House that the Liberal motion carry? No. I declare the motion defeated.

We now have a government motion amending subsection 5(3). Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion carry? No.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

Shall section 5 of Bill 120, as amended, carry? Carried.

We now deal with a government motion amending section 6. Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion carry? Carried.

Shall sections 6 through 8, as amended, carry? Agreed.

We now have a government motion amending section 9. Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion carry? No.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

Shall section 9, as amended, carry? Agreed.

We now have a Liberal motion amending subsection 10(3). Is it the pleasure of the House that the Liberal motion carry?

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

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

This is a Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 10(3). Is it the pleasure of the House that the Progressive Conservative motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment defeated.

Shall sections 10 and 11 of Bill 120 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

I have a Liberal motion to subsection 12(5). Is it the pleasure of the House that the Liberal motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the Liberal motion defeated.

Shall sections 12 and 13 of Bill 120 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

We're now dealing with a government motion to section 14. Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion carry? Agreed. I declare the amendment to section 14 carried.

Shall section 14, as amended, carry? Agreed.

Shall sections 15 to 17, without amendments, carry? Agreed.

We're now dealing with a government amendment to subsection 18(1). Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the government motion amending section 18 carried.

Shall section 18, as amended, carry? Agreed.

Shall section 19, without amendments, carry? Agreed.

We now deal with a government motion to section 20. Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion amending section 20 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare amendment to section 20 carried.

Shall section 20, with amendments, carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare section 20, as amended, carried.

Shall sections 21 through 25, without amendments, carry? Agreed.

We have a Progressive Conservative amendment to section 26. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Progressive Conservative amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the motion defeated.

We have a Liberal Party motion to subsection 26(1). Is it the pleasure that the Liberal motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the Liberal motion is defeated.

A government motion to subsection 26(3). Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion amending subsection 26(3) carry? Agreed.

I declare the amendment carried.

1810

Further government motion amending subsection 26(4): Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion amending subsection 26(4) carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the government motion carried.

Shall section 26, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare section 26, as amended, carried.

We now have a government motion to subsection 27(1.1).

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the government amendment to subsection 27(1.1) is carried.

Further government amendment to subsection 27(2): Is it the pleasure of the House that this government amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the amendment to subsection 27(2) carried.

Shall section 27, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the section, as amended, carried.

We now have a Liberal motion amending section 28. Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the Liberal amendment defeated.

Further Liberal amendment to section 28: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Liberal amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the Liberal amendment to section 28 defeated.

Shall sections 28 through 32 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare those sections carried.

We're now dealing with a government motion to amend subsection 33(1.1). Is it the pleasure of the House that the government amendment to section 33 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the amendment to section 33 carried.

Shall section 33, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the section, as amended, carried.

Shall sections 34 and 35, without amendments, carry? Agreed.

We now have a Progressive Conservative amendment to section 36. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Progressive Conservative amendment to section 36 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the amendment to section 36 is defeated.

Shall section 36 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

We have a further Progressive Conservative amendment to section 37. Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment defeated.

We have a further Progressive Conservative amendment to section 37. Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment defeated.

There's a further Progressive Conservative amendment to section 37. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment defeated.

Again we are dealing with a Progressive Conservative amendment to section 37. I have a note here from the legal department that says the proper process is to vote against this section. I am therefore asking the committee, is it in favour of section 37?

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, could you identify which motion you are --

The Second Deputy Chair: We are now dealing with an amendment to section 37, and the proper process is to vote against this section. We cannot strike it out.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: There are two Progressive Conservative motions to section 37. Which one --

The Second Deputy Chair: We are now dealing with the Progressive Conservative motion which states: "I move that section 37 of the bill be struck out." This is not acceptable. The proper process is to vote against this section.

I am therefore asking the committee, shall section 37 as in Bill 120 carry? Agreed. Section 37 carries.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: There was a Progressive Conservative motion to section 37 under section 16 of the act.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are coming to it now, to the member for Mississauga South. It is now a new section, 37.1.

Mrs Marland: But did we not just vote on the whole section 37?

