Journal des débats 1994-juin-20 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On Friday, June 17, St Catharines lost one of its most beloved and respected citizens, a historian, a humanitarian, a poet, a committed Christian, a loving and dedicated mother, Helen Mable Smith.

Helen Smith was the heart of the historic British Methodist Episcopal Church on Geneva Street in St Catharines, planning many of its important anniversaries, playing a prominent role in its services and raising essential funds for its continued existence.

The history of the underground railroad and the role Harriet Tubman played in bringing slaves from the United States to freedom in Canada was shared with all who would listen to Helen Smith through her compelling orations and her meaningful poetry.

Helen was a determined and eloquent spokesperson for the black community in St Catharines, but her generosity and concern knew no barriers of colour and race. She was prepared to help anyone in need and showed love and compassion to all.

As family and friends gather from across North America at the BME Church in St Catharines tomorrow to say a final farewell to a wonderful human being, they will remember that charming, genuine smile, that warm, friendly personality, that persevering, undaunted spirit, and they will know that our community, our country and the world have been a better place because of her life among us.

The spirit of Helen Smith will be with us for an eternity.

ARNOLD PATTERSON

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'm pleased to rise and honour a constituent in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, who has been honoured this morning by the county of Dufferin as its Senior of the Year. Arnold Patterson is a most deserving candidate for this award for his never-ending efforts for community enrichments and strong leadership.

His political career in Dufferin county has spanned over 30 years. Even when his political career ended, Mr Patterson continued to support local projects such as the soon-to-be-complete Dufferin County Museum and Archives and the re-establishment of the Orangeville Opera House. The county of Dufferin has obviously benefited from Mr Patterson's historic restoration and preservation abilities.

Mr Patterson's community work does not end with preserving our history. Arnold has also worked hard with a local steering committee reviewing waste management in Dufferin county. He believes that waste management deserves a local solution and has been working towards such a solution on the local steering committee.

Arnold Patterson has always been able to balance his community work because of a strong and supportive family. Prior to his retirement, he also operated a successful family-run furnishing business that served the surrounding community.

I am pleased that the county of Dufferin has seen fit to recognize one of Dufferin county's senior citizens through this award. I would like to add my own congratulations and to personally tell Arnold that Dufferin county has been lucky to have such a tireless worker for the community. I would like to wish Mr Patterson all the best. I know that he will continue his good work by providing leadership and a steady voice of reason to our community.

EVENTS IN NIAGARA REGION

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I want to tell you about a unique and exciting place this summer, that is, Niagara Falls.

The July 1 Canada Day celebration is the largest community event of the year. All organizations in the city come together to enjoy a huge picnic, parade and birthday cake at Optimist Park, and this year I'll be giving out watermelon there.

July 2 will be the opening of the Niagara Gateway Festival Park and Welcome Pavilion with half a million dollars invested from Jobs Ontario. This includes a new park and outdoor amphitheatre overlooking the falls with great entertainment all summer long.

The Welcome Pavilion will have interactive computers to let visitors discover all that is going on in Niagara. Visitors can learn about the Shaw Festival, the Fort Erie Race Track, winery tours, Welland Canal tours and historic sites across the regions. In fact Sunday, July 24, will be the 180th anniversary of the Battle of Lundy's Lane from the War of 1812.

Our city is also gearing up for the Ontario Winter Games next March, thanks to a half-a-million-dollar investment from our government. Everyone is planning a great welcome for 3,000 of Ontario's young athletes and coaches. Downtown on Queen Street, the huge crane which dominates the skyline is giving rise to the beautiful new Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

Yes, a lot is happening in Niagara Falls, so come and see us this summer.

IGNAT KANEFF

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Mr Ignat Kaneff on receiving a doctorate of laws from the University of Toronto at a ceremony which took place last week.

Iggy Kaneff is the president of Kaneff Properties Ltd, a highly successful company located in the city of Mississauga. Iggy has for many years worked tirelessly for the community. The work he has done for many groups and associations is well known. They have been the direct beneficiaries of his boundless energy. His commitment to higher education has seen significant additions made to the Erindale campus of the University of Toronto, located in Mississauga.

1340

I believe Iggy is representative of individuals who continue to give back to their community. They continue to contribute to the growth of the place they work and live in. They continue to make it a better place. I share with many our heartfelt appreciation to Iggy for his compassion and commitment. He has made the city of Mississauga, and indeed throughout the regional municipality of Peel, a better place not just in bricks and mortar, but also in spirit.

To Dr Kaneff, his wife Didi and children, congratulations on an honour well deserved.

