Journal des débats 1994-juin-07 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Ombudsman for the period April 1, 1993, to March 31, 1994.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY UNITY ALLIANCE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): For many newcomers to our great province the process of adjusting to a new life is at times extremely difficult. The challenge of becoming settled in a new culture often requires help, assistance and support.

I'd like to take this opportunity to share with you a truly exciting success story from my riding of Oriole. The Community Unity Alliance is a non-profit organization which has been formed to encourage the creation of community-based self-help groups to assist new immigrants to become as established and as self-supporting as quickly as possible.

The Community Unity Alliance provides invaluable services to newcomers in Ontario by helping them to solve problems, giving them advice and helping them access the services that are available.

In conjunction with the private sector, the Community Unity Alliance has established offices in my riding. These offices serve as a home today to eight organizations from a diverse community. They offer self-help to individuals in need. The names of the groups, just to name two, range from the Canadian Congress of East Caribbean Associations to the Sierra Leone Cultural Society of Ontario.

By working together and sharing resources, members of the Community Unity Alliance have provided us with an example of what can be accomplished when individuals and groups cooperate in a common goal.

I'd like to congratulate the Community Unity Alliance members for their invaluable service and I wish them success in the future.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement is directed, for the information, to the Minister of Education and Training.

Loyalist College hosted the provincial college council meeting in Belleville, Ontario, on June 1 and June 2. I was honoured to participate in an informal discussion with my colleague Dalton McGuinty and college council members on Thursday morning. It's unfortunate the minister was not able to attend because I think he would have found the meeting very informative and extremely interesting.

We covered a number of issues which I will briefly list for the benefit of the minister.

The important role colleges have in training students for jobs: Many colleges are concerned that the gap between the role of secondary schools, colleges and universities is becoming extensive and very grey. They believe that colleges should have more clearly defined roles in training.

Red tape: Each program has an advisory council. There are college councils, boards of governors, the Council of Regents and the ministry, an extremely bureaucratic system.

Appointments to college boards: Community colleges are concerned that their long-established role in recommending for appointment board members who best reflect the local community is being usurped by the Council of Regents. My colleague Elizabeth Witmer and I have raised our concerns in the Legislature many times.

General education: Colleges must provide general education at the expense of technical training. There was extremely lively discussion in this regard.

It was encouraging for me to listen to such dedicated college faculty. They have valid concerns which I trust the minister will address. I'd like to thank Peter Callaghan, chair of the Loyalist College council, for inviting me to participate in this very worthwhile meeting.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): On Friday, May 14, many of my constituents marched in downtown Guelph to protest federal and provincial cuts and freezes to social programs. The protesters included members of the Onward Willow community, the Brant Avenue Neighbourhood group and other community groups that are worried about cutbacks.

The Minister of Community and Social Services met with the Onward Willow group in January to hear its concerns about the erosion of our social service safety net. They marched from the Family Gateway Centre to St George Square to present their concerns to Mayor John Counsell and myself.

They're afraid that people on social assistance will be easy targets in the province's crackdown on fraud. They're afraid of the impact cutbacks will have on single parents and their children. They're afraid that people who are economically disadvantaged are being disfranchised. They agree the system has to be reformed, but they don't want it to be at the expense of people who need it.

The protesters presented me with a bag of shoes that were worn during the march to represent the condition of our social safety net. I gave those shoes to the minister as a reminder of the people who are affected by the decisions we make here.

Onward Willow was one of the first community projects this government funded under the Better Beginnings, Better Futures program, and I'm proud of the work Onward Willow is doing to help families build a better life for themselves. But we need to make sure, especially in this Year of the Family, that we protect our social services so there will be a better future for everyone.

Mr Minister, when you look at those shoes, remember, they were worn by the children who represent our future.

1340

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): For weeks we have been trying to figure out what the name change of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs really meant.

We asked the minister if he was given new authority. He said no. We asked the minister if he was given new funding. He said no. We asked the minister if he would have any new programs. He said no.

We asked the minister if he would now stick up for the farmers in the face of Bill 91, the NDP's plan to unionize family farms. He said he would not. We asked the minister to intervene against Ontario Hydro, which wants to use farmers' hydro bills to pay for sustainable agriculture projects in South America. He said he would not.

The minister was expected to protect agriculture in the recent budget. Instead agriculture funding was axed $34 million and given to the civil servants at Management Board. We asked the minister why his budget was falling out from underneath him. He said the previous Liberal agriculture programs had finished and he was helpless to extend them.

The minister's refusal to carry out his duties didn't seem to make any sense. It was as if the minister really wasn't in charge.

Then we looked at the June 1 issue of the Teeswater News and discovered the truth. The paper carried a photo of the member for Huron advertising the hours of a constituency office, but the member for Huron's job title, right underneath the photo here, reads, "Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs." Obviously, we've been asking the questions to the wrong person, an imposter. Meanwhile, the real minister was hiding out in Huron county.

I hope we can finally now get some meaningful answers to our questions, but I won't hold my breath.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise today to protest the inaction of this government respecting my private member's resolution, which was passed on May 4 of this year.

Provided that applicants meet the strict guidelines for firearms ownership which are mandated by federal law, my resolution would automatically grant a firearms acquisition certificate to those people who have successfully completed the Ontario hunter education course and those who have demonstrated a solid safety record through many years of shooting experience.

This issue is extremely important for hundreds of thousands of responsible, competent firearm owners in Ontario. Farmers, prospectors, fur harvesters, Olympic athletes and recreational shooters and hunters have demonstrated their proficiency through their actions and should not be burdened with another course or examination.

The establishment of yet another bureaucracy just to monitor and influence the behaviour of citizens who already obey the laws of the land is unnecessary. If people misuse firearms, either criminally or negligently, they must understand that they will lose their privilege to own firearms and be punished according to the laws of this province. But law-abiding gun owners cherish their privileges and they will comply with reasonable limitations on activities. It is not appropriate to assume that gun owners are criminals. It is simply not the case.

Common sense dictates that both the Minister of Natural Resources and the Solicitor General make an attempt to listen to the concerns of those whom their policies are affecting directly. I encourage them to do so and act upon the wishes of the elected members of this Legislature and grandfather in the FAC.

ASSISTANCE TO NIAGARA REGION ORGANIZATIONS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Recently I had the pleasure of presenting a couple of cheques to community organizations in my riding on behalf of the Ministry of Citizenship. The Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, based in St Catharines, received $14,400 as part of an anti-racism project funding. Meanwhile, the Lincoln Chapter of Native Women received over $24,000 from the ministry to establish a thrift centre. These are just a couple of examples of how our government is investing in small, people-oriented projects which have a big impact in our community.

April saw the Ministry of Community and Social Services provide $500,000 to the Rosalind Blauer Child Care Centre in St Catharines. This funding will help relieve the waiting lists working parents face when they try to find day care for their children.

We are investing money to help all sectors in the Niagara region. Other examples: $18.75 million over 10 years to tender fruit farmers in Niagara to protect prime fruit land; in the manufacturing sector, a $1.6-million capital grant to Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering; a $3.3-million grant to Court Valve in St Catharines; thousands of dollars in loan guarantees to companies, including Clark Machine and Franell Manufacturing.

Our government is investing in capital projects in Niagara too. Niagara-on-the-Lake Pumphouse Art Gallery, the St Catharines YMCA and Niagara College all have received money. This is part of $800 million that this government has in fact given to the Niagara region, and I want to support my ministers who have moved these projects along.

CARABRAM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It hardly seems possible that we roll through the year so quickly that Carabram, the very famous and very successful multicultural event that takes place in Brampton, will be held this year on July 8, 9 and 10. I would hope that all the members of the House who might have an opportunity to come out and visit Brampton and perhaps drop a few dollars there would visit this festival, because it is an amazing event.

It consumes about 2,500 or 3,000 volunteers involved in it right from day one after the event ended last year. I can assure you it will be a very successful and eventful opportunity for everyone to savour the sights, sounds and tastes of 21 pavilions this year without ever leaving the city of Brampton.

I urge members to get out and look at it. It's a model for the province of Ontario. I think it's a model for, as I've said before, Canada, and perhaps for the world, of us learning how to understand one another: our differences, our similarities, our likes, our dislikes, and so on.

In anticipation of that, my leaders over the years, both David Peterson and Lyn McLeod, have very graciously hosted a pre-Carabram reception here in the Legislature. That will take place on June 13 of this year after question period, and I believe it's in our caucus room. If there's any change in that, I'll be happy to let you know, but members can meet some of these wonderful people and can savour and taste some of those foods and sights right there. Perhaps if they can't get out to Brampton, that would be the way to do it. I invite you all to come.

TOURISM

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): June is Tourism Awareness Month. It's a time when all of us should reflect on the contributions which tourism makes to the Ontario economy. The tourism and hospitality sector is one of the largest employers in the private sector. But the tourism sector is shrinking, not entirely, but partially, because of provincial government policy over the last 10 years.

Some of the policies of the Liberal and NDP governments have created barriers to growth in the sector. Excessive income taxes and payroll taxes have contributed to the thousands of bankruptcies and declining employment opportunities in tourism. Our Conservative Party has some commonsense recommendations which, if adopted by this government, would help turn the industry around.

The government should cut provincial income taxes by 30% over three years. This would put disposable income back into the pockets of Ontario people. A Canadian Tourism Research Institute survey of summer vacation intentions shows that only 59% of Canadians plan to take a vacation trip this summer. The survey attributes lack of consumer interest in travel to the slow growth in disposable incomes.

In our Common Sense Revolution document, we have also said the government should cut workers' compensation premiums by 5%. This would save Ontario employers an estimated $98.5 million and would be of great benefit to tourism operators. It would allow them to invest and create jobs.

We've suggested that the government should eliminate the employer health tax on small businesses with payrolls of less than $400,000, which would be a boost to the countless small business people in this sector.

Yesterday, along with a number of my colleagues, I met with representatives of the tourism and hospitality industry. A major concern is the escalating cost of doing business in Ontario as a result of substantial minimum wage increases. Ontario has one of the highest minimum wages in North America and it's killing jobs and putting Ontario at a competitive disadvantage. The minimum wage in Ontario should be frozen until the economy improves and competing jurisdictions catch up. This is what the Common Sense Revolution is all about.

OTONABEE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm rising today to congratulate the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority on its 35th anniversary. ORCA is celebrating for six weeks, ending on June 26, with an exciting lineup of special events. These started on May 15 with the grand opening of the exhibition Once Upon a Watershed at the Peterborough Museum and Archives. During the same period a new environmental education program called The Environment Speaks is being offered to students in grades 6 to 11 of area schools.

ORCA has a great deal to be proud of. Since its establishment in 1959, ORCA has been responsible for the planting of two million trees throughout the watersheds under its jurisdiction. Boy Scouts and other community groups are involved in the planting.

This authority has taken a number of environmental and water control measures which stabilize stream banks and reduce the risk of flooding. The Jackson Creek weir, for example, was completed in 1987. It effectively removed over 1,500 homes and businesses from the floodplain of Jackson Creek and has paid for itself many times over by preventing floods that would otherwise have occurred. ORCA has worked with farmers to improve water quality in the Indian River.

I want to congratulate chairman John King and his board, founding chairperson Christine Nornabell, past board members and Dan White and his staff for the good work they are doing. Long may it continue.

1350

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming the Ombudsman, who is seated in the Speaker's gallery and who is attending at the presentation of her report, which has just been tabled.

I also invite all members to join me in welcoming a very special guest who is seated in the Speaker's gallery. He is a former member of this assembly who served here from 1951 to 1959, Harold Ferguson Fishleigh, who was for 38 years the honorary consul for Spain located here in Toronto. He recently celebrated a very joyous occasion, his 91st birthday.

He is joined today by his fiancée and family and friends, and tomorrow will be another joyous occasion as he and his fiancée are married. You're most welcome.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Mr Speaker, I believe that we have unanimous consent to proclaim Seniors' Month.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): It is with great pleasure that I stand in my place today on behalf of the government of Ontario to again celebrate Seniors' Month, the month of June. Of course, we all recognize the great contributions that our seniors have made to our society.

The theme this year is "Through the Years Together," and it depicts the contribution that seniors make not only to our families and our communities but also to our province. It is in keeping with the United Nations proclamation of the International Year of the Family, and we are very pleased that we can also contribute to that particular year.

Seniors' Month is always a joyful time for us in Ontario. It is a time that encourages us to reflect on the many ways in which the lives of Ontario's older adults contribute so much to our lives in Ontario. We also recognize that seniors are a fast-expanding group of citizens in this province and we are very pleased about that.

We also know that more and more seniors lead very healthy and active lives. Their volunteer contributions are great, and their time, their talent, their commitment, their wisdom and their energy contribute so much to all of the communities that we live in. This is the good news that Seniors' Month must remind us all of.

Later today in the foyer of the Legislative Building I will join the Lieutenant Governor and the Premier of Ontario, Mr Bob Rae, in congratulating 20 recipients of the 1994 Senior Achievement Award at a special ceremony in their honour. As you know, these are seniors who have so actively been involved in their communities, their neighbourhoods, in this province and in our society in their senior years. This is a time for us to reflect and to also congratulate them for their work.

These 20 individuals come from all across the province, from all the regions. They are native elders, they are women, they are people from all ethnic backgrounds. They are citizens who have truly contributed. Some of the contributions they have made, of course, are in the volunteer area, some are in helping our young people and in some cases it's actually innovative inventions that have helped this province.

So as we go through Seniors' Month I know that many of my colleagues on this side of the House and I'm sure on the other side will also be participating in different events across the province to honour all these individuals.

This year we have made a very recent announcement, and that is that in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs we have asked municipalities to nominate a Senior of the Year for their municipality. Some 87 municipalities in this province are participating in this new annual event, and they have already started to set up types of events to participate in Seniors' Month to again congratulate our seniors. I know that again my colleagues will be out there supporting the seniors in their communities.

As we go through the month, we will also be doing some very serious reflections, and I think this is an opportunity for us to look at the issues and the concerns that seniors have. Both my parliamentary assistant the member for Peterborough, Jenny Carter, and my other parliamentary assistant the member for Guelph, Derek Fletcher, will assist me in having very serious dialogues with the seniors of this province.

Yesterday my colleague the Minister of Health announced another phase of the Redirection of Long-Term Care and Support Services in Ontario, again another important initiative for seniors who want to remain in their own communities, who want to have a good life and to be respected and to live in dignity with some amount of independence in their communities. Of course, in recent years we have announced the new Advocacy Act and the Consent to Treatment Act, which, again, give our vulnerable citizens in this province a sense of dignity, of independence and of being able to participate in their communities with a better life.

Our ministry has also been working very hard with various community groups to see what type of resources seniors want to have in their communities. The different printed resources that we have through our ministry are of great assistance. The new resource guide that we have is being distributed across the province to libraries, community centres, agencies and, of course, MPPs' offices. This will be updated periodically to reflect the changes in programs and issues that happen across the province.

We also, last May, supported, along with the Minister of Education and Training, Intergenerational Week. This was an opportunity for seniors and young people to work together to plan programs and to bring the two generations together. In our new society, our new age, many of our young people do not have the opportunity to have grandparents. This gives the younger generation an opportunity to learn from seniors, to be able to meet a senior, to get to know someone and have a new friend, and have somebody they can share their life with.

We also, along with the Minister of the Solicitor General and our ministry, have participated with law enforcement agencies and have signed and are promoting Seniors and Law Enforcement Together, which is a new program and a new initiative that sensitizes law enforcement agencies to the very specific needs of older adults and the abuse that often happens to older adults.

We're very pleased with the work that we are doing in our ministry and that our government is supporting, along with our ministry. As you can see, I've named just a very few initiatives that the various ministries across this government are participating in. We can see that all of our colleagues are very supportive of seniors' issues and want to make for a better life for all of our seniors.

I want to thank all of the members today for acknowledging their support for seniors. I hope to see them later on in the foyer of the Legislative Building and to help participate with them and to celebrate Seniors' Month and all the contributions that our seniors have given to this province.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I too would like to join with the minister in congratulating the seniors who are being recognized in this province today. I know that they are just the tip of the iceberg.

I certainly have submitted many very worthy candidates for this honour but have not yet had one chosen from my riding. I'm going to continue that effort.

Seniors have three things, I think, that many of us are a little bit scarce on; maybe some of us in this Legislature. I will name them as wisdom, I will name them as time and I will name them as patience. I think those are virtues that can only be gained by living. In addition to that, many of the seniors I know are filled with empathy.

These people who are recognized today and those they represent are pillars in our community. I've seen it in every area of our community, whether it be in business, whether it be in the caring or whether it be in the nurturing and whether it be in the celebrating achievements in our communities. They bridge the generations. They keep in touch with the past those of us who are living now our fullest lives in our professions.

I'm very happy that the minister chose to give the opportunity to municipalities to recognize seniors as well. I'm very pleased that 87 municipalities have taken that opportunity and I hope that more will continue.

Seniors have made and continue to make a very significant contribution to Ontario. But I have a lot more trouble when the minister begins to say, "We are very pleased with our efforts."

1400

The very first thing I would like to mention is that this government chose, unlike the previous government, to not have one minister responsible for seniors' issues; they have lumped it in with a very busy ministry, and for that I am sorry. I think the one-stop shopping or the one phone number could certainly begin with the establishment of a seniors' ministry or a minister responsible for seniors.

I'm also having difficulty with the self-aggrandizement of the efforts on behalf of seniors, because yesterday's announcement, for instance, on long-term care was 95% reannouncement and, if nothing else, the new part of the announcement was delays of things that might happen in the establishment of multiservice agencies and more uncertainty about what multiservice agencies may look like in this province.

The seniors of this province in the life of this government have been faced with one uncertainty after another, whether it be through the drug benefit program, whether it be in access to those things that they felt they had access to in the form of provincial parks, whether it is in the OHIP regulations and the uncertainty surrounding those, whether it is even in the income that they are going to preserve in the income tax regulation changes.

The minister has stated that things have been done. I'm sorry; I don't agree. I feel that less has been done for the seniors than in many times in the past, and there's very, very little to celebrate in Seniors' Month in the form of government activity. I do hope that again we can remind the government that the seniors of this province deserve better, that certainty and security are something that they need, they want and they have earned.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On behalf of my leader, Mike Harris, and the Conservative caucus, we too would like to indicate our full support for seniors' week, to acknowledge not only the week but the entire month, Seniors' Month of June, and to celebrate the contributions of Ontario's 1.2 million seniors over the age of 65.

Perhaps it is symbolic that this year's observations lie in the shadow of the D-Day observances, perhaps the most significant symbol of the contribution and sacrifice that an entire generation of Ontarians and Canadians made. These seniors have made such significant contributions to society's freedom, to its wealth of human experience, to its legacy of independence, of giving to society and not taking from society and building this wonderful province, and we have much we owe to these seniors.