The Second Deputy Chair: This is a new section, 37.1. The Progressive Conservative amendment applies to that new section.

We now deal with the Progressive Conservative amendment to section 37.1. Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare this amendment defeated.

We are now dealing with a government motion amending subsection 38(4). Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion to subsection 38(4) carry? Agreed. I declare the amendment carried.

1820

We are now dealing with a Progressive Conservative motion amending section 38. The same as previously applies. The proper process is to vote against this section. All those in favour of section 38, as amended? Agreed? No.

All those in favour of section 38, as amended, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

We are now dealing with a Progressive Conservative amendment to section 39. Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment defeated.

Shall section 39 of Bill 120 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

We're now dealing with a government motion amending subsection 40(1) of the bill, subsection 39(1.1) of the Planning Act. All those in favour of this government motion? Agreed? Agreed. I declare the amendment carried.

We now have a Progressive Conservative amendment to section 40. Is it the pleasure of the House that the Progressive Conservative amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare this amendment defeated.

There's a further Progressive Conservative amendment to section 40. Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?

All those in favour of the Progressive Conservative amendment, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment defeated.

Shall section 40, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

Shall section 41, without amendments, carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

We are now dealing with a Progressive Conservative amendment to section 42. Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment defeated.

Shall sections 42 and 43 carry? Agreed.

We are now dealing with a government motion to section 44. Is it the pleasure of the House that the government motion amending section 44 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

Shall section 44, as amended, carry? Agreed.

Shall section 45, without amendments, carry? Agreed.

We now have a Progressive Conservative amendment to section 46. Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare this amendment defeated.

Shall section 46 carry? Agreed.

We are now dealing with a Progressive Conservative amendment to section 47. Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, can I ask you to read which sections are being amended with each of these, because there is a bit of confusion and the government intends to support one of them.

The Second Deputy Chair: The amendment reads as follows, moved by the Progressive Conservative party, an amendment to section 47:

"I move that section 207.2 of the act, as set out in section 47 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection" --

Hon Ms Gigantes: No.

Mrs Marland: You don't understand that?

The Second Deputy Chair: There is more to it. Dispense? Dispense.

We now will vote on this amendment. It was moved by the Progressive Conservative Party that section 47 be amended. Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare this amendment defeated.

We are now dealing with a government motion amending section 47 of the bill, subsection 207.2(3) of the Municipal Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that this government amendment carry? Agreed.

I declare the amendment carried.

This now deals with a Progressive Conservative motion amending section 47. Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare this amendment to section 47 defeated.

We have a further Progressive Conservative motion to section 47. Is it the pleasure of the House that this Progressive Conservative amendment to section 47 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare this amendment to section 47 defeated.

We have a further Progressive Conservative motion which has already been dealt with in a government amendment, and therefore this is redundant.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The government amendment that was redundant is subsection 207.2(3) of the Municipal Act? Is that the one?

The Second Deputy Chair: Subsection 207.2(3).

Mrs Marland: And it is redundant?

The Second Deputy Chair: It is the same as the government motion which was approved previously. They are the same, and therefore it is redundant to deal with it the second time.

Mrs Marland: But this is a government motion, correct, that is redundant?

The Second Deputy Chair: This is a PC motion, which was already dealt with previously under a government amendment.

Mrs Marland: Okay, thank you.

The Second Deputy Chair: Shall section 47 of the bill, as amended, carry? Agreed.

We now deal with a government motion amending section 48. Is it the pleasure of the House that this government motion carry? Agreed?

Mrs Marland: No.

Ms Murdock: You almost made it there, Noble.

The Second Deputy Chair: All those in favour of the government motion amending section 48, say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare this amendment carried.

1830

We are now dealing with a Progressive Conservative motion amending subsections 48(2) and (3). Is it the pleasure of the House that this amendment carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare this amendment defeated.

Shall section 48, as amended, carry? Agreed.

We are now dealing with the final amendment. It is a government motion amending section 49.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Agreed. I declare the government motion carried.

Shall section 49, as amended, carry? Agreed.