GEORGIAN BAY MARINE HERITAGE FESTIVAL

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise to encourage members of this Legislature and residents throughout Ontario to beat the heat this summer by attending the Georgian Bay Marine Heritage Festival, which runs through to September 30.

The festival will feature more than 350 events along the shores of Georgian Bay, and it also signals an exciting new direction for the tourism industry in this province.

More than 45 communities have joined with the private sector and community volunteers to help put this tremendous undertaking together. I am especially enthused that 130 of the organized activities will be held in the Georgian Triangle tourist area. These events include a Canadian navy competition, a re-enactment of key battles in the War of 1812, the re-creation of the Watt skiff and the holding of the world-renowned Collingwood Horse Show.

A quarter of a million visitors are expected to attend the 16-week festival. The highlight of the festival is sure to be the rendezvous of 16 tall ships and three modern feature vessels in Midland from July 30 to August 1.

I want to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the countless volunteers and organizers who have worked tirelessly and shown great vision in bringing so many communities together towards the common goal of enhancing tourism in the Georgian Triangle area. The Georgian Bay Marine Heritage Festival will not only help to make the world aware of the richness of tourism in Georgian Bay, but it promises to be the event of the summer. I invite all members and their constituents to attend.

ST CLAIR RIVER WEEK

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I had the pleasure this past Friday to take a short sail on the beautiful St Clair River in the riding of Lambton. The cruise was in celebration of St Clair River Week.

St Clair River Week is a celebration of the many groups and organizations that have been working on special projects to enhance this natural resource. The St Clair River plays an integral part in world shipping and tourism in the Lambton county area.

BPAC, the Binational Public Advisory Council, which is studying the St Clair River and ways to improve it, presented awards to groups that have contributed to the success of this project, going on now for six years.

The awards include the Walpole Island first nations for applying continuous pressure on authorities to enforce environmental policies on municipalities and industries. Also recognized was a group of students from the Port Huron area school district for evaluating water quality. The binational committee also recognized Imperial Oil for the installation of on-line analysers that allow continuous monitoring of the company's effluent to the river.

I am pleased, as the member for Lambton, to see such positive efforts in place to ensure that the above-average quality of the St Clair River is being maintained. I commend the Binational Public Advisory Council for all of its efforts. I also want to commend a group of little Brownies who paint fish on the water drains all over the city so people will remember not to put bad stuff down them.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): The Minister of Transportation should be aware of the conditions of highways 401 and 2 in eastern Ontario. Potholes and drainage problems have become commonplace.

Many constituents have asked me what the Minister of Transportation is doing about Highway 2 between Cornwall and Ingleside. For example, Mr John Vincun writes, "Sections of Highway 2...are in a deplorable condition, and parts are so bad that it now would be cheaper to resurface than to fill the numerous potholes."

I've also heard many complaints about the drainage and pothole problems in Glengarry county east of Cornwall, where the crown of the highway has moved up higher than the sides of the road, creating slippery weather conditions in the winter months.

Mr Gerry Major has stated it would be in the best interest of the government to leave historical highways in a state of repair.

Finally, the "Welcome to Ontario" sign that greets westbound travellers from Quebec on Highway 401 is a disgrace. The paint is peeling off and it is in need of extensive repairs.

The Minister of Transportation owes drivers in eastern Ontario an explanation of why the roads and the signs have been allowed to deteriorate to such a degree. With all the good news we hear about Jobs Ontario, the minister could at least fill in some of the potholes in the short term, and surely the minister could afford a can of paint to make the "Welcome to Ontario" sign a little more appealing.

When can the taxpayers expect improvements?

JAMES J. MORRISON

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): On July 2 the Wellington County Historical Society will be unveiling a plaque in Arthur to commemorate the life of James J. Morrison. I look forward to attending the unveiling ceremony in honour of Mr Morrison, who contributed so much to agricultural movements in Ontario.

Mr Morrison, who was widely known as J.J., was born and raised on a farm, close to Arthur in Peel township, which he later operated. The farm had been in the Morrison family for over four generations.

J.J. Morrison has been called the father of the farm movement in Ontario. A founding member of the United Farmers of Ontario, or UFO, and the United Farmers' Cooperative Co in 1914, Mr Morrison became the chief executive officer of both organizations.

The UFO won the provincial election in 1919. Mr Morrison could have been Premier but declined the Premier's office in favour of E.C. Drury, and instead he set and helped to implement the government's reform agenda during its four years in office.