Having said that, I would have hoped that the minister, once she began commenting about her government's contributions, might have gone, within her own directorate or her Ministry of Citizenship, beyond the limits of ceremonial awards and the creation of yet another award, such as the senior-of-the-year award, into more substantive policy decisions that she can look to as the singular spokesperson on seniors' issues, such as how life for seniors in this province has changed significantly for the better.

Instead of an awards ceremony for 20 albeit extremely well-deserving seniors, perhaps we might ask those seniors, some of whom have contributed to developing volunteer programs to assist Alzheimer patients, just how they feel about our level of commitment, as the government of Ontario, to the ravages of this disease and how severely it afflicts so many Ontario residents and about the quality of life which seniors afflicted actually do receive.

Instead of an awards ceremony, handing out plaques, perhaps we might ask the minister responsible, the Minister of Housing, for example, why recent decisions were made to reduce the number of seniors' housing units by allowing for changes in the mix and the ratio because of potential vacancies, but reducing, in effect, the total number of dedicated seniors' housing units in this province.

Instead of another plaque on the wall for one of the recipients today, why has the Minister of Health, who should be contributing to improving the circumstances for seniors in this province, not resolved a very important issue which we raised over a year ago regarding Bill 101, where one senior citizen in a married couple becomes severely ill and had to go into a nursing home? The government, under changes a year ago, now takes the calculation of the higher income of the person who needs the nursing home. This has had a devastating effect on the women -- it's mostly women -- spouses who remain to maintain the home.

It's been a full year that we've been promised that this would be changed. If this year's theme truly is "Through the Years Together," I challenge the Minister of Health if she would please resolve this single issue, because 70% of poor seniors are women. They're living in poverty conditions. In fact, this regulation has forced a growing number of seniors to seek involuntary separation simply as a way of avoiding losing their principal residence as a result of this recent change in the government. These have been documented and shared with the government.

I say to the minister responsible for seniors that we appreciate very much your statements in the House today, but we need her to speak up in a more vigilant way in cabinet when these kinds of decisions are first made that adversely affect seniors. She can help to get them resolved.

On behalf of our caucus, we want to acknowledge that our seniors in this province deserve respect, they deserve to live in dignity and they deserve to have empowerment over the decisions in their lives. On this, I think all members of the House can agree. This is the kind of Ontario we hope they will be proud to live in in their senior years.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the minister responsible for auto insurance. This is an issue, as we all know, that is vital to millions of people in this province.

Minister, I have a memo from the Ministry of Finance. This memo is dated May 16. This memo is to repairers and insurance companies, and it says that the government is now going to charge sales tax to the consumer on the deductible portion of their insurance. In other words, Minister, if I have to replace my windshield on my car and my deductible happens to be $100, instead of paying what I used to pay, which was $100, I am now going to have to pay $100 plus provincial sales tax of 8%, or $108.

My question is, how do you justify imposing this new tax on consumers?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member raises a question that is not a part of my responsibilities, so I'm not aware of the memo to which he refers, but I'm certainly prepared to look into the matter and to find out and get information for the member.

Mr Offer: This is absolutely outrageous. Both the insurance industry and consumers are going to be outraged by this new policy. Your government seems to have nothing better to do than think of new ways to tax Ontario's hard-hit consumers. You, Minister, are responsible for auto insurance, and because everyone has to pay auto insurance, and indeed home insurance, which this policy applies to also, regardless of income, every new tax or tax increase on insurance hits lower-income people harder.

In your government's budget last month, your government promised no new taxes. Why have you broken your promise and imposed this new tax on consumers of this province?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member is a bit wrong in two respects. First of all, it's been very clear ever since the cabinet shuffle a year ago that this minister retained responsibility for an auto insurance reform package that was known as Bill 164, and until the end of this session I still retain responsibility for that piece of legislation. The member is raising a question about a tax issue. I've said that I don't have responsibility in this province for tax issues and that I will look into the matter and get information for the member with regard to his question.

1410

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary -- is this microphone working? -- this is a minister of the government; you are in the cabinet, Minister. The insurance industry has told us that it doesn't want this new policy. You're responsible for that area. They don't need it and they don't like it, because they think and know it's going to hurt their customers. This is not the way they want to do business. The insurance industry has also stated that your new policy, in their opinion, breaches every single policy of insurance now in effect in this province by changing the terms of those contracts.

My question, Minister involved with auto insurance: Will you admit that your new policy is ill conceived, unfair and will you retract it immediately?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite, in spite of the fact that he spent some time in the cabinet of this province, seems to have some difficulty understanding lines of responsibility. I've said that this area is not my responsibility and that I will look into the matter and get information for the member.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last October the minister set up a committee to look at immediate needs for dialysis facilities in Metropolitan Toronto and in the area surrounding Metro Toronto. That area is facing a crisis in being able to provide dialysis services to those people who need them.

Recently, we have learned that the committee has been instructed by an official in the Ministry of Health, Mr Donald Walker, that they "must provide for the annual growth of the dialysis population at no extra cost."

With a 10% increase in the number of dialysis patients each year, it's an impossible mandate. I'm asking the Minister of Health to confirm that her direction to her officials and the policy of the government is to provide increased kidney treatment services at no extra cost, and what directions she has given them to enable them to do so.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I think the record of our government in having spent $23 million over the last three years in the expansion of dialysis treatment around the province and our instigation of a study to look at the need for expansion in the central Ontario region speaks for itself. We know the need for dialysis is increasing at 10% a year, we know we have to plan for the first time as to how we can accommodate that growth, and I certainly don't expect to do that at no increased cost. I expect to do that as a result of the efficiencies that are happening in other parts of the system and our ability to reallocate funding within the Ministry of Health's budget to the areas where it is most needed, as exemplified by my announcement yesterday about our progress on long-term care, our increased funding of $15 million this year to cancer treatment and many other areas of reform and expansion that are identified.

Mrs Sullivan: Every single expert and every single patient support organization in the province tell us that we face a major crisis, not only in the Toronto area but in other parts of Ontario, such as Kitchener, Hamilton and Ottawa, where our dialysis services are operating at capacity or above their capacity. The Minister of Health knows full well that even with the new efficiencies she mentions in the delivery of care, it is impossible to provide dialysis services to existing and new patients without significant increases in the commitment from the Minister of Health to those services. The minister will also know that without treatment, people with end-stage renal disease die, and there is no other outcome.

If the minister is expecting to be able to increase dialysis services or to provide treatment on efficiencies alone that are achieved in the system, will she describe to us how she intends to ration services or describe those surrounds around which kidney dialysis and other treatments must be provided? Will she say people beyond a certain age will not qualify for dialysis? Will she say people from certain geographic regions will not qualify? Will she say people with multiple illnesses will not qualify? We want to know the standards on which this government will be making decisions if it is not prepared to say quite fairly and fully that it will cover the extra costs for those patients who require dialysis services.

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't quite understand what the member is getting exercised about. As I indicated in my response to her first question, we have expanded, by an extra $23 million, new facilities over the last three years. In fact, our total spending to expand the services for dialysis has been $44 million since 1989. We are treating 1,500 more people than we were.

Two weeks ago I was at Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines where they're renovating their dialysis unit. Last week I was at the opening of a self-care unit in Mississauga that is going to allow more dialysis treatment. We know it's increasing by 10% a year. We know we have to plan to expand that capacity and I believe it is important that we do that.

In order to pay for it, we may well have to manage our budget as well as we are now managing it. We have managed the $17 billion that is spent on health care in this province in a way that has enabled us in this fiscal year alone to move to expand community-based care for all kinds of care by 5% while constraining costs in other areas. That's the kind of management of the health care budget that allows the government to set priorities and to meet priorities, while at the same time constraining the overall costs of the system.

Mrs Sullivan: Twice in her responses to my questions the minister has mentioned $23 million which has been put into the budget by this government. That $23 million was put into the budget by the last government. It was a long-term kidney dialysis plan.

This government has put nothing new in planning for dialysis treatment and end-stage renal disease since it came into office. It is a horrible error for her, when we are going through another cycle of crisis in dialysis services, to stand there and pretend that she has done anything about this issue.

We have called for a long-term planning network to be put into place. The minister has refused to do that. There is no new long-term plan in place. People are sick and are dying, and nothing new is happening and nothing more is coming out of this minister. What is her next step, I ask her to tell the House, and when will she stop taking pats on the back from the previous government and start to act on her own hook?

Hon Mrs Grier: The previous government, before it brought in that last budget -- you know, the balanced one they announced in 1990 -- made a lot of commitments to funding. They didn't actually ever write the cheques. The cheques had to be written by this government when we looked at the true figures, made the tough choices and allocated the funding where it was required. We have expanded service for dialysis in Orillia, in Markham and in Mississauga, and have expanded it and renovated it in lots of other areas, so what she is saying is absolutely not the case.

When she asks about a long-term plan, the member, I think, sat on a committee that the member for Simcoe Centre had initiated for a week --

Interjection: Simcoe West.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- Simcoe West -- discussing dialysis services and hearing from my officials about the planning that is under way by the district health councils in central Ontario, because we know there is an increasing need. Instead of just making commitments for funding based on figures and facts out of thin air, as was done in the past, we are developing a rational approach --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- in a step-by-step way to identify the needs, to identify the best way of meeting those needs, and then to allocate the resources to make sure that people get the treatment they need in our Ontario in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999.

1420

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. This is one of the first opportunities I've had to ask you a question since your return from China. I know that last week, when I was away, the member for Carleton raised the issue of human rights with you.

I think you would agree with me that as a reasonably significant player in the international arena, what the Premier of Ontario says about human rights, as well as the perception that is left, is very important. That's why I was concerned to read the headlines in both the Toronto Star of May 29 and the Toronto Sun, "Don't Tie Trade to Rights, Rae Says."

Premier, would you not agree with me that this message, and the impression of that headline, is the wrong message, the wrong signal to send to the world about Ontario's level of commitment to human rights?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can honestly say to the honourable member that I am truly astounded by his question. First of all, he's asking me to take responsibility for headlines. In my political career over 16 years I've had to take the rap for a lot of things, but to take the rap for the imagination of headline writers on a day-to-day basis is something that is a responsibility that, I'm sorry, I just respectfully would decline and say to you that I think it's a little absurd to take that position.

Secondly, I would say to the honourable member that I would have thought that the position I've taken is one that would have his support. The position I've taken with respect to China is that we better advance the cause of human rights in China by being engaged there, by extending our ties, by doing what we're doing with respect to educational exchanges, by extending cultural exchanges and by deepening our ties and associations. I think that's how we best deal with the question of human rights in China.

That's been the position the government has taken after much consideration and, if I may say so, much discussion with other Canadian governments, including the federal government, where we felt it was important for us to move in a way consistent with Canada's record.

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

Hon Mr Rae: That is the position we've taken. I would think if it's now the position of the Conservative Party, since this is the second question I've received, that we should not be encouraging Canadian businesses to go to China, I'd like him to stand up and put that on the record and I'd be glad to share that with all those people who are now seeking to do business there.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the Premier's concern that he can't control the headline writers, but unfortunately the headlines were written, and whatever it was you said prompted them to be written. That's what is read.

Perhaps the unfortunate irony on this issue and what really creates a significant problem is that you have been such an outspoken advocate of human rights in the past. Just a year ago you said, "There is a difference in the political and economic culture between Ontario and Mexico, a significant difference, and we ought to say that." Those were your words, Premier. Yet you went on a trade mission to China within days of the fifth anniversary of the Tienanmen Square massacre without making a clear statement on Ontario's objections to human rights violations in China.

Whether it was intentional or not, and perhaps it was not, would you not agree with me that the signal this is sending around the world is that you have changed your position and changed your stand on human rights violations by countries around the world?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member, first of all, that even in my headiest moments the notion that what I say is somehow spread round the world like someone --

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Like a revolution.

Hon Mr Rae: -- like some sort of revolutionary doctrine, I must confess is a thought that hadn't occurred to me and certainly wouldn't occur to anyone who works with me.

I would say to the honourable member that my position has been extremely consistent and I think it's important that he should know this.

What I've said with respect to the question of trade with China, since that's the issue that he's raised, is that it should be possible for us to walk and chew gum at the same time. I know that's sometimes difficult for people to come to terms with, but it happens to be the case. It is possible in the course of the same meeting and the same conversation, and in fact has been possible in the meetings I had with Vice-Premier Zhu Rongji and in the conversations I've had with Vice-Premier Zou Jiahua -- in both cases I've made very clear to the vice-premiers that we have a different perspective on the issue of human rights, that we have a different legal and political tradition in Canada, and we want the opportunity to continue to discuss and raise these issues with the Chinese authorities --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- as the Canadian government will at other opportunities.

At the same time, I want to make it clear that I think it's to the advantage of China, to the Chinese people and to all those people in China who are pressing for a more open economy and a more open society, to know that they have a friend in the people of Canada and in the people of Ontario, and yes, in the businesses of Canada and in the businesses of Ontario.

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: I think as Premier I have a responsibility to convey that message loud and clear.

Mr Harris: Premier, in 1986, you chided the Liberals for inviting Bishop Tutu to the Legislature without the Liberals --

Interjection.

Mr Harris: Yes, you did, and I'm releasing that with this; you can read it. You chided them for inviting Bishop Tutu to the Legislature without making a clear statement of policy on trade with South Africa. Yet this same Bob Rae, who once spoke so eloquently about South Africa, said nothing strong about violations in China.

It's one thing to have your private conversations; it's another thing for the rest of the world to read the public pronouncements. You may find it passing strange that the Office of the Premier of Ontario, particularly the Premier of the largest province of Canada, is considered a major world figure when it comes to speaking out on human rights violations.

If we're going to trade with China, I believe we must make our stand on human rights clear. I would ask you this, Premier: Will you bring forward a resolution, standing in the name of the Premier of the province of Ontario, to be endorsed by this Legislature, to condemn human rights violations in China so that the world can know where we stand?

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member, why stop at China? Why wouldn't you have a resolution which would express concern for the condition of human rights all over the world? You can't have it both ways and I would say to the honourable member --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): If you can't have it both ways, what are you talking about?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't think question period gives me an opportunity, but surely if the honourable member wants to be taken seriously on this question, I'd like to know where he stands.

My position on human rights is very clear. What I've said is that with respect to China, I think we best advance the interests of human rights in China by being engaged. Do I make a distinction between that and the international boycott of South Africa or the international boycott of Haiti? You bet I do. If you don't understand the difference and you don't understand the distinction and you don't understand how it works, then I suggest that's another statement about the quality of the leadership you would provide.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Willowdale.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale has the floor.

1430

LEGAL AID

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. Section 2 of the Legal Aid Act states, "Subject to the approval of the Attorney General, the law society is hereby empowered to establish and administer a legal aid plan...." In the last two years, the legal aid plan has run up a debt of $64 million. As the provincial government is the major source of funds for legal aid, are you going to underwrite the deficit of the plan, and if not, when will you be proposing significant restrictions on access to legal aid so that the plan can function without debt?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The same answer as yesterday.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Should have taped Chiarelli's question yesterday.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I agree with the member from the loyal opposition that the member should have listened to this similar question yesterday.

There is indeed a $65-million accumulated deficit. That includes $38 million from last year and the current $26 million for 1994-95. The issue we have entered into with the Ontario legal aid plan and the committee that runs it has been how to deal with that in an appropriate way given their arm's-length distance from the government.

It's important for this House to recognize that the Ontario contribution to legal aid has increased enormously over the last five years. In fact, over that time, we increased our contribution to legal aid by 240%. We can't continue, given the current problems, to do that, particularly when the other major funder, the federal government, has increased its contributions by only 7% over the same period of time.

What we have done for over a year now is that ministry and senior OLAP officials have been working cooperatively on a number of different initiatives that fit well with the investment strategy we have in the courts, which we believe will gradually lower the demand for legal aid. In the meantime, OLAP knows that during 1994-95 we have set a limit for certificate costs of $194.8 million.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: It is their task to figure out how the OLAP plan is going to stay within its means.

Mr Harnick: The law society is currently considering eliminating divorce cases from the legal aid plan, and other civil matters, yet year after year criminal law, immigration and refugee cases continue to take the lion's share of funds available. What action are you prepared to take to amend the Legal Aid Act to ensure that those who need legal aid are provided with counsel, and for those who are repeatedly accessing for criminal offences and refugee and immigration matters, the plan have limits placed on them?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As the member is quite well aware, we do as the final resort have an opportunity in this House, all of us, to change the Legal Aid Act, if that were required. We don't believe it will be required.

We are working very hard with our colleagues of the law society in the legal aid planning, to look at how to do this in a cooperative and collaborative way, and there are many things that have come forward: for example, the refugee clinic, where some of the immigration and refugee law will be done in that setting; the clinics on family law, one of which includes no-contest divorce, not-contested divorce actions, that will be tested out to see whether that is a more effective and efficient way for access to legal assistance around these particular issues.

We believe very strongly that it is important for us to live within our means and to work together to do that. That's what we're doing with the law society.

Mr Harnick: I appreciate that a $65-million debt, to the NDP, isn't really a debt.

One of the reasons my party decided to use our opposition day debate today on the Young Offenders Act was that we wanted to highlight the fact that youths are guaranteed legal aid regardless of the charge or of parental ability to pay. We believe this section of the act reduces parental responsibility and unnecessarily adds to the cost of legal aid.

The federal government has chosen not to amend this section of the act in its amendments. We are well aware that Mr Rock, as a treasurer of the law society, might have some sympathy for the fact that while he was the treasurer this debt was being accumulated. Isn't this the best and most opportune time to go to Mr Rock and say, "While the legal aid plan is going broke, do something about this section so we can save $5 million a year from this one item alone"? Why won't you do that?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Indeed we have talked with the federal government about this and a number of other issues. This will be one of the issues that, as part of the year-long review of the YOA, will be looked at. There is a very important issue involved around the guarantee for young people of independent legal help. If they are required to depend upon their parents -- the act clearly has a section that outlines why they have to be eligible and they have to be accorded individual legal assistance, because their parents may in fact be in conflict of interest with them around this issue. This is something we would need to resolve. I think it is the reason the federal government decided not to put this particular aspect into this quick portion of the changes, but to wait until the year-long study has been completed by all levels of government.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): My question is for the Minister of Education. Last week you made a statement in this House on the question of violence in schools. There were a great many nice-sounding phrases in that document, and in terms of the general sense of where all members want to go, I think they expressed that. But one of the real concerns a number of us had, particularly out in the field, is what some of the specifics are that you and your government might be prepared to contemplate.

Sometimes I think we look for large, grandiose programs when in fact there are some perfectly good small but effective programs we ought to be supporting. The one in particular that I bring to your attention is the student Crime Stoppers program, which is in existence in provinces in western Canada and, as I believe you know, is also in existence in some of the states below the border.

The question a number of the school boards have asked is, is this government prepared to work with school boards in setting up pilot projects, providing limited funding to ensure that this effective and efficient program can be put into place? Minister, can you make a commitment to the House today that that is one program you're prepared to look at and to consider supporting with dollars out of your budget, some pilot projects in this province?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I was at the meeting of the Crime Stoppers program last week and spoke with them and had some discussions with the organization. There are already some programs being run in Ontario's schools with the Crime Stoppers program. Obviously, at the local level, as boards take the provincial policy on violence prevention, they will want to take a look at the options at the local level.