I've been advised that a Liberal amendment to section 89 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, as proposed by Mr Cordiano, the member for Lawrence, and passed, is identical to the government amendment to section 89 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, as proposed by the minister and passed in section 2.0.2. It's my understanding that the minister is prepared to withdraw her amendment and let the Liberal amendment stand, which deletes one word in two places in the amendment. Do we have agreement?

Mrs Marland: Do you know what the two words are, please?

The Second Deputy Chair: The word "other" in two different places was deleted.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, in order to understand what we are voting on, I think it's necessary to have the amendment read fully.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are now dealing with a government motion adding section 2.0.2.1 to the bill, amending section 89 of the Landlord and Tenant Act:

"I move that the bill, as amended by the standing committee on general government, be amended by adding the following section after sections 2.0.2:

"2.0.2.1(1) Section 89 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

"Tenancy for care services" --

Mr Cordiano: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I thought I heard you say that this was the government motion.

The Second Deputy Chair: It is a Liberal motion. I'm reading the government motion with the amendments.

"(3.1) The withholding by a landlord of consent to an assignment, sublease or" -- and the word "other" is now deleted. It will now read "sublease or parting with possession of premises shall not be considered to be arbitrary or unreasonable for the purpose of subsection" -- dispense? Agreed.

Since we've already passed these amendments, do we have agreement for the minister to withdraw her amendment? Agreed.

Shall the title of Bill 120 carry? Agreed.

Shall the bill be reported, as amended, to the Legislature?

All those in favour of reporting the bill, 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 1836 to 1841.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please. All those in favour of reporting Bill 120 to the Legislature will rise and remain standing until the clerk has counted.

All those opposed to reporting Bill 120, please rise and remain standing.

The ayes being 53, the nays 20, the bill shall therefore be reported to the Legislature.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the committee rise and report.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Charlton has moved that the committee rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PUBLIC SAFETY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We now have a late show pursuant to standing order 34. The question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

The member for Renfrew North has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given today from the government House leader, and therefore the member for Renfrew has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the minister will have five minutes in response.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): It's always good, Mr Speaker, to do business under your capable tutelage, and I appreciate the opportunity. I don't intend to --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: It's very difficult.

The Acting Speaker: Yes. All members, please. The member for Renfrew North does have five minutes; it's a limited time.

Mr Conway: I raised today some questions for the minister of justice, and she chose, as is her right, not to answer the questions. She directed them to the government House leader.

Let me just say very personally and very directly that I don't want answers from the government House leader. I should have had the presence of mind simply to withdraw the question and re-put it tomorrow, which I will probably do --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: -- because I asked the question of the minister of justice quite seriously, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, who's busy closing parks in my constituency today, I hear on the late news this afternoon. There will be some very, very good news after the next election. There'll be some miseries from which we will all be absolved, and I won't for a moment regret the passing of certain personalities from this place.

But let me just say to the minister of justice, who is, I know, a person concerned about these questions, that they are asked sincerely. The point I wanted to make today is a simple one.

There are a number of initiatives that have been raised to her and to the Solicitor General. We want to know, for example, what the government plans to do in respect of a number of the proposals that have been raised by a number of my colleagues, myself included.

I raised as well today the question of youth violence and a concern in the public about youth gangs. I was reading just in the last few days a report done for the government of Canada looking at youth gangs and youth violence, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area. It comes as a great concern for the public to learn in this report that in fact there is a significant increase in the incidence of violent crime involving young people.

The report to which I made reference earlier this afternoon highlights a number of issues. Let me just cite, for example, some of the conclusions and some of the findings of this federal report tabled just a few weeks ago.

It found, among other things, that between 1986 and 1991, that five-year period, violent offence charges for youths between the ages of 12 and 17 increased by 106%. It talks about how very young people are now being sucked into the vortex of serious crime, youngsters in grades 1 and 2 being implicated, the increased involvement of young girls. The reference is made, and I referred to it earlier today, that guns, gun replicas and other weapons are commonplace in Ontario schools today, that extortion and drug dealing are becoming a routine part of the daily life of many Ontario schools.