An active participant in the Canadian Council of Agriculture, Mr Morrison helped to organize numerous United Farmers branches in the province of Quebec and in the Maritimes during the council's active years between 1910 and 1930. The dedication and hard work of Mr Morrison and his associates no doubt contributed to the strength of the present-day Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

J.J. Morrison knew and understood the needs of rural Ontario and successfully advocated on behalf of farm communities. Although it has been almost 60 years since his death, Mr Morrison's accomplishments have not been forgotten. The plaque in Arthur will serve to remind the public of his deeds and dedication.

MEALS ON WHEELS

TORONTO EAST GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I am very pleased to inform the members of the House of two very important celebrations that took place in York East last week.

On Thursday, June 16, Meals on Wheels celebrated 25 years of service by recognizing the contribution of their volunteers. I was very happy to celebrate with them on that day and express my own appreciation of the vital work that Meals on Wheels and their volunteers provide to the community.

From the little time that I have been able to spare to volunteer with this organization, I have gained firsthand understanding of just what it means to our elderly and disabled to have someone reach out a helping hand, to take some time to stop by to chat and to show how much we genuinely care. Again, I would like to say what an excellent job Meals on Wheels and their volunteers are doing.

On Saturday, June 18, Toronto East General Hospital celebrated their 65th anniversary by hosting an open house. The day included tours of different departments, checkups for the children's teddy bears and entertainment of a multicultural theme.

There was a very strong sense of community that day, and rightly so, since it was the community, way back in 1914, which saw a need for a hospital east of the Don River. It was the community which built the hospital, and in 1929 Toronto East General Hospital opened its doors for the first time. I was very happy to be a part of that celebration last Saturday. I'm also pleased that Toronto East General is at the end of my street, and I look forward to its continued service to our community.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NATIVE HEALING AND WELLNESS

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): I'm especially pleased to rise in the House on the day before First Nations Solidarity Day to announce the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy. I'm joined in this by my colleagues the minister responsible for women's issues and Attorney General, Marion Boyd, the Minister of Health, Ruth Grier, and the Minister of Community and Social Services, Tony Silipo.

Also joining me in the House today for this announcement and sitting in the gallery are many leaders of the aboriginal community in Ontario including, from the Nishnawbe-Aski nation, Chief Ignace Gull and Chief Andrew Reuben; from the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, Cathryn George; from the Ontario Native Women's Association, Laurel Johnson; from Grand Council Treaty 3, Colin Wasacase; from the Union of Ontario Indians, Deputy Grand Chief Vern Roote; from the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, Vera Pawis Tabobondung, the president; and a special welcome to Sylvia Maracle, the co-chair of the steering committee on aboriginal healing and wellness.

1350

I also would like to recognize all the other members, their staffs and the other chiefs who are here with us today.

The strategy I'm about to describe intends to begin to tackle the challenging health and social problems facing aboriginal communities in the province.

In doing so, it goes right to the heart and spirit of the government's aboriginal agenda first articulated in 1990. It supports our goal to develop with aboriginal communities programs and financial arrangements that enable aboriginal communities to improve the quality of life. It also represents a concrete step taken in partnership with aboriginal organizations to support self-government initiatives both on and off reserve.

We all, inside these walls and beyond, across the province and indeed across Canada, have experienced a sense of shared grief and frustration over the problems of aboriginal communities: the tragedy of children sniffing solvents or youths committing suicide, the family violence and abuse. It's such a waste of human potential. I have heard accounts from people who have experienced such tragedies personally and have been affected by them and have found them personally extremely distressing. Every time such incidents happen in an aboriginal community, families are torn apart, communities are exposed to the glare of media and public attention and family members take up the burden of shame and guilt, only to pass this painful legacy on to their children.

Back in January 1990, the New Democratic Party, then in opposition, released a report entitled First Come, Last Served: Native Health in Northern Ontario, in which we urged the provincial government to enter into discussions with first nations to provide programs to deal with family violence, mental health, substance abuse, crisis prevention and training of native health care professionals.

I am pleased to report that since we formed the government, we have worked in partnership with aboriginal communities to begin to meet this challenge. We have asked how we could best respond to the immediate crises of aboriginal communities and, more importantly, we have asked how we can support aboriginal groups that are taking the initiative, working with families to restore and rehabilitate the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health of aboriginal people. We see these steps as vital to improving the quality of life and to building strong, self-sufficient communities that will lay the groundwork for self-government.

We've asked these questions and we've heard the answers: Short-term solutions don't work; funding needs to be long term in order to address problems that are passed from generation to generation; service providers must learn to understand aboriginal families and communities better; above all, we heard that aboriginal people want to solve their own problems on their own terms and in their own way. This message was repeated over and over again in what we know to be the largest public consultation ever undertaken in this province, a consultation that included 7,000 individuals and organizations in 250 communities.