But if you're asking whether there should be money that goes from the Ministry of Education to police departments -- because that's in effect what the request is -- the answer is no, that would not be appropriate. Police budgets are funded by property tax dollars at the local level. We don't have those kinds of resources. And everybody through the consultation on the zero tolerance policy told us time and time again that these types of issues do not need to be dealt with by infusions of new dollars. It's got to be dealt with by taking this issue seriously and incorporating this in the way we do business at the local level and in our schools.

Mr Beer: What I find strange, Minister, is that I gather that your ministry and the Ministry of the Solicitor General have been looking at some options the province might go forward with in this area, but this kind of program is nowhere to be found in those discussions. Clearly, this is something that works. We know that in Edmonton, they have in all of their schools cut vandalism by some 35%. In Metropolitan Toronto, one of the boards has to budget something in the order of $1 million in terms of vandalism. This is something that could make the money back in terms of what it would save.

If it is you, as Minister of Education and Training, who is taking the lead on safe and secure schools, surely this is a program which has demonstrated its merit. What I am asking you, and I believe a number of people are asking, is, will you take this back? Whether it is you or the Solicitor General, it's a question of priorities; no one's asking for new money. These are dollars in terms of pilot projects that would show themselves to be successful and would earn back the money currently being spent to make up for the vandalism that occurs in the schools.

I ask you again, whether it is you or some other part of the government, will you not admit that these are effective programs and will you not see that a province-wide program in terms of pilot projects can be set in place so we can really see something tangible in dealing with vandalism in our schools?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think it would be unfair for the critic to say there hasn't been something tangible from the process. If you believe that, most everybody else who's been involved in the process of developing this policy would not agree with you. There is a very concrete policy that is now in place.

Yes, Crime Stoppers in schools is a good program where it has been implemented and it certainly should be encouraged. But I don't believe there's a need to put new money into the system. As you say, if this is a top priority, and it has to be, boards are going to have to reallocate resources, and so are police departments in terms of how they spend their dollars in our communities.

In terms of it being a good program and part of the overall strategy, I agree with you 100%.

1440

CHILD WITNESS PROGRAM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Attorney General. Attorney General, you would be aware that of the growing number of victims of crime in this province, perhaps the most tragic are child victims, because they are so vulnerable and because our laws don't protect them as well as they do adult victims.

You would be aware as well that the federal government made changes in 1988 to ensure that the rules of evidence and the Criminal Code amendments under Bill C-15 would strengthen the law to protect children who were physically and sexually abused. The minister would also be aware, during her tenure with interval houses prior to her arrival here, as well as her stint as the Minister of Community and Social Services, of the growing numbers of physically abused and sexually assaulted children in this province.

Could you please explain to the House why, since 1990, your government has seen fit not to expand the number of child victim/witness assistance programs in this province, similar to the one in London and the one in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I think the member is aware that both those programs were begun on a pilot basis. What we did as a government was to give them permanent funding -- they now enjoy permanent funding -- and to work with them to try and train, in our other victim/witness offices, those who need to deal with child witnesses. They have done a lot of that work, both in the Toronto area and in the London area. The London program and the Toronto program have worked right across this province, indeed across the country, sharing the expertise they've gained, sharing the report they've made and the kind of processes and systems they've put in place to assist children.

We would dearly love to be able to have that kind of program available on a one-to-one basis in every one of our jurisdictions, just as we would with the adult victim/witness programs. One of the reasons we are putting the victim fine surcharge into place on a provincial basis as part of this budget bill that's in front of the House is to give ourselves some of the resources that will enable us to expand the program.

Mr Jackson: Minister, we know that a growing number of child sexual abuse victims find themselves in our young offender system. We know for a fact that a disproportionately high number of young women offenders, as children -- their sexual abuse experiences go unreported, undealt with by the courts.

You'd also be familiar with recent children's aid society statistics that indicate that in 1992 there were over 21,000 allegations, yet the capacity of this province was such that only 7% of those cases were dealt with to the extent that they were verified. That's a serious gap in the statistics on the number of reported incidents and those incidents that can be reported because of the system we have in this province.

Recently before a legislative committee, Louise Sas, representing the Child Witness Project from London Family Court Clinic, indicated that the success of her one project in Ontario -- and I underscore the fact that it's the only program that deals with child sexual abuse victims on an individual basis.

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

Mr Jackson: Yes, I will, Mr Speaker.

The other project deals with group counselling for victims.

Ms Sas reported to this committee of the Legislature that the conviction rate for sexual abuse of children in that court jurisdiction is double any other court in this province. Minister, we're talking thousands of child victims --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Jackson: -- who could be helped by your programs if you'd implement them. Would the minister indicate to this House when the priority of her government will be to offer these court services for the growing number of child sexual assault victims in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We certainly acknowledge and are really glad that on a day when we're going to talk about the Young Offenders Act, the third party acknowledges that sexual abuse is an underlying issue for many people who are in the young offenders system, indeed at any level of offenders within our jails, within our systems. We believe it is very important as a preventive measure to deal effectively in the first instance with sexual assault and sexual abuse of children.

The member is quite right. Although we have the evidence from the London project that the kind of intensive work they do does enable the prosecutorial process to work more effectively in that jurisdiction, at the present time, until we are in receipt of some of the resources from the victim fine surcharge, it is not possible for us to expand that throughout the province in the way we would like. What we are doing is using the expertise that was gained by the London and the Toronto projects to try and train within our court system as many people as we can to expand the sensitivity to young people and to pledge ourselves --

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, he asked many questions, and I would like a chance to answer him.

The Speaker: Could the minister briefly conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The other issue is that at the same time this third party is proposing to cut social services by 20%, they're telling us we should be expanding these programs throughout the whole province. There's a real anomaly here between what they say they would do and what they're demanding that we do.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. I have received many telephone calls both at my constituency office and at my legislative office expressing deep concern over the fact that Bill 79, the employment equity bill, which received third reading on December 9, has not yet been proclaimed. Would the minister explain the reason for this delay, and would she assure the people of Ontario that Bill 79 will be proclaimed prior to summer recess?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): I want to thank my colleague for asking the question on Bill 79. Her commitment to human rights activities prior to her election, in fact during her entire life, has been of assistance to this government. I've been very blessed by the fact that many of my colleagues on this side of the House have been very supportive and very helpful to make this ground-breaking piece of legislation the best it can possibly be in Ontario and that it will set the stage for the changes in human rights. As the third party leader was talking today about human rights and human rights issues, yes, Ontario is on the leading edge of making sure human rights legislation and ground-breaking legislation is in effect and is going to be out there to lead the world, as he was saying.

In answer to my colleague's question, I'm really happy to report that we have been working hard on the regulations -- they are almost at the point of being released -- and also the guidelines. When we do, it will be in the interest of making sure this ground-breaking piece of legislation and the commission that is set up is the best possible type of commission for the clients we need to serve.

Ms Akande: This legislation has been hard fought for and long awaited by many who have not enjoyed equity in employment. This bill does bring greater employment justice to many workers. Many employers themselves are anxious to have the bill proclaimed so they can get on with the implementation. The proclamation of this act would contradict the rumour that the government intends to stall the implementation of this legislation as long as possible. Minister, when will Bill 79 be proclaimed?

Hon Ms Ziemba: My colleague is absolutely correct. There are equity-seeking groups that are anxious to have the bill proclaimed, but there are employers who have met with us and given us assistance because they too know it's important to have equity and justice in the workplace and they want to get on with the job.

I want to assure my colleague and the members opposite that this bill will be proclaimed as soon as possible, that it will be done in a timely fashion so that we can set up a commission that is appropriate, which will be doing the appropriate job for the employees as well as the employers, and that we have the best possible commission. I know with my colleagues' assistance that we will have that type of commission and that we will have the support from all members of this House to get the commission set up in an appropriate fashion.

1450

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services and it follows up on a question I asked him approximately six weeks ago concerning student welfare.

I had a call at my constituency office describing a situation which is quite alarming; that is, a woman phoned to say that her son's friends, many of whom are on student welfare, get together in an apartment -- this is her description -- get together and spend their money on beer at the first of the month. By mid-month they're out to the food banks trying to get money that way, and they know all the tricks about when to move out of an apartment and so on, so that they don't have to pay.

You and I have described this, I think, as, in theory, a good program that if properly applied can help students to stay in school, students who are in very difficult circumstances at home. In this circumstance her son is now doing everything possible to try to get thrown out of the house so that he can join his friends.

Would you describe for us the progress which you have made since the time that you spoke in the House about trying to deal with this particular problem?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I want to again thank the member for raising this question, and also I point out again my appreciation for the constructive way in which he's been dealing with this issue.

We have made some progress, I can tell the member that. I've had discussions since he last raised this question with me in the House with my officials. We've looked at a number of options, all of which are aimed, as I indicated to the member the last time, at our sense that what we need to do with this issue is to bring greater clarity around the rules, because, as he has said, I also believe that there is a necessity for this kind of support to be provided.

Certainly our sense is that in the large majority of cases where 16- and 17-year-olds turn to social assistance they do so for very legitimate reasons that we would want to continue to maintain. But there are certainly the kinds of concerns that the member has expressed today, and certainly others I've heard from a number of other people that also worry me as the minister.

We are, therefore, looking at how we can make the rules clearer without being overly rigid and, at the same time, what work we need to do to put that information out. I hope that we can do that in the very near future. We are looking at a variety of options now and I hope, as I say, that we can move on this sooner rather than later.

Mr Bradley: The kind of circumstance that this woman described to me is one part of the problem, and one part of the problem that has to be addressed. The other that the minister was interested in, and it affects the Ministry of Education and Training as well, is I guess one way that it's a little easier to police it is on whether or not the students will actually attend school, because the purpose is to keep those students, usually aged 16, 17, 18, anywhere from 15 to 18, in school so they can continue on, later on perhaps, to post-secondary education.

Would the minister inform us what instructions have been given or what conversations have taken place with the Ministry of Education and local school boards as to how they might better be able to apply the rules to ensure that the program deals in a positive sense with those who are genuinely in need and in a negative sense with those who are simply abusing the system?

Hon Mr Silipo: I know that our officials as they've been looking at a variety of options, as I was indicating, we've discussed also this particular issue of how we should go about setting out our expectations with respect to attendance at school. I know there have been some discussions with our colleagues in Education.

What we are trying to get to is a situation in which we can describe an expectation that these young people be in attendance at school, again recognizing that there may be individual circumstances and periods of time which could legitimately explain why they may not be in school, if there have been particularly, for example, instances of abuse etc and situations in which young people may need some counselling and some help, and which may very justifiably explain absences from school.

Beyond that, our expectation would again be that these young people be in school, and I think that in the implementation of the clarified criteria, if you will, we are working towards, it would be our intention to work not only with our colleagues centrally in the Ministry of Education and Training but also locally with school boards in ensuring that there is some connection at the local level between our officials and those from the relevant school boards to ensure that this is applied then in a consistent and fair manner.

TRUANCY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training, and interestingly enough it's one that relates to the question of my colleague in the Liberal Party. On March 31, I asked the minister what his current position was with regard to truancy. These are habitually absent young children whom we're concerned about, not just taking a day off -- it's been well documented -- but often with social and emotional problems and often high-risk for becoming involved in other types of illegal activities.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): In two and a half months --

Mrs Cunningham: It's been a couple of months, as my colleague from Parry Sound would advise you, and I'd like to ask you if you did review the documents I sent over to you, one of which is Understanding the Needs of School Avoidant Youths, put out by the Family Court Clinic researchers in London. If you have taken a look at them, what is your position on truancy and are you working with the Minister of Community and Social Services, because quite frankly, Mr Minister, he did have those recommendations and it was his ministry that has held up any progress with regard to this issue.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I have had a chance to review the documents and wanted to have the opportunity to discuss them in more detail with the member. Obviously, when you ask what my position is on truancy, I'm opposed to it. That's about as clear as you can get. But I'd certainly like to discuss in more detail some of the items that are raised in the documents she presented to me.

Mrs Cunningham: I appreciate the humour on behalf of the minister, but I know he was just doing that because he's in a particularly good mood for some reason today and also that he does take this issue very seriously, because if he's read it, that's more than I can say for others who have been in the Legislative Assembly with me for the past six years, and I will chastise the Liberal Party in this regard because we asked them these same questions.

What we need are changes to the Education Act, Mr Minister, and I hope you will take a look at the letter from Mr Steve McCann, if you can make a note of this, who was chairman of the habitual absence committee for the Ontario Association for Counselling and Attendance Services. I think he wrote you a very informative letter describing some progresses that were made.

He would like to meet with you, and my question is -- I'm not sure -- have you met with him? If not or if so, perhaps you could describe to this House what priority you're giving this issue within the ministry and if indeed you do plan on making some changes to the Education Act with regard to habitual absence of these young people, whom we're most concerned about, because we know in fact that they are the very young people who are becoming involved in other types of illegal activity.

Hon Mr Cooke: Any amendments to the Education Act that would come forward in a comprehensive way would come after the royal commission, so I'd certainly be willing to meet with you and Mr McCann and talk about this issue in more detail.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. The official opposition has criticized the government for doing nothing about air quality in Ontario. With the summer approaching, everyone is more conscious of air quality, and they are worried about the thinning of the ozone and want to know what we are doing. Minister, what initiatives has MOEE taken to deal with ozone-depleting substances?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I appreciate the member's interest. This is of course a very important issue, as the thinning of the ozone layer has ramifications for UV radiation and the effects on young people and others in our communities as the summer approaches.

1500

I'm sure the member is aware that we have taken action; that 90% of the ozone-depleting substances, CFCs and HCFCs in refrigerants, have been regulated in this province and that there is now a halons regulation out for public comment, which will be dealt with when we have completed that process, and that we are very close to dealing with the last 10% of ozone-depleting substances in this province, that is, sterilants and the other solvents. We will be promulgating a regulation very soon after we've completed the public comment process on those two substances.

Mr Malkowski: There are other air concerns that Ontarians have, particularly about smog. What has the ministry done to deal with this issue of smog?

Hon Mr Wildman: Obviously, smog and air quality is very important. The member will know that 50% of the smog-producing VOCs and NO_x in Ontario are transborder; they come from the United States. It's important that if we're going to be able to encourage our United States neighbours to control the smog-producing substances in their jurisdictions, we have to take action here.

The member will know we have initiated a vehicle inspection and maintenance program pilot project; that we have a stage 1 vapour recovery program in place; that today the dry-cleaning regulation is coming into effect; that we are moving to control the nitrous oxide and the volatile organic compounds in the province. Ontario Hydro is controlling its emissions by 40% by the year 2000, and the chemical producers are controlling theirs by 22% to 33%.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Mr Minister, I'm happy that children have come up in this Legislature more lately than in the past; I'm not happy with the circumstances under which the children come up in this Legislature.

As you likely know, the committee on social development, the standing committee of the Legislature, is at the present time studying the subject of children at risk. We have had many presenters come to us that work in the field as well as people who are served by the children's services branches of the agencies.

My question to you today is, when are you going to meet with these people meaningfully? When are you going to give them definite answers about their base budgets, about programs you can approve? They have all of these services on hold. Most of them are working in great areas of uncertainty. They can't plan for 1994, let alone 1995. Children's mental health services are in chaos, and the CASs are hanging on by a thread. Mr Minister, can you help them feel more secure?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I want to tell the member, as I'm sure she knows, that we've had one recent discussion with representatives from the various provincial umbrella organizations, including clearly the children's services provincial organizations, a couple of weeks ago. We indicated to them at that time that we were going to make some changes with respect to the children's ECP measure, which I know is at the basis of at least part of the question that the member has asked.

We indicated then that of the $13.7 million that was going to be coming into effect as a constraint this year to the budgets of children's services agencies, we were going to be able, as a ministry, to manage about half of that money and that the balance would have to be found either by what would turn out to be about a 1% reduction in the budgets of the children's services, which would compare to about a 2% reduction, which was what the total $13.7 million would amount to or, on the other hand, a 0.5% reduction across all agencies of the ministry.

We think that we can manage the situation more likely on the latter front, but we are finalizing those decisions and will be communicating very shortly with agencies right across the province.

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

Hon Mr Silipo: What we expect to see, Mr Speaker, is a process of discussion locally that would allow agencies, both in the children's services sector and in the rest of the sectors, for that matter, to work together to see how they can find some of these savings collectively so they don't have to necessarily come out of the individual agencies' budgets.

Mrs O'Neill: My supplementary has to do with other areas of children's services. I have heard as recently as this week that you are going to change the criteria for the subsidy for child care spaces. I would like you to confirm that. If so, could you tell us what the new criteria will be for the subsidized spaces of child care?

Hon Mr Silipo: I'm not sure what the member is referring to. As the member will recall, under Jobs Ontario Training we had broadened the criteria, and certainly we had looked, even after we had broadened those criteria, at the possibility of broadening them even slightly beyond that when we had to make the decision to restrict the number of additional spaces to grow up to 14,000 spaces, which is what we expect will happen during the course of this fiscal year. So there will be an addition of some 4,000 spaces in the system.

That will essentially fall under the whole umbrella of the existing criteria, which go right from the original Jobs Ontario criteria of people being in Jobs Ontario Training to those falling under the expanded criteria to, indeed, those falling even outside those criteria who come on board as a result of new centres that are built. That is something that will remain as it has. We had set it up as the policy of the ministry and we're not anticipating at this point any significant changes to that policy.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST LEGISLATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it concerns his Bill 163, the government disclosure of interest act, which replaces the existing Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

You will require members of municipal councils, school boards, public utilities, commissions and police villages to file within 60 days of either being elected or appointed a detailed financial statement containing a disclosure of assets, liabilities, sources of income and financial interests of that individual, the individual's spouse or minor children, as well as companies controlled by any of them.

Minister, how can you justify this double standard in which your government is bringing the whip down harder on municipal officials than on members elected to this Legislature?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The member is wrong. The standards that are applying to the municipalities are no more onerous than those applied to members of this Legislature. I guarantee it. He should read the act again.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have three petitions that are lumped together from the Queen of the Most Holy Rosary parish in Belleville, the Maranatha Christian Reformed Church in Belleville and St Joseph's Church in Belleville also. The petitions read:

"Whereas in our opinion the majority of Ontarians believe that the privileges which society accords to married heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas for our government to use our tax money to furnish contributions for the propagation of practices which we sincerely believe to be morally wrong would be a serious violation of our freedom of conscience; and

"Whereas redefining 'marital status' and/or 'spouse' by extending it to include gay and lesbian couples would give homosexual couples the same status as married couples, including the legal right to adopt children; and

"Whereas the term 'sexual orientation' is vague and undefined, leaving the door open to demands for equal treatment by persons with deviant sexual orientations other than the practice of homosexuality;

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

"We request that the Legislature not pass into law any act to amend the Human Rights Code with respect to sexual orientation or any similar legislation that would change the present marital status for couples in Ontario."