The public out there understands that this is a complex problem. They understand that there are not easy answers in some cases. But my sense of it is that the public, whether they're in Metropolitan Toronto or in your part of the province or mine, understand that there is a growing problem with young people and crime, and they want to know what governments -- local, provincial and national -- are doing about that. My question to the minister of justice for Ontario today was, does she have any kind of particular strategy to focus on the emerging problem of youth gangs?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): She ducked the question.

Mr Conway: And she ducked the question -- today. Tomorrow, I expect she may not choose to do so. It's just two years ago tomorrow that we saw the riots on Yonge Street, and at that time, as I indicated in my question earlier today, the government of Ontario said it was going to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to get at the root causes that are driving so many of these disillusioned and despairing young people into the streets, whether here in Toronto or elsewhere in the province, to riot and to indicate their unhappiness with their lot in life.

I ask, rhetorically perhaps, where is that comprehensive strategy? Does the minister of justice have an answer to those questions? I and my colleagues and, more important, the people of Ontario would like to know.

The Acting Speaker: The government House leader now has five minutes in response.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): It's unfortunate that the member for Renfrew North takes the tack on this issue that he takes and that his colleagues would sit there and suggest that the minister of justice, the Attorney General, ducked the question today.

Had the member for Renfrew North not spent the first part of his question grandstanding around discussions that have been going on between the House leaders in this House, discussions which the Attorney General has not been a party to, she would not have referred the question to me in the first place, but the member insists on playing politics and grandstanding around this issue.

So the question got referred. He got an unsatisfactory answer from, yes, a minister who has been part of the discussions with the House leaders around a particular committee request, but as a result his supplementaries were left wantonly unanswered.

But since the process in this House has suggested that he should do a late show tonight under the rules and that I should therefore respond, I've taken the time to get some information from my colleagues, both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, and to respond, at least in part, to the issues he raised this afternoon. What the opposition thinks, that the only action that's going to happen is as a result of a requested all-party committee and that the government is doing nothing on these issues, is, I put it bluntly, just not correct.

The government has moved a number of major initiatives that deal directly with crime prevention in Ontario and other community-based organizations to encourage a local response to crime. The Ontario government has worked with federal and municipal governments to address the root causes, as well as the results of crime in our society.

Examples of a number of the areas where my colleagues have taken what I think are very appropriate initiatives: The creation of a public safety and violent crime project to develop additional policing standards to guide police investigations into violent crimes; requests for longer sentences in cases in which a firearm was used in an offence or an offence was motivated by hate, one of the issues these opposition members have been ragging about for some weeks here, which this government long ago took initiative around and has proceeded to deal with; developing new wife assault and hate-bias crime standards to assist police in their efforts to deal with these crimes; support for the creation of a national council on crime prevention; introduction of a new protocol for school boards and police to combat violence in schools.

Specifically, moving into the area the member was referring to this afternoon, the area of youth violence and youth gangs, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services is working with the Ministry of Education to help prevent school violence. There is a new protocol for school boards and police to combat and prevent violence in schools.

Last October 1993, just six short months ago, before this member across the way showed any interest in the issue of youth violence whatsoever, the Solicitor General in this province proceeded to set up the ministry's public safety and violent crime project, which will be examining issues of youth violence and youth gangs and will be developing prevention and enforcement strategies for and with police. The ministry's involvement in the Ministry of Education initiatives allows us to ensure that our activities are integrated and coordinated.

These issues that the member across the way may very well be seriously concerned about, but only as of today, are areas of concern that my colleagues took initiatives on six, seven and eight months ago and are well down the road to dealing with the very issues he refers to in the report he was reading from today.

It's time that around issues like this, around issues that are so important in this society, we stop playing with the whiplash politics of question period and start trying to work together productively to ensure that we maximize the benefits these kinds of programs that have already been initiated by my colleagues and by this government are intended to get at.

The OPP and the municipal police services in this province are involved in programs like the VIP program, the values, influences and peers program. In this program, the OPP community service officers develop lesson plans and work in coordination with teachers and students across this province to start to address, in the preventive way, the kinds of issues we're referring to.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. It now being well past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

The House adjourned at 1854.

3 mai 1994