The aboriginal healing and wellness strategy will provide financing from reallocated funds from the four ministries taking the lead on this initiative: the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat, the Ontario women's directorate, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The funding will increase from $7 million this year to $33.5 million in operating funding in the fifth year. Total capital funds over the five years will be $15.9 million.

The proposed initiatives include the setting up of traditional healing lodges, shelters or safe homes for those leaving violent situations, crisis intervention teams to deal with problems such as suicides, health centres delivering primary care, birthing centres, and health promotion and prevention workers.

The aboriginal healing and wellness strategy provides a holistic approach to healing and treating the individual through life's stages in the context of family and community. It combines the work of the aboriginal health policy and the aboriginal family healing strategy developed by eight aboriginal organizations and 10 provincial ministries. Both were accepted in principle through an all-chiefs conference resolution.

I'm pleased to report that the federal government has shown interest in implementing the strategy. We will be negotiating with our federal counterparts, together with aboriginal organizations, for aboriginal government involvement.

Besides the social and health-related benefits I've outlined, the strategy will also have favourable economic impacts in the short term. Some aboriginal communities experience up to 80% unemployment. The strategy will make it possible for about 600 service jobs to be developed for aboriginal people. It is also anticipated that an additional 195 jobs will result from construction of the proposed facilities.

Several aboriginal communities have already begun the work on this strategy and have their support for it. Several healing lodges are being built. Forums on youth suicide are being held by the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation. A number of aboriginal agencies for child and family services have been established and some innovative community justice projects are under way.

From the beginning of the consultation process and on to this implementation, this strategy represents a new way of working in partnership with the aboriginal people of this province. Aboriginal communities are calling for support so they can begin healing their families and work to remove the barriers on the road to self-sufficiency and self-government. I feel I can say on behalf of all members of this House and indeed on behalf of the people of Ontario that we will join the aboriginal community in achieving these goals. Meegwetch.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to begin by congratulating the minister responsible for native affairs for what I feel is a very important initiative in this province. It is certainly one that I hope will lead to great success in terms of addressing some of the very serious social problems found among our first nations peoples and especially so in the more remote communities.

I have had the opportunity, together with my colleague the member for Kenora, to visit some of the northern aboriginal communities and to witness at first hand some of the living conditions and some of the conditions you can only categorize as desperate. Sometimes we seem to have grown inured or numbed to some of the terrible realities facing our first nations peoples. Just to remind the members of the House, I want to provide a few of the statistics or facts relating to life of aboriginals. This is more broadly based, for Canada.

It says here that suicide rates are unmatched in any other population in the world. Among our adolescents the suicide rate is seven times the national rate; the number of children in care is six times the Canadian rate; the incidence of alcoholism is 13 times the Canadian rate; the rate of foetal alcohol syndrome is between 15 and 20 times the Canadian rate; the death rate for aboriginal persons under age 35 is three times the Canadian rate; the rate of unemployment stands around 70%, and even as high as 80% on some reserves; 80% of aboriginals in Canada live under the poverty line; and data from the most recent census show that aboriginals live in the poorest housing conditions in Canada.

I had the opportunity to speak with a number of the aboriginal persons living in the northern communities. Notwithstanding all the differences, I think one of the most telling things for me was that -- and this I obtained as an impression from dealing with parents -- parents there are the same as parents here. At the end of the day, what they want is a better tomorrow for their kids, and nothing short of that.

1400

In the face of the problems that aboriginal persons have faced in the past, our traditional response has been to simply ask ourselves, what is it that we can do to help them? How do we bring to bear our traditional justice system or health care system? I think the attractive element in this initiative is that it is cognizant of the difference in cultures and also of the different approaches that have been brought in the past by the native communities to their own problems. I think we have to capitalize on the expertise, so to speak, of the aboriginals themselves and to give them more control -- that's the long and the short of it -- in terms of dealing with and addressing their own particular problems.

There have been several suicides -- I'm not sure of the number, but far too many -- over the past few years, particularly among our adolescents living in northern communities. God knows that the efforts we have been making have simply not been working, and for that reason I am placing a great deal of hope in this strategy.

I also want to remind the minister, and I'm sure he recognizes this, that the real antidote to the hopelessness and the conditions of despair and the health and social problems will lie, at the end of the day, in economic self-sufficiency for native communities, and it is my hope as well that this government can and that we can, collectively, restore that hope and optimism in the best way we can.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): This is a statement that I believe is an important statement and it's a statement that I wholeheartedly support.