1510

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the members of Our Lady of Fatima Church in Renfrew, Ontario, forward 368 letters to our member, Leo Jordan, to be presented as a petition against Bill 167.

"Whereas every individual deserves to be treated with respect and dignity;

"Whereas each individual has the right to be protected from unjust discrimination; and

"Whereas procreation and the rearing of children involve responsibilities and sacrifices that are assumed by the majority of heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas homosexual relationships are not and indeed cannot be conjugal relationships;

"Whereas spousal benefits are intended primarily to help these men and women raise their families, same-sex couples do not need or qualify for support;

"We, as citizens, want the members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario to see that the traditional family be protected and fostered as the foundation of human society, as it was meant to be, and that the International Year of the Family be honoured and respected."

This is supported by 368 letters from the Lady of Fatima parish in Renfrew. I affix my signature.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that was brought in to me by Don MacPhail and Ralph Mooney. They were in the members' gallery yesterday, along with some other people who support the petition. The petition is like many others. It says:

"We, the undersigned, as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and citizens of Ontario, appeal for the Legislative Assembly to support the following." It goes on and says about how "Canadians believe in traditional family values" and that Bill 167, in extending privileges, undermines traditional family, moral and economic wellbeing of the province and is contrary to Holy Scripture. They cite Leviticus, chapter 20, verse 13, and they end up by saying, "Therefore, your petitioners request that the Legislative Assembly do not enact any legislation which would recognize, approve or support in any way same-sex relationships."

There are 39 names on this petition.

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition which has been sent by residents from Manor Park, part of my constituency:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on JACPAT (Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region); and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any new bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods;

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

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): "To the honourable Ontario provincial Legislature and Parliament assembled:

"We, the undersigned Canadian citizens of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature to the following:

"Whereas the Canadian Charter of Rights affirms Canada is founded upon the principles which recognize the supremacy of God; and

"Whereas the basic cell of Canada's free and responsible society under God is the family, the union of male and female in a permanent, loving relationship in marriage and the children which may result from that union; and

"Whereas the rights of consenting adults to pursue their sexual preference in private are protected under Canadian law; and

"Whereas a homosexual lobby seeks legislation redefining the meaning of 'family,' 'marriage' and 'spouse';

"Therefore, your petitioners request that:

"(1) The present provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights, which affirms and protects the God-given inalienable rights of all citizens, be applied equally to all; and that

"(2) The demands of the homosexual lobby for the legal recognition of their legitimacy be firmly rejected; and that

"(3) The demands of the homosexual lobby for same-sex spousal benefits, including their right to adopt children and the redefinition of 'family,' 'marriage' and 'spouse,' be forthrightly rejected."

I am happy to sign this petition.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Roman Catholic archbishop of Toronto has asked church members to register their opposition to Bill 167; and

"Whereas many Catholics disagree with the archbishop's pastoral letter on this legislation; and

"Whereas we wholeheartedly support extending full human rights to all our brothers and sisters in Christ; and

"Whereas providing same-sex couples with the same rights and obligations as other families will strengthen society;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature pass Bill 167, An Act to amend Ontario Statutes to provide for the equal treatment of persons in spousal relationships."

I affix my signature to that.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition from several members of my riding who belong to the Christian Social Morals Action Committee, and it is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, as a God-fearing people, are opposed to the victimization of persons on grounds of sexual orientation; and

"Whereas we, however, believe that attempts to establish and/or promote homosexual relationships as viable alternatives to heterosexual-based family do not conform to God's will for society; and

"Whereas Canadian law as established by the Ontario Court of Appeal (Haig vs Canada 1992) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact legislation to prohibit homosexual persons from adopting or raising children."

I've signed the petition.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I beg leave to present a petition from 2,000 petitioners addressed to the Parliament of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned Canadian citizens of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature to the following:

"Whereas the Canadian Charter of Rights affirms Canada is founded upon the principles which recognize the supremacy of God; and

"Whereas the basic cell of Canada's free and responsible society under God is the family, the union of male and female in a permanent loving relationship in marriage and with children which may result from that union; and

"Whereas the rights of consenting adults to pursue their sexual preference in private are protected under Canadian law; and

"Whereas a homosexual lobby seeks legislation redefining the meaning of 'family,' 'marriage' and 'spouse';

"Therefore, your petitioners request that:

"(1) The present provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights, which affirms and protects the God-given inalienable rights of all citizens, be applied equally to all; and that

"(2) The demands of the homosexual lobby for the legal recognition of their legitimacy be firmly rejected; and that

"(3) The demands of the homosexual lobby for same-sex spousal benefits, including their right to adopt children and the redefinition of 'family,' 'marriage' and 'spouse,' be further rejected."

I have affixed my signature.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition that begins:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas every day in our province lesbians and gays face legal discriminations such as not being able to see their partners in hospital, losing custody of children they have raised or paying into employment benefit plans and being barred from receiving the benefits they pay for; and

"Whereas every Ontarian deserves to be treated the same way by the law; and

"Whereas Bill 167 would end state-sanctioned discrimination;

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

"To give swift passage to Bill 167, Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, same-sex benefits."

There is a range of areas represented in the greater Kingston area. The first one on the list is Vince Maloney of Kingston. I sign this petition.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the NDP government of Ontario has proposed Bill 167, the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act; and

"Whereas the proposed changes would change the definition of 'spouse,' extend family and survivor benefits to same-sex spouses and would permit adoption by same-sex couples, as well as extend other rights and privileges to same-sex couples;

"Therefore we request the members of the provincial Legislature defeat Bill 167 at second reading."

I affix my signature to this petition.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth, and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

1520

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they've known about it for two years;

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

That joins the literally thousands of names that have signed this petition, and I've signed my name to it also.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products.

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces rather than act on its own to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

I have signed this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have been asked to read the following petition into the record. It's from a number of people in the Niagara Peninsula to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the majority of Canadians believe the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas societal approval, including the extension of societal privileges, will be given to same-sex relationships if any amendments to the Ontario human rights act were to include the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation' on the grounds of discrimination;

"Therefore, your petitioners pray and request the Ontario Legislative Assembly not to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same-sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Ontario Human Rights Code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation.'"

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have received a petition from the Chinese Presbyterian Church, and it goes accordingly:

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

"Christian beliefs and traditional family values recognize 'spouse' as a member of the opposite sex and 'marital status' as a sacred union between a man and a woman.

"The same-sex couples bill introduced by the Attorney General of Ontario will change the meaning of 'spouse' and 'marital status' and adversely impact our society both morally and economically.

"It saddens us to see Canada move away from its foundation of Christian values and beliefs.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing the same-sex couple bill."

I affix my name to that.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

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

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

Bill 18, An Act to permit Patients receiving Chronic Care to install their own Television or combined Television and Video-Cassette Recorder / Projet de loi 18, Loi permettant aux malades chroniques d'installer leur propre téléviseur ou leur propre combiné téléviseur-magnétoscope à vidéo-cassette.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 18 be ordered for third reading? Agreed. So ordered.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWNSHIP OF SEYMOUR ACT, 1994

On motion by Mrs Fawcett, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr124, An Act respecting the Township of Seymour.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SLOW MOVING VEHICLE SIGNS), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (PANNEAU DE VÉHICULE LENT)

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

Bill 176, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Slow Moving Vehicle Signs / Projet de loi 176, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne le panneau de véhicule lent.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): The bill rewrites section 76 of the Highway Traffic Act dealing with slow-moving-vehicle signs. The sign requirement, which currently applies only to farm machines, is extended to all slow-moving vehicles other than bicycles, motor-assisted bicycles and cars that are being towed.

However, authority is provided to make a regulation exempting horse-drawn vehicles driven by persons whose religious convictions or beliefs prohibit the display of devices such as a slow-moving-vehicle sign. Placing the sign on or near a fixed object where it is readily visible from the highway is prohibited, but an exception is made for facsimiles that are displayed for the information of highway users.

It is likewise prohibited to operate a vehicle on a highway if it is not a slow-moving vehicle but has a slow-moving-vehicle sign attached.

OPPOSITION DAY

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Harris moved opposition day motion number 3:

Whereas the number of youth under the age of 18 who are charged with violent crime in Canada more than doubled between 1986 and 1991;

Whereas the criminal habits adopted by these young people may stay with them all their lives;

Therefore, this House calls on the Attorney General to publicly and vigorously lobby the federal government to, at a minimum, make the following amendments to the Young Offenders Act:

Reduce the maximum age for a young offender from 18 to 16. All offenders over the age of 16 will be tried in adult court;

Streamline the process to ensure that young offenders who commit violent crimes are tried in adult court;

Streamline the process to allow offenders younger than the age of criminal responsibility who commit violent crimes and who understand the consequences of their behaviour to be tried in youth court;

Introduce stiffer penalties for young offenders;

Remove the requirement for the province to provide legal aid to all young offenders who request it, regardless of financial circumstances or the nature of the charge;

Once a young offender has been convicted of two offences, any subsequent offence will be tried in adult court and subject to a criminal record, as well as removing the publication ban on identity;

Mandatory counselling for all young offenders; and

Parents must make an appearance during a young offender's trial.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable leader of the third party has moved opposition day motion number 3, a resolution which stands in his name.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Carried.

The Speaker: Before carrying it, perhaps the leader of the third party would like to address a few remarks to the House.

Mr Harris: I know there are a number within my caucus who wish to speak on this issue so I will be brief, as in all our opposition day motions. I know that members have some thoughts that they feel very strongly about.

Today's motion is a response to the concerns Ontarians have expressed to me over the past several years about the fact that they no longer feel as safe as they used to in their homes. They don't feel as safe in their own neighbourhoods. They are increasingly worried about the safety and security of their children in school and the fact that an imbalance has developed, an imbalance in the justice system between the rights of the accused and the rights of victims, the rights of society.

1530

My caucus and I travelled this province extensively. We had open houses, we had hearings, we had questionnaires. We heard from those directly involved in the justice system in preparing our document, New Directions, Volume Three, and in that document we made a number of substantial recommendations to the government of Ontario. Some were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province of Ontario, some were joint federal-provincial and some were federal with serious implications for the criminal justice system in Ontario.

The fact of the matter is that other than the federal government now coming forward with some changes to the Young Offenders Act, we've had very little movement on behalf of this government in the areas we made recommendations on.

Interestingly enough, the majority of the recommendations dealt with preventing crime, dealt with involving neighbourhoods and communities, dealt with counselling, dealt with preventing crime from taking place in the first place. These were areas where we thought the government, in our view, had sent out signals that they're soft on crime, that they don't feel deterrence is an effective way of stopping crime. We thought the government would have moved on a majority of the recommendations. It seemed consistent with some of the things they talked about. We're very disappointed that there has been no movement even on those recommendations where we thought the government would have had some sympathy.

However, we have a situation today where the Young Offenders Act is under review. We believe it is very important that the Attorney General, the Premier and the cabinet of the province of Ontario reflect the views of Ontarians, not their own personal views but the views of Ontarians, because I can tell you, Mr Speaker, from the rhetoric we've had from this Attorney General, she is not speaking for the views of Ontarians who have spoken to me, who came to our open houses, who are writing me, who have concerns about the Young Offenders Act. The Ontarians I've talked to feel crime has worsened and they're right: violent crime has. They don't feel safe in their communities.

It's interesting that public confidence in the whole criminal justice system is deteriorating to a point where a system that was one of the great magnets for people to come and want to live and grow up and work and raise families in Ontario is now moving in the wrong direction, is now moving towards becoming a liability.

More than a third of women in this province say they're afraid to walk in their own neighbourhoods -- afraid to walk in their own neighbourhoods. This is not the Ontario I grew up in. This is not the Ontario we want. In my view, this is a priority that has been overlooked by the government. It's a sad comment on the level of public confidence in the justice system and we need to correct that.

Seventy-eight per cent of the people in this province believe that our criminal laws are too lenient, and a major cause of this erosion in public confidence in the justice system and in the sense of community safety generally has been the Young Offenders Act.

The Young Offenders Act has, with good reason, become a symbol of many of the ills which plague the justice system and the courts. It's become a major source of frustration for parents, for police and the young people themselves, all of whom must deal with the perception among hoodlums and gangs that the Young Offenders Act is nothing more than an inconvenience. It's not a deterrent; it's an inconvenience. It's a joke. They laugh at it. We've got to change. We've got to change the act. We've got to change that perception among young people.

Ontarians, I believe, have a right, and they are right, to be concerned about the impact of the Young Offenders Act on youth crime.

In 1986, the first year's statistics were collected for youth crime in Ontario. There were 3,885 charges laid against young offenders for crimes of violence. In 1992, six years later, that number had more than doubled to 8,463, an increase of 100% in young offenders' violent crimes. More worrisome is the fact that the number of weapons charges involving young people has also ballooned. In 1986, 1,087 weapons charges were laid against Ontario youth; in 1992, 2,352 charges involving weapons.

It was in response to these concerns that we formed the task force over a year and a half ago. We travelled the province, we listened to the views of Ontarians and during our travels we learned that not only do people perceive crime to be on the rise, but most Ontarians, including youth itself, consider the Young Offenders Act to be a sham.

In New Directions, Volume Three, we called for specific reforms to the Young Offenders Act, including tougher sentences for offenders, increased parental responsibility for their children's actions, automatic transferral of young offenders to adult court for trial of violent crimes and mandatory rehabilitation for drug- or alcohol-related offences.

Unfortunately, while the federal government has introduced several important changes, it has ignored some areas, and we see room for much more improvement.

Until the passing of the Young Offenders Act in 1985, the maximum age for discipline in Ontario under the Juvenile Delinquents Act was 15 years old; 16- and 17-year-olds were considered adults for purposes of trial in a court of law. On page 22 of New Directions, Volume Three, we call for a return to that system.

At this point in time, section 11(4)(b) of the Young Offenders Act requires that on request of the youth, the province provide legal aid regardless of the family circumstances. We do not agree with this approach. That's not the way legal aid is made available to adults. We think it is a complete abdication of parental responsibility. The new changes to the Young Offenders Act do not deal with this.

We noted in the Common Sense Revolution that legal aid funding has doubled from $124 million in 1989 to $249 million in this year's budget, and they see this as a way to cut costs. This one provision of the Young Offenders Act is costing Ontario taxpayers about $5 million this year.

The administrator for Ontario legal aid says there is no reason for it. Parents can pay these costs. If parents are unable to, the poor youth will pay, as we do now, with legal aid. But for some reason or other, when they brought in the Young Offenders Act, they said all the rules for who has ability to pay are out the window. The youth can just go and get legal aid, whether or not their families can pay. This has to change.

Ontarians have told us, as we travelled this province, that they want more parental responsibility, more parental accountability. This should be reflected in the Young Offenders Act as well. We've advocated increased parental responsibility in the House, in New Directions, Volume Three, on pages 11 and 12, and we'd like the provincial government now to lobby the feds to require at least one parent to make an appearance at a young offender's trial, as well as accepting the financial responsibility if the parents are in a position to do so. We raised this in a question in the Legislature on May 30, and we got what? No action from the Attorney General.

Ontarians I've talked to believe that parents must take more responsibility for their child's actions. I tell you that they see the decline in parental responsibility as a contributing factor to the increase in youth crime. If we're going to be on the offensive on prevention, we must start to hold parents accountable as well. The federal government changes do not address or increase parental responsibility. The Attorney General has been silent on this issue. That is not representing the views of Ontarians.

We call for stiffer penalties for young offenders, and in fact for violent crimes some of the penalties are increased. However, for others there is no comment at all. It's going to be a slap on the wrist. It's going to be the beginning of the start into a life of crime. This is what young people are telling us. They're saying: "We know we get a free one. We know the first offence is a free ride. Our peers tell us that." The pressure is on then. Sometimes the second and the third one is a free ride as well.

1540

Currently there are programs in some jurisdictions that transfer automatically to adult court any young offender who has had two offences where they've been convicted and they're charged with a third, no matter what the charge. This three-strikes-and-you're-out philosophy may well act as a deterrent to youth who see the youth court now as a joke. That was another of the recommendations we put forward that the Attorney General dismissed out of hand.

Two convictions already -- they're laughing at the system -- and charged with a third. It's time to stop the laughing, the joke. It's time then to send that youth on the third charge to adult court so he can recognize the seriousness of repeatedly committing crimes, of becoming a habitual criminal here in Ontario.

The new legislation calls for mandatory psychological or medical assessment of any youth convicted of a crime. Under the current Young Offenders Act, the youth has a right to refuse rehabilitation. This is not a mandatory rehabilitation program; this is assessment. In New Directions, Volume Three, we call for mandatory drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs for offenders charged with related crimes. That's on pages 11 and 12 of our document.

Perhaps one of the saddest stories I heard was from a young person who was speaking on behalf of a coalition of groups, calling, as part of penalties, for mandatory treatment, particularly for alcohol- and drug-related offences. This young person had been convicted four times of driving while under the influence of alcohol. On the fifth occasion, he got six years in jail. On the first four, he got no jail; he got no rehabilitation; he got fines. On the fifth occasion he got six years in jail because he killed two people.

He pleaded. He begged. He begged politicians to come forward and said: "Had I had to go to jail sooner, had there been more of a deterrent, had I realized the seriousness of the crime, had I been forced, upon first or second or third or fourth conviction, to take a mandatory course, maybe two more people would still be alive today in Ontario. Maybe I wouldn't have killed two people and had the fifth conviction."

We are calling on the Attorney General to speak up now, to lobby the federal government while the changes are going through, that we have mandatory rehabilitation programs as part of the sentencing for drug- and alcohol-related offences.

I want to provide as much time as I can for others to speak on this resolution. I am calling on all members of the House to reflect on the recommendations we made in New Directions, Volume Three. These are recommendations that came from the people. These are what Ontarians told us they want, what they need, what they require. Young people themselves are telling us this as well. If we're going to take back our streets, our neighbourhoods, our communities, if we are going to truly give young people a chance in this province, I'm asking this Legislature to pass this motion today and I am asking the Attorney General to represent the views of Ontarians as reflected in this motion to the federal government.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I've been interested to listen to the leader of the third party on this motion. He is quite right that the approach the Progressive Conservatives would take to this matter is considerably different than the approach we would take. However, he has quite systematically misrepresented the position that this government has taken, and I would like to take this opportunity to discuss very clearly what our position is.

In beginning that, however, I'm not surprised by the attitude taken by the Progressive Conservatives at this point in time, because at the time the Young Offenders Act came into being, Ontario took a position that made it very difficult for that act to be effective in terms of youth crime within this province, unlike our sister province of Quebec, which entered wholeheartedly into the administration of a youth justice system, put the resources into that youth justice system and then has worked since to ensure that that youth justice system acts both preventively and in a deterrent fashion.

This province chose instead to be somewhat equivocal in its response. One of the things that it did, because of course it did not agree that children between the ages of 16 and 18 ought to be treated in a youth justice system, was to use the system of split jurisdiction that we still have in this province, where those between the ages of 16 and 18 were looked after by the adult correctional services system with some obvious concessions in order to meet the needs of the Young Offenders Act, whereas all offenders under the age of 16 were dealt with by the Community and Social Services ministry and in quite a different context. In its very administration of the act, the then government set up a situation which tried to preserve what it believed ought to be the law of the land, rather than what was the law of the land.

Part of the issue we are dealing with is whether or not we believe that young people who commit crimes ought to be treated differently from adults who commit crimes. Our decision in this country, with the advent of the Young Offenders Act some 10 years ago, was that indeed the needs of young people are different, that the circumstances of their crimes are very often different and that the circumstances which lead to their rehabilitation are likely different.

One of the goals we share with the federal Liberal government is to maintain the spirit of a youth justice system but to make that youth justice system more effective, because where we do not differ with the Progressive Conservative Party is in its belief that the system now is not effective in preventing further crime and is not effective in deterring crime by many of those who come into the system.

Our position has been grossly misrepresented by the leader of the third party. We are very much a part of an agreed action by all attorneys general across this country to examine very carefully the Young Offenders Act and to find ways together to make it more effective.

I have been very clear that many of the actions we've already taken in terms of administering the justice system in this province are geared towards reallocating our resources and re-emphasizing our approach to the most serious kinds of crimes: interpersonal crimes, crimes of violence by one person against another, which I think we are beginning to understand are the most serious crimes in our society.

For many centuries, frankly, the emphasis has tended to be on property crime in the development of our justice system, and it is really only in the last 25 years that we have begun to understand that we need to put the emphasis on serious interpersonal crime, on the kind of violence of one person against another that is very serious and very long-reaching in its effects.

Many of the ways in which we have been altering the justice system, through administrative means, through the kind of allocation of resources in the system, is to effect some of that change more quickly. We welcome the actions of the federal government in saying that we must recognize the need, if we are going to put that emphasis on serious violent crime, on the deterrent effect of sentencing, on the way in which we are going to prevent crime, on the way in which we are going to deal with less serious crimes early on, because very often the young person who is allowed not to feel the consequences of those early criminal actions may be the one who ends up committing a more serious crime in the future.

1550

There are a number of different suggestions the member from the third party has made that I would like to deal with first. The part of his motion that calls upon me "to publicly and vigorously lobby the federal government to, at a minimum, make the following amendments..." is quite offensive, because I believe it is not necessary to lobby vigorously when there already is agreement between the federal government and this provincial government.

We are working together very hard. We are working together in concert with the other ministers to try and look at this act in a sensible way, to look at what really has been the case and to try and make it more effective.

I will certainly pledge myself to continue to work vigorously with the federal government and with my provincial counterparts to make amendments which will make the Young Offenders Act more effective.

But I do not agree with the ways in which the leader of the third party believes that can be accomplished. His solution is to reduce the maximum age for a young offender from age 18 to age 16 and all offenders over the age of 16 to be tried in adult court. He's not talking about the kinds of offences that we agree upon with the federal government, those serious, violent interpersonal offences which indeed should be more presumptively moved to adult court. We have agreed with that recommendation the federal government has made, that amendment.

He's saying all offenders should be tried in adult court. We don't agree, unless those are on the very serious and violent end of the criminal spectrum, that this is appropriate, because very often it has the effect of hitting an ant with a two-by-four, as one of the young people I spoke to about this whole situation characterized it.

Let me talk about our position in terms of the transfer. The federal government proposes a rebuttable presumption of transfer to the adult court for 16- and 17-year-old youth charged with first- and second-degree murder and other offences including those that involve serious personal injury. I'll read to you from our letter to the federal Minister of Justice indicating our response.

"Ontario believes that the transfer provisions are a critical component of the Young Offenders Act. They allow for sentences which reflect the serious nature of some offences. Ontario supports a rebuttable presumption of transfer to adult court for 16- and 17-year-old youth charged with first- and second-degree murder. We are, of course, assuming that you will proceed with your proposal to increase sentence lengths for murder in youth court.

"Ontario shares your view that, in addition to murder, offences involving serious personal injury by 16- and 17-year-olds should be dealt with more effectively. We support in principle the extension of the presumption to other offences involving serious personal injury, but we will require some clarification as to precisely which very serious offences would be included before we comment further."

We now know that those offences include weapons offences, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated physical assault. We are supportive of those inclusions in a presumption of transfer.

We also agree with the additional move the federal government has made which says there will be a reverse onus on young people to prove why they should not be tried in adult court in those circumstances. Young offenders will be given an opportunity to allow a court to hear the circumstances in which such crimes occurred, and a judge will make a decision based on the facts of that particular case, whether in fact a transfer to adult court is indeed in the best interests of deterrence or whether the same result could be dealt with better in youth court.

We don't know what the circumstances are of every case that comes before us, but as the member from Burlington pointed out earlier today, many young people who subsequently commit offences are very offended against themselves. Many of them have been the victims of sexual assault, many of them have been the victims of physical abuse, and it may well be that it will be in the best interests of a young person to have that kind of evidence laid before a court. It may well be that the kind of resources available to a youth court are more appropriate in certain cases, but the onus will be on the young offender and counsel to prove to the best knowledge of the judge that in fact that is in the best interests.

The other issue we asked to be addressed was, if we're going to have a presumption of transfer to adult court, where will they serve their sentences and how will we deal with the issue of transfer? It is not necessarily always in the best interests of young people, because they have been tried in adult court, to be incarcerated in an adult facility. That runs counter to the very nature of a youth justice system, which recognizes the specific developmental needs of young people and recognizes that the kind of treatment which may result in rehabilitation may be different for those young people.

In my letter of May 9 I indicated our position to the Minister of Justice:

"The issue of where transferred youth can serve their sentences must also be addressed. Ontario believes that transferred youth who are 18 years of age at a time of sentencing must not be placed by the courts in young offender facilities, and in addition, transferred youths should not remain in a youth facility beyond the age of 20."

We've run into many difficulties around where someone will be incarcerated when that transfer occurs, and the suggestions of the federal minister in the amendments that have been presented resolve some of those issues.

With respect to increased maximum sentences, we have been very clear -- we were in our letter and have been since -- that we do support an increase in the maximum sentences, but we want us to be very careful about how that applies. I again quote from my letter:

"The existing maximum sentence in the Young Offenders Act does not reflect the seriousness of the offence of murder. Ontario supports the proposed longer sentences in youth court. We also feel that the longer sentences must be accompanied by the proposed presumption of transfer. If sentences are increased without the presumption, courts may be reluctant to transfer even the most dangerous 16- and 17-year-olds to adult courts.

"Longer sentences in youth court will mean that jury trials will have to be held. Of the options put forward by your officials, we prefer the one that allows youth to have an election of trial by judge alone, in which case the judge would be provincially appointed, or by a judge and jury, in which case the judge would be federally appointed.

"Ontario supports an increase in parole ineligibility for youth convicted of murder in adult court. We would be interested in knowing what the actual increase will be, whether it will be different for first- and second-degree murder and the other offences and whether a judge will have some discretion in determining the parole eligibility date in individual cases."

So the characterization of our not being cooperative or supportive of these changes is simply not the case.

I go on to the whole issue around the removal of the requirement for the province to provide legal aid to all young offenders who request it regardless of financial circumstances or the nature of the charge.

As the member for Burlington pointed out today, many of the young people who appear in our courts are themselves the victims of abuse. It may not be in the best interests of young people who are in abusive situations in their families to be dependent on those families to provide them with legal assistance if they become embroiled in the criminal justice system. That was of course the purpose behind the section in the Young Offenders Act which clearly indicates that it may in fact be a conflict for parents to be responsible for the legal costs of children.

1600

But we do have in this province, with our legal aid plan, a way in which there is a means test for young people. We do have that in place, and it is up to the director of legal aid in each individual case to determine whether or not that situation warrants a legal aid certificate.

I would be loath to suddenly change that without a great deal more consultation with the legal aid directors about why that kind of decision is being made. Quite frankly, I share with the member a concern that if there are means in the family and if in fact a young person has the support of his or her parents and is facing a criminal action and those resources are there and available, it is appropriate for those costs to be met by the family.

I think, as I said the other day in this place, that what we must look at are the circumstances under which the best interests of that young person in front of the court are going to be served. I have no reason, on the information I have, to assume that this is not the case in all instances, but I have said that this is one of the issues we must be prepared to look at in our year-long study of the YOA: Is this being applied differently in Ontario than it is in other jurisdictions, and what is it that in other jurisdictions ensures that the best interests of children are being preserved while the legal aid system is being made effective? Those are the kinds of questions we want to answer in that study.

When the member of the third party suggests that parents must make an appearance during a young offender's trial, he seems unaware that now in the act a parent is supposed to attend at trial. In fact, the parent can be subject to contempt of court if that does not happen. However, there are many instances in which, because of the nature of the family out of which a young person may come, the courts do not insist upon that kind of presence because it may be detrimental to that young person, and the court is insistent on respecting the rights of the accused in these cases.

I would say that a mandatory appearance, although it may be attractive at first glance, may not be the right route to go. Rather, I think our problem is, how can we get parents more involved in the day-to-day actions of their children? How can we ensure that they are aware of what is happening to their children and that they are taking an active role in their children's lives? Those are issues for which I'm not sure the criminal justice system alone can take responsibility.

I think the kind of action being taken in the education system to try and get parents more involved at an earlier stage in the education of young people, to get them involved in the programs being taken against violence in the schools, to become more involved in the administration of programs within schools, those kinds of programs, those socially based, educationally based programs, are how we will get parents, first, more aware of what their young people are doing and, second, more involved in their lives in a very real way, whether or not they're facing a crisis.

I would say, however, that this is an issue that has been raised by other jurisdictions. There has been a number of different suggestions that have come forward from different jurisdictions, and they will be looked at in the comprehensive study of the Young Offenders Act to see whether there are some new suggestions that can make more effective the role of parents, or parent substitutes where that's appropriate, during a young offender's trial.

I need to speak to the issue of under-12-year-olds, this issue of lowering the age of those who are under the Young Offenders Act. First of all, there is no identifiable need for 10-year-olds to be covered by this act. There are very few cases where children as young as 10 commit serious crimes that require the kind of sanctions that are available under the Young Offenders Act. Obviously, where that happens we need to have some mechanism to deal effectively with someone who commits a crime who is that age.

In our province we believe the provisions available under the Child and Family Services Act and the Mental Health Act can be put into effect if the child commits a serious crime and is not covered by the Young Offenders Act. We would agree with the federal government's decision not to lower the minimum age under the Young Offenders Act.

The needs of youth are very different from those of adults. Their levels of maturity and responsibility are different. We expect different things of young people than we do of adults. Youth are impressionable, they are open to change and they're better able to learn new behaviours than we are as adults when we've repeated behaviours and they have become habitual.

We have a youth justice system that treats young people differently because there are significant differences in how we approach the rehabilitation of youth as opposed to the rehabilitation of adult offenders. Mixing young offenders with adult offenders may have serious long-term and negative effects on youths. Mixing adult offenders and young offenders often serves only to turn young offenders into hardened criminals.

A youth justice system puts more emphasis on treatment and education than the adult system does, although I would argue that some of the principles of the youth justice system need to be transported into the adult system rather than the other way around. Young people are still in need of guidance and direction, and they can benefit from a system that is more geared to their needs for rehabilitation.

In 1849 the Brown commission, which was then looking at the imprisonment of children in Kingston Penitentiary, noted the detrimental effects of housing children with adults. Frankly, it would be a shame if the effect of some of the reforms we were to make might move us into a system where that becomes the rule and the needs of youth were once more ignored.

The last item I would like to speak to is this notion that a young offender has two chances and then he's out. This kind of punitive approach to justice has been used in a number of jurisdictions, and there is absolutely no statistical proof or sociological proof that this kind of approach prevents further crime from happening or deters the actions of any individual. It is really important for us to recognize, particularly when we are dealing with young offenders, that very often it is the lack of support rather than the lack of punishment which has led them to the courts in the first place. That impacts very clearly on the whole issue of how we deal with their privacy, how we deal with their reputations.

There have been changes suggested in the Young Offenders Act in this first stage of changes around how we can deal with the availability of information about the criminal record of a young offender where that young offender is under the care of other institutions, such as the school system. It is important, I believe, for us to learn how to share that information in a way that is protective of the young offender, does not stigmatize that young offender but indeed acts to the protection of the whole community, particularly those who are dealing on a day-to-day basis.

So we disagree with the notion of completely removing the publication ban on the names of young offenders but rather believe that the approach the federal government has taken, an approach we support, that would allow the police and probation officers to share on an as-needed basis, in a confidential way, the information with those who will be responsible for caring for young offenders, would be the appropriate way to go rather than the kind of scarlet-letter approach that is suggested by the third party.

I would close by saying I utterly reject the suggestion that's been made by the third party that this government is soft on crime. In fact, we as a government, as an administration, have made more applications for dangerous offender status for violent criminals than any other jurisdiction.

In fact, the federal minister observed to all of his provincial, federal and territorial colleagues that if every administration used the part of the Criminal Code that allows dangerous offenders to be dealt with in an effective way, we would not have the kind of outcry that we have about the release of dangerous offenders into the community.

1610

We have focused our attention on administering justice in a way that reallocates our resources to ensure that serious crime is the focus of our attention. We are delighted that the federal government has seen the freeing-up of those resources at the lower end of the scale of seriousness as a possible solution to the resource problem that we have.

We believe that more treatment is necessary. We don't in any way believe the calls for mandatory treatment are foolish. But as a provincial government which then, without the assistance of the federal government because of the cap on CAP, would have to provide those services, we are very clear that if we are going to make treatment mandatory for young offenders -- and that would be mandatory not only for the young offender but, quite frankly, for the treatment facilities as well. They very often are unwilling to accept these young people for treatment, and that is another problem.

So mandatory treatment involves additional resources. We have said to the federal government, as has every other province, that we don't disagree with the need for increased treatment services, but we must work together as provinces with the federal government to find ways to pay for those treatment facilities and to make them more effective.

In closing, because I know some of my colleagues also want to address these issues, I would say to the leader of the third party that he has produced a simplistic list of changes that feed into a misconception about youth crime, that feed into a growing fear that indeed is there in our communities. I would call upon him, rather than taking the punitive stance that he has taken towards young people in our province, to recognize the responsibility we all have to ensure that we are taking every step in a preventive way and in a supportive way to ensure that young people do not become embroiled in crime at all.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I am pleased to join in the debate, but I'm sharing it with two of my other colleagues so I'm only going to have 12 minutes, really, to address this issue. It's a very important one.

It's interesting, reading through the motion put forward by the Conservative caucus, which now calls itself the PC caucus. I don't believe they want to be referred to or attached to that famous government that was in Ottawa for -- what? -- 10 or 15 years that apparently did nothing about reforming the Young Offenders Act at all despite the fact that there were untold numbers of meetings, there were untold numbers of suggestions on how it might be reformed.

It's interesting as well that at this time, as we wind down towards an election time, this resolution is brought forward. It's brought forward because you can see what's going to be in the banners that are passed out during the election: "Mike Harris Gets Tough on Kids."

If the former member for Brampton, the former Premier, Bill Davis, watches this debate or gets hold of this Hansard, I'm sure he would shrink from it. I'm sure that Dennis Timbrell, who was a member of this House, would shrink from the approach that's being taken by the Conservative Party in its diehard effort to regain power.

I find it disgusting that this would be done on the backs of kids simply because the children are not able to necessarily defend themselves. I find it smacks of the typical American approach to politics that Bush took when he saw that the mood of the people of the United States was to get tough on crime.

Let's get tough on crime. But some of the proposals that are made in here, number one, have already been done. I have to draw out the fact that that was done immediately by the present Minister of Justice of the new Liberal government, but he didn't come in with the slash, hack and burn approach that much of this resolution puts forward. He came in with a reasoned approach, much like my leader, Lyn McLeod, said: safe and secure communities.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Which vote-getting position is it this week? Is she for same-sex?

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

Mr Callahan: I think the proposals by my leader in terms of how we would deal with this issue have certainly influenced the federal government, because it's made many of the changes that we suggested. I would suggest that it's interesting that the Conservative caucus, the third party, while its government was in power in Ottawa, didn't seem to exercise that type of influence, nor did it care about exercising it, because nothing happened.

It was particularly revolting that there was an entire list out -- and I can't go through them; time doesn't permit -- of ways to deal with victims' rights. Nobody ever looks at the victims.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): You voted against it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Callahan: That's totally incorrect, and if one looks at the Hansard --

Mr Jackson: You voted against it when you were the government, Mr Callahan.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Burlington South, order, please.

Mr Callahan: If one looks at the Hansard of the day, the member for Burlington South doesn't know what he's talking about. In fact there was consensus. The way it was killed was the government of the day would not allow it to go to a committee. It wound up in committee of the whole House, which is called the death knell of any bill. So I think the member for Burlington South perhaps should look at Hansard and decide when he shouts out that we didn't vote with him; he should check it.

In any event, I find it somewhat interesting that the Attorney General has indicated to us that young people don't get legal aid without any checking out of their ability to pay. I'm going to tell you, Mr Speaker, that that is not reality. I know that in fact every young offender gets legal aid, even if their father is Rockefeller.

That's a difficult position, because that should not be the case, and I'll tell you why it's difficult. It's difficult in two ways.

The first one is that if legal aid is given to the child, the lawyer acting for the child doesn't know who his client is. He may very well be required, in fact he would be required, to not communicate anything that child told to him to the parents. He would be required to follow that child's instructions to the letter, and I suggest that in some cases that results in the detriment of that child, because that child is tried. Perhaps there are things that should have been asked about the young person. Perhaps they should have had a psychological report, perhaps the judge should have been asked to have them assessed as a person with a learning disability, perhaps a whole host of other things.

Without the benefit of having an adult to talk to, how does that adult know how to deal with this young person who has been charged with an offence after the event? They don't, because he can't tell them anything. Accordingly, all this stuff that you learn as counsel for this young person is lost, and if the young person particularly is hanging around with a bad group or perhaps is taking drugs or a whole host of other things, you can't tell the parent that. That, to me, is absolute nonsense. That certainly doesn't help the youth and certainly doesn't fit in with the intent of the Young Offenders Act.

There are some things in here that we could perhaps agree with in Mr Harris's resolution. I think mandatory counselling for all young offenders is absolutely necessary. Most of these people who get in trouble have got some difficulty. It's either something that's happened at home or they have a learning disability or some type of disorder, attention-deficit, and it should be examined. There is provision under the act that a judge can make that order, and he should be encouraged in almost every case, but again, as I say, if counsel is told by the young offender who's his client that he doesn't want this done, it doesn't happen and nobody ever finds out about it. This person just goes whistling on their way and perhaps commits a bigger and better crime at some later stage.

I think it's interesting as well that on the question of the money that would come from, say, selling a story on a particular crime, nothing has been done by this government. A bill was introduced way back when by Mr Renwick. It was defeated by the Conservatives, who suddenly have found a new interest in dealing with the proceeds of crime. I noticed that the member for Burlington South, I believe it was, introduced a bill on that particular area. It was Mr Renwick's bill just resurrected, yet they wouldn't allow Mr Wildman's bill to go through when the Conservative government was in office.

1620

It's interesting to see these St Pauls on the road to Damascus. They've suddenly had an entirely new approach to how they're going to deal with this because they've put their finger in the air or they've checked the polls and found that people out there are concerned about the Young Offenders Act. That's no secret; any one of us could talk to our constituents and they would complain to you about the Young Offenders Act. But did they do anything about it when they had control, a huge majority in Ottawa for so long? No, they didn't, and yet the Liberal government of the day, Justice Minister Rock, in a very quick fashion took steps in a very significant way to deal with it.

In fact, much of Mr Harris's motion today has no meaning. In a way, we're going to have to, I suppose, cut out some of it or vote for some of it and vote against some of it. I haven't quite made up my mind how I'm going to vote on this, because, as I say, some of the matters are totally offensive. "Introduce stiffer penalties for young offenders." Young offenders go from 12 to 17. What are you talking about? Are you talking about the 12-year-old who steals a loaf of bread from the corner store? Are you going to give him a stiffer penalty? How about the cane, or how about putting him away?

I find that the rush for power, the desire to win back power which they held for 42 years and lost makes these people seriously stiff-necked and rednecked. They certainly aren't the Conservative party of Bill Davis. They're not the Conservative party of Dennis Timbrell and other people. They've changed their entire approach, and it must be the American Revolution that's gotten into their blood. It must be the American advisers they've got who say, "Well, the people are ready for this type of stuff, so just go full steam ahead," and, "Everything that could have a sensible or middle-of-the road resolution, don't do that; go extremely to the right."

I guess I would do the same thing if I figured that the Reform Party was breathing down my neck and was considering introducing candidates in the next provincial election. In view of that, I suppose that's why you can feel the hot breath on the back of Mr Harris's neck. They're breathing down there and he's concerned. He doesn't want that to happen.

I've looked at Mr Harris's resolution and, as I say, I can go along with the mandatory counselling for all young offenders. That makes sense. I might even go along with, "Parents must make an appearance during a young offender's trial." The reason I agree with that is because it solves a bit of the problem of what I explained to you about counsel having as his client the young offender because of the way legal aid is given out in this province. It requires the parents to sit there and listen to what their child or their young person has done, and not be able to just avoid the consequences or to just simply say, "Well, it's not my fault," or to go off and do their own thing. They're required to sit there, and that might be good therapy. Maybe it will keep that kid out of court on another charge.

I can tell you, over the years that I practised under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which was the precursor to this, I represented clients, and my colleagues and I had a real conundrum. You were duty bound to represent that youth to the best of your ability. So you represented him to the best of your ability; you got him off; the next thing you know -- and this is a true situation -- I'm sitting at the dining room table one Sunday night and I get a call. This youth, whom I'd gotten off on several charges, had committed murder.

What had I done for that youth in terms of representing him? Nothing. All I had done was to eventually have him commit a greater crime. What did I do for the victim who died? Nothing. That was one of the difficulties of having the youth as my client as opposed to the parent, because I couldn't tell the parents what the problems were. I couldn't try to help this youth.

That's one of our difficulties with legal aid. I hope the Attorney General will look at it. Perhaps the parents themselves should be the holders of the legal aid certificate and should be the people who give the instruction. Or have we abandoned all responsibility by parents for their children? That's another issue.

The other thing I look at is in terms of the attitude or the book by Mr Harris in the next election where he's going to cut taxes and slash and burn. I wonder if they've really thought about what is at the root cause of much of the crime that is being perpetrated by young people. It's because they can't get a job. There are not available funds for them to be looked after appropriately. They're roaming the streets. You find more street gangs today than you ever did before. Young people are finding that their parents have abandoned them in a sense. The only people they can look to for some camaraderie and some relief and some benefit are gangs.

Swarming: Who ever heard of swarming years ago? That goes on. Who ever heard of robberies where people are arriving at the gas bar at night with a shotgun?

What approaches have been taken by either the present government or by the Conservative caucus in terms of supporting the bill that's presently before the standing committee on administration of justice on licensing ammunition? That's something that we can do within provincial jurisdiction. That bill should be passed through this place lickety-split. It would certainly be of benefit to everyone involved.

I have to say that I would love to speak more on this because I think it is a significantly important matter.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): But Bradley said you can't.

Mr Callahan: No. I have to close by saying that I probably have to think about this -- I'm going down to the justice committee -- as to whether or not I can support Mr Harris's motion, because of the right-wing things that he's got in there. But on the other side of the coin, I agree that the Young Offenders Act has to be looked at, has to be reworked, in order to ensure that the people in society are protected.

At the same time, we also have to never lose the appreciation that young people should be treated in a different way. They shouldn't be put in penitentiaries with adult offenders. They shouldn't be dealt with in the hole, the lockups in the courthouses, with adult offenders. They shouldn't be held in police lockups with adult offenders.

If we've lost the ability to understand that and if we're simply going to throw them to the sharks, then I think society is in bad shape, because we've already allowed these kids to run amok and we've created situations that allow them to run amok.

We have to craft the system. We can't just throw the system out and say, "The way we deal with it is, we make certain that if you have two strikes you're out." I seem to understand that this was brought up by a fellow by the name of Clinton in the United States -- a direct steal from Clinton. The Conservatives can't even be original when they bring something forward.

If you think about that, does that mean that if somebody steals two loaves of bread, for the third loaf of bread they go away for a significant period of time? I find that offensive and I think most Ontarians, despite the fact that they have a distaste for the Young Offenders Act, would agree with that.

It's been given very poor drafting. It's been drafted, I think, by people who have not really looked into it. It's been drafted in a way that is a sort of knee-jerk reaction to what they perceive to be the mood of the people in Ontario. I know the people in Ontario are mad, but I don't think they're going to accept this type of knee-jerk reaction. They want a reasoned response like my leader's and my party's comments on a safer community.

Having said that, I want to leave time for my other colleagues. I look forward to hearing other members in the debate.

1630

Mr Harnick: I rise to take part in this debate because the Young Offenders Act, for the people who live in my riding, has been a source of discomfort on the streets, in the shopping plazas and in every neighbourhood in my riding. There is a prevalence of youth crime in Metropolitan Toronto today, and one need only see the reaction of youth offenders to the crimes they commit.

In the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of January 15, 1994, there's a story about Halina Kucharska, whose 14-year-old daughter, Marta, was killed October 11 by a 16-year-old youth who was speeding in a stolen car on Manitou Drive. She still can't understand how the young offender could get off so leniently.

The youth was convicted of dangerous driving causing death, possession of stolen property, driving without a licence, breaking and entering and theft, and was sentenced to 15 months in a group home. The reaction of the mother of this young girl who was killed was: "For me, this guy, he's free. For my daughter, there's no life."

There is a litany of those kinds of stories. The 14-year-old by the name of Sam, in the Ottawa Citizen, Monday, April 4. Here's what he says. He says:

"Who cares? I think that's the attitude that a lot of young people have. They're not worried, because, you know, the Young Offenders Act is not that strong. Not like the laws for adults."

I have had in the past a client who was viciously assaulted by a youth gang, if you will. He was a clerk in a Mac's milk store, a gentleman who came here from another country, who worked at night to put himself through school in electrical engineering at Ryerson Polytechnical school during the day.

He was working at the Mac's milk store for about $5 an hour, $6 an hour, and one night he was held up at gunpoint by three youths. In the course of cleaning out the till, which wasn't enough for these three youths, one of them picked up a litre-and-a-half glass bottle of Coca-Cola and smacked my client over the head with that bottle. My client has never worked since that time and is permanently brain-damaged, unable to carry on any job or occupation.

During the course of the proceedings that followed, I received a phone call from one of the defendants, and that defendant said to me, "Mr Harnick, you can't do anything to me, because when that offence was committed, I was a young offender and I therefore bear no responsibility for my actions."

As long as that is the attitude that prevails, then the Young Offenders Act must be changed in accordance with the resolution that is before you today.

A study was done by Frederick Matthews, a community psychologist with Central Toronto Youth Services. One of the conclusions of this report, this $42,000 study, was that young people are not afraid of getting caught. They say:

"The Young Offenders Act, which covers those aged 12 to 17 and carries a maximum penalty of three years for most offences and five years for murder, is no deterrent. The majority view is that the Young Offenders Act is too lenient on first-time offenders and on those who commit violent offences involving the use of weapons."

That is a report from a community psychologist with Central Toronto Youth Services.

The statistics regarding youth crime are astounding. We have cases in 1992-93. The source of these statistics is the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics youth court survey. There were 311 aggravated assaults in 1992-93; 212 of those, 68%, committed by 16- and 17-year-olds. In 1992, 140,000 youths were charged by police for Criminal Code and other federal statute offences. The number has increased by nearly one quarter over the past seven years.

Slightly more than half of the youths tried in youth court in 1992-93 were 16 and 17 years of age. Half of all violent cases heard in youth courts involved 16- and 17-year-old offenders. Approximately 50%, and this is very interesting, of youths 16 and 17 years of age with cases disposed of in 1990-91, and the statistics have grown since then, had previous criminal histories. This was slightly higher than 42% for youths 14 and 15 years of age and the much smaller proportion of approximately 25% for youths 12 and 13 years of age.

That means that when a youth is 16 or 17 years old and coming back to youth court, 50% to 60% of those individuals, those youths, have been there before and have prior convictions. That is an astounding figure and that is proof of the fact that the young offenders project has been a dismal failure.

It's interesting to note, and I have to very briefly deal with this, that the federal minister has said that 16- and 17-year-old youth who are charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault will be tried in adult court -- these are the new proposals that have been made -- unless an application is granted for the youth's case to be heard in youth court.

I have some reservations. When I first looked at that proposal, I thought it was a very neat proposal. But the more I thought of it and the more I correlated this proposal with these statistics, the less I am in favour of that proposal.

What has to happen in a case under the proposed new act is that the judge must consider the interests of society, including protection of the public and rehabilitation of the young person. If that is the test -- and one can assume that this is going to be the evidence offered up, because the option will still be there to go back to youth court -- what will happen is that most of these cases, I predict, of 16- and 17-year-old individuals will go back to youth court, because to fail to do that would be an admission by the judiciary that youth court has been a failure. I don't think it should be the judiciary's task to have to deal with whether a youth court project was a failure or not a failure.

The statistics are astounding. The statistics say that 50% of all 16- and 17-year-olds coming before the court have been there before. That says that there is no level of deterrence in the Young Offenders Act. The motion that is before this Legislature today is a motion designed to deliver the deterrence effect so that the people in my riding can feel safe when they go to shopping plazas and when they go out walking in their neighbourhoods.

I want to speak very briefly about legal aid. We know that legal aid is in desperate trouble in this province. It's interesting that legal aid is under the auspices of the Attorney General. The mandate for managing the system is under the auspices of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

During a period of time when the now Minister of Justice was the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, in charge of overseeing the legal aid system, the legal aid system was not been able to make ends meet. They are now $65 million in debt.

That is why I would urge the Attorney General to call the Minister of Justice directly -- he's familiar with the problems -- to take away the opportunity of young offenders to get legal aid even when the legal aid system denies them coverage, because the act now reads that all a young offender has to do is go to court and ask for counsel and even though they've been denied by legal aid, they are automatically entitled to counsel.

My allotted time is complete, but I would urge the Attorney General to review our motion, to review the statistics and to recognize the importance of putting deterrence into the Young Offenders Act.

1640

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'm pleased to participate in this debate and I welcome the opportunity to debate the issues around crime and justice and the Young Offenders Act. Let me say, though, I do not accept many of the premises that have been put forward in the resolution. Once again, I think it typifies the third party in this House, of putting forward a very simplistic solution. Of course, they're caught a little bit now, because they put all these suggestions together and, now that the federal government has decided to move, they're not sure where they should stand on these issues, whether they should support the federal changes or not.

Let me say too that I appreciate the leadership our Attorney General has provided on this issue despite attempts by many to not accurately portray how the Attorney General in her remarks has responded to issues regarding changes to the Young Offenders Act.

I just want to repeat it again, to get it clear on the record. I'm quoting from the letter the Attorney General wrote to the Honourable Allan Rock on May 9, which she has used quite a bit in Hansard and in other comments. It says:

"Ontario believes that the YOA must be made more effective. Amendments are needed, especially in relation to serious violent crime. In particular, Ontario is concerned that existing maximum sentences are not sufficient. Ontario is also concerned that the existing provisions for transfer to adult court need to be strengthened to ensure that, in appropriate cases, charges of violent crime will be transferred."

You can't be any clearer. The Attorney General has provided leadership on behalf of the citizens of Ontario. The leader of the third party said, "You're not representing the interests of the people of Ontario." It's very clear that people do want longer sentences in the Young Offenders Act, and the Attorney General in her letter to the federal Justice minister reflected that in the comments I've just expressed. You can't be much clearer than that.

It is unfortunate that some people have tried to misconstrue what the Attorney General has been saying. The Attorney General has also been saying that we need to deal with the realities of why we get people in our criminal justice system, and I agree with her on that.

The member who just spoke, the member for Willowdale, talked about crime statistics, about the increase in the number of violent crimes since the Young Offenders Act was been brought in. I think it's important that we really analyse those statistics. Yes, there have been increases in violent crimes, but it's interesting to note where most of those increases have been from. They have been because we finally have policies, particularly in Ontario, where in incidents of assault against women, assaults by partners, domestic violence against women by their boyfriends, by their husbands, by their spouses, they're actually being charged and they're being convicted.

The leader of the third party said that it used to be that we didn't have as much crime in Ontario. Well, that's quite true, because they ignored it. It's only within the last 10 years that society has really gotten serious about dealing with the issue of domestic violence. Sure you can say that during the 42 years of the Tory reign we had a low crime rate, if you were ignoring all the domestic violence that was going on, not having formal polices that the partners must be charged. It's pretty easy to have a much lower crime rate if you're not dealing with it. We need to show some clear analysis of what's reflected by the increase in the crime statistics.

The other issue I want to deal with is that, yes, there is an increase in crime -- we all agree with that -- but some of it too is that the perception is maybe greater than the reality. Some of that comes from more extensive media coverage. I don't necessarily say that in a negative way. Crime should be reported, no doubt about that, and people are concerned.

But I notice in a recent article dealing with this issue, about whether crime has really increased, one newspaper editor said: "There's no doubt we cover more crime stories now. We report more of them. We do that because we want to be more in response to our community and we know it has a lot of resonance out there with the people who read our newspapers." So we know there has been increased media attention in terms of reporting that.

When I'm here for the four days of the week in the House, I listen to a particular radio station here in Toronto, and it's always interesting. Their major news reporter likes to provide a lot of comments; he likes to cover a lot of crime stories. Of course, these aren't the stories he's coming up with. He's usually getting them out of one of the tabloid papers, usually the Toronto Sun. I know it's the Toronto Sun. I can tell by the words in his radio broadcast that these are words right out of the article in the Toronto Sun.

I think there needs to be coverage, but we also need to keep in mind that the media are giving far more attention, some of it more sensational than ever in the past, to the sense that there is a tremendous increase in crime in our communities. I think that has helped feed the perception that our streets are not as safe. Of course, we know there are increases in crimes there, but we also know that it's not only our streets that aren't as safe. Speaker, you know as well as I do that for many women their homes are not as safe: If you are a woman, you are more likely to be assaulted in your home or in someone else's home than you are out on the street.

We need to look at some of the other root causes of why we have such an increase in crime, the perception that our society seems to play more off violent images. I just talked about domestic violence. If we have young people growing up seeing violence in their homes, I don't think it's surprising that they're going to act out some of that violence in the community in response to that.

The Attorney General and others have noted that many people who are offenders have been victims themselves. That doesn't, in my view, absolve them of all the responsibility for their actions -- they still have to be responsible and accountable for the actions -- but if we really want to be serious about reducing crime, we've got to get to those root issues, we've got to deal with those questions of prevention.

We've also got to have stronger deterrents under the Young Offenders Act. I compliment the federal Minister of Justice for the reforms he has brought in. I think they're appropriate. They deal with a lot of the issues.

Part of the problem from the public standpoint is trying to understand our justice system. The opinion I am about to express is my own personal opinion, not the opinion of the Attorney General or of the government. Not being an expert on our justice system, I find it a bit confusing, all this stuff about federally appointed judges, provincially appointed judges, who can deal with what. I find it a very confusing system and I assume much of the public does, and I wish there was some way we could streamline the differences between the federal and provincial systems.

We also know that one of the other significant changes about repeat offenders has to do with the issue of parole. Parole is a federal responsibility. We had a public meeting on March 31 in my riding, sponsored by the Zonta Club, called Justice Without Fear: What Can You Do as an Individual? Some 800 people attended that meeting. I compliment the Zonta Club for bringing more awareness to the public regarding that. One of the speakers there was Scott Newark, executive director of the group CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere -- I forget what the last two letters in the acronym stand for. He highlighted some of the examples of the National Parole Board, and there not being a degree of accountability in the national parole system. I understand the federal government is moving on that issue as well. I compliment them for doing that. It is long overdue.

In concluding my remarks, I want to repeat that our Attorney General has shown clear leadership in representing the people of Ontario and their concerns about crime in general, about the Young Offenders Act, about having applications for people designated as dangerous offenders so they could not be out in society, about transferring young offenders to adult court for serious crimes, for serious violent crimes. We've provided a great deal of leadership across the country in those issues, and I compliment the Attorney General.

1650

I want to repeat too that while in my view crime has increased, we need to look at those statistics, domestic violence etc. Because we are clear in saying that's no longer appropriate and charges are being laid, convictions are being made, the crime statistics have increased most dramatically in those areas.

Also, some of it quite frankly is because there's far more media coverage of the issues. The newspaper editors have admitted that, they're saying that in public, because they believe their readers want to hear more community news and when they hear about crime in the community they respond to that. I'm just reflecting what was reported in a newspaper article. I'm not saying that's my own opinion. That is what they're admitting, so we have to keep a perspective here.

Again, I believe Ontario, the Attorney General, has provided leadership in an effective way, not in a simplistic, out-of-date approach that we know has not worked in the United States, yet the third party, the Mike Harris Progressive Conservative Party, thinks it's going to work.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to take the opportunity to make my comments on the non-confidence motion that has been put before us by the third party. My first impression when I looked at it was that I was quite surprised that the third party put it forward. Their attitude in responding to problems, Mike Harris and his Common Sense Revolution, is to take an Ontario plan and get some American solutions, to feel that's the way we're going to solve that kind of problem. We are a proud province. We have our problems, but we are quite capable of resolving our own problems here.

In the short time I have, I want to put certain things on the record. First, I want to say that my wonderful city, the beautiful city of Scarborough, where people have aspirations and their challenges too, at times has been highlighted in the press as a place where there is violence. Someone observed that whenever there are comments made about crime, they talk about crime in Scarborough; when there are crimes being committed in other parts of the city, they don't designate the area. One would believe that Scarborough is the most crime-ridden place, but it's a wonderful place to live. I've lived there for over 25 years and I fear not; I walk streets calmly. Of course, I warn all citizens that wherever you live, you must make sure you are protected and not open to any kind of abuse.

I would just highlight some of the stuff I saw in this non-confidence motion: "Reduce the maximum age for a young offender from 18 to 16. All offenders over the age of 16 will be tried in adult court." I just want to remind the Conservative Party that this was the way it was before and it didn't help. They're responding in what I would call almost a knee-jerk approach to resolving problems and feel this "Build larger jails and punish as much as you can" will resolve the problem, and it will not happen.

It says, "Streamline the process to ensure that young offenders who commit violent crimes are tried in adult court." We must understand that there are not enough programs available. I was speaking to some people in correctional services, in some of the institutions, and they're extremely concerned about the programs that are not available within the institutions.

I'm sure the Attorney General is quite aware and is working together with her colleagues. Health, I understand, have more or less thrown up their hands. They need more psychiatric treatment and a lot more treatment for the young people there so they can be rehabilitated back into society. Many of the young people who are there today should not be there, they should be at some other institution, but we don't have enough programs.

Each day you're in this House, Attorney General, people are throwing at you to spend more and tell Correctional Services to spend more, but we know we have to prioritize that. I hope you can focus and tell your colleagues that the great need for funds for more and better programs within those institutions will go a long way.

The other part said, "Streamline the process to allow offenders younger than the age of criminal responsibility who commit violent crimes and who understand the consequences of their behaviour to be tried in youth court."

Of course, what happened in England the last time comes to mind, so we feel that if it would happen here in Canada these young people could not be tried. Of course, we have to make sure that the young people who are committing the crime understand the consequences. As I said, there are people there who are suffering in that institution who should not be there or who have psychological problems and we'll make sure that we don't sentence these people and, like the Tories are saying, "Let us have larger jails so we can put them all away."

I was fairly interested to see one of the areas there, "Remove the requirement for the province to provide legal aid to all young offenders who request it, regardless of financial circumstances or the nature of the charge."

I'm not at all surprised. That is a Conservative-Republican line that they put in there. In other words, the poor people who have access to legal aid of course should not get it. Because they're young, they should not get that. Many of the people who are there need that legal aid to make sure that justice is done. Oftentimes when the Conservatives are speaking, they sound like the privileged people who are saying of those who can't conform, "Throw them in jail because they're interfering with our nice way of living, and if they can't afford it, tough on them."

Legal aid was put in place to give a clear message that justice and the access to justice should be there regardless of what kind of money and status --

Mr Stockwell: Regardless of the number of times you offend? How many times can you offend?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Mr Curling: -- that we have. Somehow there's many of them, the same way they behave in housing projects, the same way they behave in anything that will assist those who need it, they feel that they should be somewhere else and should not be assisted in any way. It would be a sad day in this province that we cut off the legal aid to our young people.

One of the things, too, I saw here, "Parents must make an appearance during a young offender's trial." Why don't you get your heads out of the sand and realize that there are some young people who haven't got any parents and some of them have left home?

The Acting Speaker: Would the member address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Curling: Madam Speaker, I want to say to you, could you tell them for me to take their heads out of the sand and to say that there are some young people who don't have parents, some can't live at home, and if at court they don't turn up, Madam Speaker -- and you're much more convincing than I am to tell them that and I want you to tell them that.

However, I want to say, too, that somehow if we stop having that vote-catching, knee-jerk approach to things in our province, we may be able to focus on the problem and resolve the problem how it should be done. Of course, we are always saying that crime has gone up for the young people. Yes, crime has gone up in itself for young people committing crimes, but I gather that 75% of those crimes are minor crimes that young people have committed. Do they deserve to be in jail? The Conservative Party would tell you, yes, throw them all in jail for minor infractions. No matter what it costs for this incarceration, throw them in jail for these minor infractions.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Can we have the reference of the study that the member is quoting when he talks about those statistics?

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is certainly up to the member speaking. He has the floor; he has the right to say whatever he would like to say.

Mr Curling: I was about to give him the source, but even if I show him the source, he wouldn't understand it anyhow. The fact is, Madam Speaker, I want to say to you --

The Acting Speaker: I would ask you to respect all members in this House.

Mr Curling: Our leader --

Mr Stockwell: Withdraw that, Alvin.

Mr Curling: I withdraw that, Madam Speaker. Even if I give it to him and I work along with him, he may understand it, whatever I'm withdrawing.

Our leader had issued, of course, and I would suggest to some of the members there, if you want a source, the Lyn McLeod Commitment to Safe Communities. Within that, I will say to the honourable member, you can read her commitment to approaching how we're dealing with young offenders and what we should do.

1700

The fact of the matter is that the Liberal Party and myself and my colleague here are committed to see that the --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: His source is Lyn McLeod. Can he give us a date? Because we're not certain if she's changed her mind on this issue.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That is not a point of order.

Mr Curling: Every time, Madam Speaker, it seems to me that when the member for Etobicoke West takes his head out of the sand he comes up with these kinds of foggy suggestions himself. But I want to say to you the commitment we as the Liberal Party and Lyn McLeod have. I would suggest to many of the members there, go and read that. The fact is too that I suggest to the Conservative Party that we want a safe community, just like us all. Let us not approach this in a vote-getting approach in resolving this problem but in dealing with our young people in a manner they should be dealt with.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. This is not, as the member indicated, a vote-getting ploy; this is an effort to participate in the debate that's going on right across this country. The Alberta Legislature has established a special committee to look at the Young Offenders Act and have input into the deliberations at the federal level. We're trying to encourage this Legislature to do the same.

Of course, we're very concerned about the position taken by the current government in respect to the Young Offenders Act. The interventions of the Attorney General up to this point have not been representative, in our view, of the vast majority of Ontarians. We don't base that on mere speculation. We toured the province. We spent nine months listening to people in this province in respect to their concerns about justice and law-and-order issues. We believe that this motion put before the Legislature today is very representative of the concerns that we heard.

The Liberal member for Brampton South was speaking earlier. I was in committee and didn't hear his comments, although I gather they were critical of our motion. I find that interesting. I was reading a column by the editor of the Ottawa Sun some months ago, talking about the Young Offenders Act and the weaknesses of the act. He made special references to Mr Callahan, the member for Brampton South, and Mr Callahan's support for the Young Offenders Act and the fact that Mr Callahan was very active, through the legal aid system, in representing young offenders.

Perhaps it might have been inappropriate for Mr Callahan to be standing in this House today and making representations in support of the act while he is very much a participant and a beneficiary in respect to the act in representations of young offenders who have committed very significant crimes.

Mr Perruzza: Is he saying he is incompetent?

Mr Runciman: I'm raising that question, Madam Speaker, in respect to his participation. I think it's a valid concern that he should have identified his own participation in representing young offenders charged with serious crimes and his use of the legal aid system to fund those court representations.

I want to say that we agree with those who say that harsher sentences --

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): That's unfair, Bob.

Mr Runciman: I think it's quite fair -- sentences are not the only answer. I don't think there's any doubt about that. We've got to look at questions of unemployment, of the opportunities available to young people in society. We've been going through difficult times in the last number of years and we know that has indeed contributed to an increase in youth crime.

Our concerns are not centred around youth crime per se. We are very much concerned about violent crime, very serious crime, committed by young people in this country, let alone the province of Ontario, the penalties that they are receiving as a result of the commission of these crimes and the fact that many in society are taking advantage of the weaknesses in the system.

I appeared at the federal standing committee on health a couple of weeks ago. Some people in the tobacco business from Montreal were testifying about the smuggling of tobacco products into Quebec and how significant a problem that had been during the high taxation levels on tobacco products. They were indicating that virtually all the smugglers, the runners if you will, for the smuggling operators were people 15, 16 and 17 years old, young offenders, because they realized that the penalties they were going to receive were modest. They were earning between $1,000 and $2,000 a week as teenage runners and smugglers for organized crime. That's the kind of way this act is being exploited currently.

I was talking to a Metro Toronto police sergeant a few weeks ago about a car theft ring operating in a division in downtown Toronto. This was hard to believe, staggering in fact, but this division had the highest vehicle theft rates in North America. You think about Detroit, you think about New Jersey; this was downtown Metro Toronto, the highest vehicle theft rates in North America.

These were being committed primarily by ethnic organized crime units. When they would raid many of these establishments and arrest many of these people who could barely speak English, but could say two or three words, the first words out of their mouths would be, "Me 15, me 15." This is directly from front-line police officers in Metro Toronto. This is the kind of thing they have to cope with on a daily basis, and the Young Offenders Act is allowing that to occur. These are repeat offenders that the courts are not prepared to come to grips with.

In terms of having these people deported, again the frustration of the officers is that many of these individuals they're confronting, in this particular situation anyway, are sponsored by the federal government and it's virtually impossible to get deportation orders. So in fact they're back out on to the streets in this revolving-door court system, recommitting and jeopardizing the safety of society. There's no doubt this act has to be changed.

We had the member from Scarborough getting up here and saying that in Scarborough it's not a problem. Just a few years ago in Scarborough a young offender murdered three people. Because they wanted to protect the young offender, they couldn't reveal the identity of the young offender or his victims. But the reality is, those of us who followed this case know, that he murdered his mother, his father and his sister. A 15-year-old. What did he get as a sentence for that? Three years, the maximum sentence allowed at the time under the Young Offenders Act. That individual was allowed out on to the street after serving three years for murdering his mother, his father and his sister.

Is that justice in anybody's books? Certainly not in mine and certainly not to members of the Mike Harris Conservative Party, and it's certainly not the view of the vast majority of Ontarians, and we have to recognize that and come to grips with it. The NDP and many in the Liberal caucus are not prepared to do it. They're from a different time, 20 to 30 years ago, with these kinds of initiatives which have put us in the position we're in now in this country and in many other jurisdictions as well, this small-l liberal approach that we can rehabilitate and save everyone. It just ain't working, and it isn't going to work, and we have to address that problem.

I want to talk about a number of other cases that should be put on the record.

Mr Murphy: Put a million people in jail.

Mr Runciman: We're getting interjections from one of the far-left members of the Liberal caucus who certainly, apparently, doesn't see any real problems with the Young Offenders Act. It's passing strange, we just have to look back at the Liberals in their five years in office, and you talk about being soft on crime.

Mr Murphy: Try to be accurate, Bob.

The Acting Speaker: The member for St George-St David, come to order.

Mr Runciman: You talk about the Attorney General of the day, Mr Ian Scott -- who regrettably is very seriously ill -- I like Mr Ian Scott, but as an Attorney General he was a very soft individual in respect to crime and dealing with crime.

I cite this example of a court case in Toronto where police officers had worked for several years in arresting people in the illicit drug business in Toronto. What happened to those guys once they went to court? They were back out on to the street again. The police officers who had devoted so much time and energy and resources to getting those people before the courts were irate and said: "This is a revolving-door system. Something has to happen to the justice system to make sure we can get these people off the street and protect society."

1710

What did Ian Scott do? He got up and tore a strip off those police officers for going public with their frustration. That's the kind of attitude the Liberals have towards law and order and protecting society. That's the kind of attitude the Liberal Party has.

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: It's on the record; you simply have to look at the record. They went through Solicitors General for breaking the law. Unbelievable; we couldn't keep track of who the Solicitor General was for the Liberal Party. Every time you turned around, they had to resign because they were breaking the law of the province of Ontario. A fine example they've set.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: If the member wants to raise issues, we have a long, long record and a history of where the Liberal Party of Ontario stands in respect to its concern about public safety and maintaining adequate levels of law and order in this province. It's pretty miserly and something they should be ashamed of, including the current member who was just elected. We can't lay it on his doorstep, but certainly his attitude in the House today is reflective of the past history of that party.

We had a criminologist appear before us at a committee yesterday. This is an attitude of so many professionals in this business, who think that everyone can be saved, that we have to protect these people if they're young offenders. But the reality is there's some people out there who are very violent individuals. Despite the best intentions of society, we can't save these folks and we can't allow them out on to the streets to put society at risk. We have to deal with them in a meaningful way and the current act certainly doesn't do that, in many instances. We're not talking in a general case; we're talking primarily about violent offenders, but we're also talking about repeat offenders.

There's a case here, for example, in Calgary that is cited in a report by the MacKenzie Institute for the Study of Terrorism, Revolution and Propaganda talking about the Young Offenders Act, about an individual, a 16-year-old girl in Calgary, who had been shoplifting every day for a month before she was caught. Her sentence was to design a poster warning other youths not to steal. I'm quoting the report: "This pathetic attempt at discipline was not lost on her and she laughed after the court sentencing, quoting: 'Is something like this going to make me stop? Of course not. That's so stupid.'"

All we have to do is watch television documentaries to know that young offenders --

Mr Perruzza: Kim Campbell was the minister then.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): What did Kim Campbell do?

Mr Runciman: Certainly, and I'm very critical of the federal Conservative government as well. They had an opportunity. They were one of the major disappointments of anyone who supported Brian Mulroney and expected him to bring the Young Offenders Act into line with the concerns of the Canadian public. He didn't do it and that's why he's out on his ear.

You guys are going to be out on your ears and you're not going to be re-elected. The Conservative Party of Ontario under Mike Harris is going to be elected to form the next government of Ontario, because we're listening to the people of Ontario.

Mr White: In the next few minutes before my friend Mr Winninger speaks, I'd just like to comment a little bit on the motion in front of us.

There are many, many people in our communities who are concerned about violent crime; we hear about it every day in the Toronto tabloids. But the actual occurrence of violent crime has not increased. While the issue with youth between the ages of 16 and 18 is a very serious one that should be addressed and I believe is being by the federal Justice minister, while those changes are occurring, and I think many of us would applaud them, there are many other aspects of the Young Offenders Act that should be left alone and, if anything, should be examined in terms of their merits.

I would bring people's attention to the fact that under the Young Offenders Act as it presently stands, people who are young, people who are 12 and 13, are more likely to be incarcerated, more likely to receive serious sentences, than if they were adults. They have a serious, serious concern, because these are young people who may not understand the nature of the events. We're talking for the most part not of violent crimes. Where the violent crimes occur with the older members of this group, they should be dealt with much more severely than they are presently. In this I think we would all concur.

But this is a broad-sweeping resolution. It speaks also to those very young people whose concerns are not well addressed within our own system as it presently stands. If anything, this system is overly harsh with them. In those situations, where crowns are continually calling for incarceration on first offence for very minor events, that is not the proper way of treating young people. I have had innumerable experiences in my community where this bill has, if anything, been overvigorously pursued with very young people.

The issue of deterrence is there. The issue of addressing of those concerns is there. The problem we have, of course, is with the older part of this group, the 16- to 17-year-olds, and the violent crime, and it's a very isolated part of this group. In that area I think we can all agree, but with the area of the younger people, where the issues are unclear as yet for them, when they are trying to discover for themselves, often without good role models within their community, how to handle difficult situations, they need to have an approach that does not say to them, "You will be locked up for six months," when you don't understand the nature of your behaviour. I am talking here of the 12- or 13- to 14-year-olds, for whom our response needs to be moderated. For the older people, that's a different story.

I look forward to hearing the comments from my friend Mr Winninger.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I wasn't aware that my colleague from Durham Centre was going to be speaking, but I know he brings to this debate a lot of experience as a family counsellor and I think he had some very important insights he was anxious to share with you.

I think it's important to be mindful that even though youth crime only accounts for 15% of all violent crime and in fact only 8% of all homicides, we have to be very, very particular about how we treat our young offenders. On the one hand, there has to be deterrence, just as there is in adult court. There has to be deterrence, there has to be the principle of retribution, but at the same time, even though rehabilitation plays a very important role in adult court, it's even more paramount when you're dealing with youth crime, because the idea in the Juvenile Delinquents Act which was later imported into the Young Offenders Act is, there has to be a balance. On the one hand, you want to ensure that this young offender will not offend again, but on the other hand you want to ensure that this person will be given every opportunity to rehabilitate himself or herself, and that's the balance that has to be achieved.

I know our Attorney General is very concerned, and I know she spoke earlier today, about the increase in violent crime among young people. We need to come up with some very constructive ideas as to how we can get that rate of increase down and at the same time ensure that our young people receive the attention they need so they will not reoffend.

Certainly the federal Minister of Justice has put forward a whole series of amendments, many of which reflect the contribution of our own Attorney General in terms of ensuring that the transfer from youth court to adult court is streamlined where it's warranted, ensuring that there are more meaningful maximum sentences for the more serious crimes while at the same time ensuring that we fully and adequately explore alternative measures in the case of more minor offences.

I think it's common knowledge that the vast majority of offences that are dealt with in youth court tend to be of a minor nature. Certainly when I was practising in this area, the majority of offences were not violent offences; they were in fact offences against property. I'm talking about trespass to property, I'm talking about shoplifting, I'm talking about more serious offences such as car theft.

1720

On a first offence, the judge typically looks at all of the conditions -- looks at the background of the offender, looks at whether the offender is going to school or is meaningfully employed, looks at the kinds of family supports that are available for that young offender -- and, taking into account this whole constellation of factors, metes out an appropriate sentence. For a first offence of a minor nature, it may be a non-custodial disposition. For a more serious offence, even a first offence, it may be a custodial disposition.

We need to deal with serious offences, particularly those involving violence, in a very deliberate, meaningful way. I think the amendments put forward by the federal Minister of Justice, many of which our own Attorney General supports, go a long way towards meeting the perceived and actual need to deal with young offenders in a way that will ensure they are not likely to offend again. If this means that a young offender will be transferred to adult court and a more serious sentence is meted out, well, so be it.

I knew a lawyer in London who spent virtually all his time representing young offenders. He said to me that when the young offender first comes into his office and asks, "What's the maximum you can get for an offence?" he would say, "Life," because under the existing law, a young offender can be transferred to an adult court and dealt with in a very severe way.

I know my time is up, Madam Speaker, so I'll yield the floor.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue that's before us this afternoon, the issue of the Young Offenders Act and a call to have the federal government make significant changes to it to ensure that it is meaningful, first of all, to the young people it deals with, and also to our society at large.

I think there's a pretty strong consensus out there that the Young Offenders Act as it exists today does not satisfy the general population. The perception is, and I think there's some considerable validity to that perception, that many young people are well aware of the provisions of the Young Offenders Act and, as a result, are more inclined to commit crimes than they might otherwise be were the provisions tougher.

I recognize that many people who set out to commit crimes do so on the basis that they're not going to be caught, do so on the basis that somehow they will be able to outmanoeuvre the police forces and society at large and get away with the crime they are about to commit, and that they don't always look at the consequences. But my concern is that a larger number of young people today are aware of these provisions and they tend to know the steps.

Back when I was a teacher, I would encounter certain students who perhaps were on the wrong path in life, and those students were usually pretty streetwise. Those students usually knew what would happen the first time they appeared in court, the second time and the third time, and could generally figure out what would happen to them as a consequence of the actions they were going to take. This was even previous to the Young Offenders Act, so they know they are treated differently.

My concern is that not only are these people feeling this way, but there are older people who are prepared to take advantage of the fact that younger people have shorter sentences, fewer consequences than an older person committing a crime, and some of these people enlist younger people for that very purpose.

I also want to say that I recognize that the federal government has already taken some action. The Minister of Justice of Canada, Mr Allan Rock, announced in the House of Commons that there would be some changes made to the Young Offenders Act, and some of those were hailed as being rather significant. I'm not convinced they address all of the concerns that are out there. I think it's as a result of people expressing to their elected representatives the fact that they are dissatisfied with what they see happening under the Young Offenders Act, that it has resulted in the federal government taking some action.

There are some further suggestions this afternoon as to what might be done to toughen the Young Offenders Act. For those who are incorrigible, or almost incorrigible, probably this will work, to a certain extent at least. I hope, though, that we don't look at it as the only answer. I noticed in the resolution that's before us this afternoon that there would be mandatory counselling for all young offenders, and I think that's important. What we want to do is not make hardened criminals out of them. I suspect previously, when they were placed in adult institutions, that they simply learned from the so-called professional convicts who had been around for a long time and whose chances of recovering from this situation and changing their ways were very little in that direction. They learned something from them, and that was not good.

I think, however, we also have to go back to the causes of crime. I do not think it's satisfactory simply to list all of the difficulties that a young person has faced in life and then justify that as a reason for committing a particular crime. That, according to victims out there, does the victim no good. The victim or the family of the victim may say, "Yes, it is unfortunate that the person went through this in life, but it does not justify the commission of a crime." I think that has to be taken into account considerably.

If we want to attack in a punitive way with the potential penalties that are implied in this resolution, I think, side by side, we have to work on rehabilitation, and that is provided for in this resolution as well.

In addition to that, I think we have to look at the causes of crime, why young people are more vulnerable to falling into this field. Certainly, part of it is our changing society. Many more young people out there come from families which are -- I guess the word they use today is "dysfunctional"; that is, where there is only one parent who is trying hard to keep the child on the right path but finds it difficult to do so from time to time.

That really means that the Ministry of Community and Social Services and all of our society are going to have to look carefully at how young people are placed in these vulnerable circumstances. An example I give is that today we have, more often than we did in the past, children who are in fact raising children.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would invite members to listen to the member who has the floor. If you have conversations, could you please hold them elsewhere.

Mr Bradley: It used to be that many young people who became pregnant, say, at the age of 15 or 16 were counselled on the option of adoption. Today, they are counselled in a different direction. They are told all of the services that are available to a person who is 15 or 16 years old, and so the incentive to try to raise a child, as a child, is greater today than it was before. Children in those circumstances, more often than children in other circumstances, may face more obstacles in life, may find more difficulty in school, may be more vulnerable to outside influences which are not healthy for them.

While I admire those who have done a good job and struggled through those circumstances, it's mighty difficult. We find probably more of those children in circumstances confronting the law.

I think out there that people generally believe today -- and again, I think with some justification -- that young people are much more aware of their rights and of the specific provisions of the law than they ever were before. There is a perception -- some argue that it is not an accurate perception; nevertheless there's a very strong perception, I think backed up with anecdotal and some statistical evidence -- that we're seeing an increase in certain kinds of crime by young people in our society.

I don't think you can simply take them all and throw them in jail and hope that somehow when they come out they're going to be better citizens. They're not. That is why they require treatment; that's why they require rehabilitative services; that's why, as the motion suggests, they should have mandatory counselling. But there's only so much counselling that can take place, and where clearly it's not working, where clearly we have a repeat offender, where clearly the nature of the crime is such that a young person should be tried as an adult because they've committed crimes that are an adult type of crime, the penalty should be increased in those circumstances.

1730

Also, there's an issue dealing with the amount of money that's available for legal aid, and there's a suggestion in the resolution that less money be available for young people who are able to pay their own way; that in fact society should not pick up the tab for rich kids out there who get in trouble with the law and then turn to others to try to solve this problem for them in terms of providing money for the courts.

I think we have to look carefully at how the money is provided and decide within that, within the rules that we have, that we have to enforce those rules much more strictly and modify them when there's a necessity to do so, and the resolution suggests that this afternoon.

Earlier today I raised with the Minister of Community and Social Services the problem of student welfare. Student welfare, when it was started, was designed to keep young people from very difficult circumstances in a home life in school; to afford them an opportunity, when they're anywhere from, I guess, 14 to 18 or 19 years old, to stay in school to work hard to make something of themselves.

The program, just as probably the Young Offenders Act in its original concept, was well-meaning. But what's happening with that program -- and I think it contributes, to a certain extent, to the problem we're talking about today -- is that it's being abused. Young people are taking the money and then not showing up for school. If they show up for school, that's a different story.

We're also having some tough bargaining going on with parents out there. I raised a very genuine case today of a mother who phoned, totally distraught that the son in these circumstances was going around the house pulling things off shelves, trying to provoke the father into some kind of violence against his son, because then, of course, that would make for easy student welfare. He could move out of the house, go out with the friends, who seem to have a good time on student welfare. I'm just saying, in that kind of atmosphere, there's a greater chance that we're going to see problems arise with these people.

I don't know whether everybody is going to agree with every provision that's in the resolution this afternoon. I think it does address a problem that all of us are concerned about on all sides of the House. I've endeavoured to deal with it on a non-partisan basis.

I listen to people trading back and forth, telling who has got what. The Liberals have a paper out called Safe Communities. My good friend the member for Leeds-Grenville said, "Well, the Liberals are soft on crime," and then I heard him say before, "But they stole our platform." So I don't know whether we're soft or hard on crime.

Frankly, I don't think people are really concerned about the partisan aspect of it. They want us to address it. I think this resolution allows us a chance to talk about it today, and I certainly hope that some of the provisions are transferred to the federal government through the appropriate communications.

Mr Murphy: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the opposition motion put forward. I think it addresses an issue that is of reasonably top-of-the-mind concern to a number of people in my riding.

There is no doubt that there are aspects in the Young Offenders Act which need repair and reform. We've seen, within the last few days in fact, the federal Attorney General introduce a bill in the House to do much of what this very opposition day motion proposes. While it may be a bit redundant, belling the cat, none the less they're continuing to debate it.

Some of the proposals, I think you'll see, that reflect what this opposition day motion already has in it have been proposed by the federal government; that is, doubling the penalty for first-degree murder in youth court to 10 years; increasing the second-degree murder offence to seven years; 16- and 17-year-olds who are charged with very serious crime are to be tried as adults unless otherwise directed.

The interesting thing about that first-degree murder charge for young offenders is that it will be a sentence similar to what an adult serves, because it is a minimum of 10 years and they must serve it all.

An important change which may or may not be all the way that is necessary, and I'm sure that debate will continue in the federal House, is to take away the right of offenders to refuse treatment under the Young Offenders Act. One of the most important reforms in the federal amendments, which are supported by my party and my leader in the Safe Communities document, is permitting and requiring young offenders to do restitution or work in the community. That is an aspect of this issue which is completely ignored in the opposition motion brought by the Mike Harris party, as I gather it is now.

What I heard in the course of travelling in this province in the last six or seven months, as part of a justice and crime issues committee, as part of the Liberal Party, was people saying that what they wanted to see most of all was young offenders getting a sense of what the criminal actions they engage in cost the community, and that the best way to do that was to ensure that they went out and repaid those people they'd committed crimes against and repaid the community. That is an important amendment and is completely ignored in this opposition day motion, which I think is unfortunate.

As the member for St Catharines mentioned, the member for Leeds-Grenville was attacking the Liberal Party for being soft on crime and then said that our Safe Communities paper was stolen from their platform. Let me first say that there are some excellent ideas for reform in the Safe Communities paper, and certainly some of what is in our paper is also reflected in what the whatever-it-is-now-called party supports. I think the kind of proposals in the Safe Communities document reflect what the public wants and, most importantly, what will work.

What this motion does, most of all, is reflect what this newly named party has been doing on a series of issues unfortunately, which is pandering to the right-wing, reactionary element in a way that doesn't reflect what is going to work, because they've done that on a series of issues such that they've actually produced inconsistent and contradictory promises.

One of the examples in this very proposal is their suggestion for mandatory counselling for all young offenders. Then you ask, who's going to pay for it and how is it going to be paid? Yet another proposal of this Mike Harris party, or whatever it's now called, is a 20% cut in the funding to the people who would provide that counselling -- a 20% cut. So the very thing that they're asking for, they're going to take all the resources away for doing it. That is an area where there are already inadequate resources dedicated in the system.

The concern I have about the way the young offenders system is working now is that we are warehousing young offenders together to provide a training school for young offenders by putting together those who are committing the most serious crimes with those who are committing less serious crimes. We need to separate the two, provide the resources to the people we can rehabilitate and make sure we have a system that deters those from committing crime in the first place, because we have to maintain that balance between rehabilitation and deterrence in the system.

Unfortunately, the newly named right-wing party, which is the Reform Party of Ontario, I guess, has forgotten all about the notion that rehabilitation can work. I think we've seen in the dropping of the "Progressive" part of the Progressive Conservative Party name, the emergence, phoenix-like, of the pinched and mean-spirited soul of the Reform Party in this province and a series of panderings to the worst instincts, to those kinds of deterrent instincts that don't and won't solve the problem.

We have an example of that. Unfortunately, the member for Burlington South referred to that in the Syl Apps Youth Centre where I think he once said in my presence that they ate steak there and swam in pools, but it actually turned out not to be the case. It was responding to what people thought was going on, but it wasn't going on. That's happened in a series of issues.

1740

That being said, I think there is a need for toughening the Young Offenders Act. We are seeing some of that being done federally. It responded very well to the kind of proposals and reform that my leader put forward in the Safe Communities document.

I'd like to just give a sense of what this includes. My leader, Lyn McLeod, has proposed cracking down on gun-related crime; toughening sentence, parole and bail provisions; reforming the Young Offenders Act to provide tougher sentences for those who commit serious crime and focusing rehabilitation and community service orders on those who commit much less serious crimes; protecting women and children from abuse and crime; defending victims' rights; creating safer neighbourhoods through crime prevention methods such as safety audits and community policing; and importantly, again what this motion completely ignores, attacking the root causes of crime, such as poverty, joblessness, discrimination, family violence, lack of education and illegal drug use.

Some of the things my leader has encouraged me to do in that regard is, one, we've got a program I've started in my riding called the community witness program, where we are encouraging people who live in the community to come and give testimony at the sentencing hearings of individuals who are convicted of serious crime, especially drug dealing. We are having, I hope, our first case in this regard tomorrow, where we are having community witnesses come forward, and a whole bunch of members of the community to be sitting in the courthouse, to make sure that judge knows the community is not accepting of drug activity in our neighbourhoods. We hope the judge will listen and will give a sentence that is severe enough to send a message to these drug dealers and the others in the community to stop and get out.

I think it's interesting, in the last few minutes I have, to focus on the background to this motion, coming as it is late in the day after the proposals are already forwarded, after we've already seen reform to the Young Offenders Act coming forward federally, after we've already put forward our position.

The new Reform Party of Ontario is coming late to this with a proposal now. Do you want to ask why that is? Well, there's a gentleman named Michael Murphy -- no relation I assure you, and if there is, it's got to be from a bad branch of the family -- who in 1988, you'll remember, was the person who told George Bush to run the Willy Horton ads, which were mean-spirited, awful, directed ads that raised the unfortunate spectre of race in that campaign. This is the same gentleman, this same theorist of the low road in politics, who is now the chief adviser to the Conservative Party on these issues. Mind you, one would think for the money they're paying this fellow, he could be a little more creative and come up with a new idea.

I guess this is all part of the American Revolution for the Mike Harris party. I've taken a look at this American Revolution, and it's my view that it's out there. Even with 10,000 yogic flyers, this thing can't get off the ground, but the new Reform Party of Ontario is going to try it. I guess I'm prepared to say that the sensible middle of Ontario, when seeing the pinched, mean-spirited soul of the new Reform Party, will reject it.

I am looking forward to the opportunity to vote on our motion to amend what I think many people in my riding favour, which is a toughening of the Young Offenders Act but which shows a sensitivity to the need to make sure we rehabilitate those we can.

Mr Jackson: First of all, I've listened patiently to the debate and some of the comments that have come from the Liberal Party, which had countless opportunities during its five years in government to make substantive changes to our justice system and support services for victims in this province.

I've listened with interest to the comments by the government of the day, the New Democratic Party, which has had four years to govern, to make changes.

It's safe to say that in the last nine years, much has changed about the society we live in. It's not without accident that all three political parties are talking about the issue of safer communities, because the reality out there is that communities in Ontario are not as safe as they used to be. In fact, a hallmark of what constituted the wonderfulness of Canadian living was the safety we took pride in, the almost foolish notion that you didn't have to lock your doors, that you could leave your child's tricycle on your front porch and it would be there in the morning.

But unfortunately those images of the society we live in today have all but disappeared. In my community of Burlington we have seen far too much of the ugliness of crime and we've seen far too much of the victimization by young offenders in our community. So when we come to resolutions like we have today, we don't come to these resolutions without having listened very carefully to a lot of concerns being expressed by the average citizens of this province, who legitimately have raised questions about what they read in the media about how various cases are treated.

In particular, I am reminded of a couple of cases. The first time I ever raised the issue of the Young Offenders Act in this House was when a triple murderer, a young boy in his mid-teens, had murdered his mother, his father and his young sister, and before his three years were up he was out on day passes, unescorted, in the communities of Hamilton and Burlington. We pleaded with the Liberal government of the day that at least the police should be advised, as this individual had indicated that he would reoffend. He had rejected all manner of counselling and had expressed to other inmates in the Syl Apps Youth Centre that he was anxious to continue along the path he had been following.

It was only after persistent questioning and fighting with the Liberal minister of the day, Mr Ian Scott, the member for St George-St David, that we were able to expose one aspect of the Young Offenders Act that allowed the identity of this individual to be shared with the police, who in turn could administer aspects of public safety discreetly, but in the best interests of public safety.

The reason I share that story is because within it lies the whole notion that there's a political approach to the Young Offenders Act that has to be put aside. The public is demanding that we put it aside. In fact, when the Young Offenders Act, which I've often referred to as the last desperate act of Pierre Trudeau and John Turner and Jean Chrétien -- it was their last desperate act as they left Parliament in Ottawa, and it became proclaimed during the course of the new government. The act was riddled with problems, and only now are we getting around to making reforms.

But there was not consensus from Ontario, from the Justice minister, Ian Scott, and Hansard is filled with concerns raised both by the NDP when it was in opposition and by the Conservative Party in opposition, about the need for reform. The very words of the current Attorney General were, "Unless there's unanimity with the federal government and the provinces, nothing will happen." Well, that's what Ian Scott said: "I don't agree with the direction and the changes to the Young Offenders." In fact, Ian Scott's position was, in my view, five wasted years of potential for reforms.

You'll recall that the Liberals voted and spoke against the victims' bill of rights. I want to return to that, because many of our young offenders themselves have been victimized and their concerns were not taken seriously. The victims' fine surcharge was stonewalled by the provincial Liberal government of David Peterson and Ian Scott.

Today, the minister responded that we're the last province in Canada to implement the victims' fine surcharge, when the federal government gave us this legislation in 1988 -- wasted years under the Liberal administration of opportunities to surcharge criminals in order to provide the additional services that several members in the debate this afternoon have talked about.

1750

One of the problems we have is that this is a split jurisdiction with respect to young offenders. You've got two different ministries involved, three actually, if you include the Attorney General for overseeing the act; Solicitor General and Corrections is involved, and also Community and Social Services.

There are a couple of things I want to raise which have not been raised previously in the debate. My colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville has talked about the aspects of sentencing and the inadequacies there. I want to talk a bit about counselling and the lack of counselling, and the right of a young offender to reject treatment.

I want to remind of the House of a very current case, that of Rosalynn Dupuis, who was murdered by a young offender. Her mother appealed to the courts and pleaded with the courts to have the young offender who murdered her daughter tried in adult court: not for additional punishment, not for retribution, not out of bitterness. That victim's mother pleaded because the young offender would not receive any counselling in a young offender facility and would continue oblivious to the seriousness of the crime they have committed in this province.

I wanted to also mention, while the Attorney General is in the House, who herself has been a former Minister of Community and Social Services, that there are serious problems in the way Comsoc is administering the detention facilities in this province. I have raised in this House, for example, that it is possible for a 21-year-old, serious, high-risk offender to be in the same young offenders' facility with a 14- or a 15-year-old girl who may have been up on her third charge of truancy and has become unmanageable at home and the courts have concurred with this as an appropriate placement for this young offender.

In spite of the protestations by the government of the day, we were able to expose specific cases of this inappropriate mixing where high-risk offenders are in with low-risk, low-offence offenders. Although this motion today highlights a lot of the areas of concern, I want to underscore that we have concerns about the inappropriate mixing of young offenders in our facilities.

The member for St George-St David made reference to a comment I made about the Syl Apps centre and a swimming pool. I just wanted to remind everybody that the young offenders are doing quite well in our detention system. I have with me a copy of the architect's plan for the indoor swimming pool at the Syl Apps centre.

In spite of what the ministry wishes to say about denying it, our young offenders at the Syl Apps centre are getting driver's education training for free, or at taxpayers' expense. They're getting a better ratio of student-teacher participation in their education than any student in Halton region. They're receiving specialized educational programs, outdoor programs, travel programs. They're getting a better quality of living inside this detention than most of them will ever experience in their teenage years. That has to be a matter of concern, given the fact that we are all, in society, having to live with restraint.

As my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville asks, what kind of message are we giving these young people when we provide these kinds of support services to them in a young offender facility? It's not even a facility for criminals. It is more a facility for young offenders where the definition is that they haven't really committed a crime.

This resolution contains many of the concerns that have been expressed by members of the public. It's the tip of an iceberg that calls for substantive reform to the young offenders system; to be proactive and preventive in our school system; to identify these young offenders earlier; to ensure that the programs in the community that assist, such as mental health programs for children, are not severely cut so that these young offenders get into difficulty.

I remind members that when Mike Harris called for these amendments, he called for them with the full support of the citizens of this province, and they expect this government to react. If not, the next Mike Harris government will.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Harris has moved opposition day motion number 3. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1757 to 1802.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Conway, Crozier, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kormos, McGuinty, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Laughren, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 40; the nays are 64. I declare the motion lost.

It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1805.

7 juin 1994