It's interesting that there will be a significant reallocation of money to deal with the setting up of healing lodges, shelters, safe homes, crisis intervention teams to deal with problems such as suicides, health centres delivering primary care, birth centres, and prevention and health promotion workers. That alone says an awful lot, where the needed funding is going.

It's also very important to note that the initiatives in this statement are not initiatives that are short-term solutions and it quite specifically is geared to funding needs over the long term.

The only area I have some reservations about -- and it's probably more the fault, with respect to the minister, of the statement than of what the whole program is really about -- is the fact that it's very short on specifics of how the program is going to work. I can appreciate full well that those specifics are specifics the aboriginal community will be developing, because I know they've been working very hard at this and in fact have been developing the strategies. But I would have liked to have known what those strategies were in some specifics, because it's important for us, to be part of that solution, to help, when we're allocating significant sums of money, to understand what the strategy is going to be to deal with these very difficult problems.

As an example, we have the tremendously high suicide rate among young people, as my friend said, the former speaker, seven times that of the national average, yet there is no strategy in here other than to say funding will be directed towards that problem. I think we would all be well served if the minister could ultimately let us know what strategy is going to be developed to fight that problem. It's a very, very important situation that's been lingering, it's been getting worse, and there has been no directed funding or strategy to solve that problem.

I wholeheartedly support this statement, but I very much would like to see what strategies are going to be used to embark on solutions for these very difficult problems.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It is now time for oral questions.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Mr Speaker, I understand we have unanimous consent for a statement regarding the tragedy of last Thursday.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

TODD BAYLIS

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): It is with great sadness that I rise today to express my deepest sympathies over the tragic shooting death of Constable Todd Baylis of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force late Thursday night.

Constable Baylis had a very promising future ahead of him in law enforcement. I understand that he was a hardworking, dedicated officer who spent many of his off-duty hours engaged in community activities. He was well respected among his peers and he was proud of his family tradition in policing services. His father is Detective Edward Baylis, also of the Metro police force.

At funeral services to be held in Thornhill this Wednesday afternoon, I anticipate being among the friends and relations and thousands of fellow officers from police services throughout this continent who will pay tribute to a man who was proud of the difference he made in his community as a peace officer.

On behalf of the government and all members, I would like to extend my condolences to Constable Baylis's family.

The sacrifice and dedication to duty that was made by Constable Baylis and the thousands of other men and women who serve and protect the people of Ontario demands the respect and appreciation of all of us.

I would ask members to join me in a moment of silence, to pause and pay tribute to Constable Baylis.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could I call on visitors in the gallery to join members in a moment of silent tribute.

The House observed a moment's silence.

The Speaker: You may be seated.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I appreciate the opportunity to also comment on the tragic death of Constable Baylis. I think all of us woke up Friday morning to begin hearing the news and to go through what I felt was almost a roller coaster ride of emotion.

The first emotion, of course, was one of shock as we heard the details unfold of the shooting and death of Constable Baylis and the injury of his partner, Constable Leone.

Then there's the emotion of sorrow, as we think of the family and the fiancée of Constable Baylis.

Then there's the normal emotion of anger as we heard the details that perhaps it was possible for something to have been done. As we understand the details of the individual who committed the crime, perhaps something might have been done to prevent him from being there.

Then I guess as legislators, there's the emotion of guilt. Is there something we could have done to have prevented this? Are there some things we as legislators could have done to have headed this off?

Then there's the emotion of respect and admiration. I live in Metropolitan Toronto. I've had a chance to work with Chief McCormack, as many of us have, and many members of the force. We're fortunate to have someone of Chief McCormack's calibre and indeed of the 5,000 men and women who make up the police force in Metropolitan Toronto.

The emotion of gratitude: I've coached hockey for many years, the last 10 years with a Metropolitan Toronto police officer, so I get a mild insight into the challenges the police department faces. It is a very, very difficult job they have. Periodically, I do have a little insight into that unique group of people, who have a bond that I don't think any of us can quite appreciate. Certainly today our thoughts are with the 5,000 men and women who understand the emotion that the force is going through right now.

The last emotion for all of us is one of hope. We're fortunate to have a dedicated group of people out there, and if we all work hard at it, I think we can in some way or other make their job easier and make our community safer.

I join with my colleagues in sharing in a very emotional experience for all of us but particularly for the Baylis family, with a history of service to Metropolitan Toronto, with his father on the police force. As the minister said, Constable Baylis, both in the community and in his work on the police force, showed himself to be a typical, fine, upstanding, important citizen of Metropolitan Toronto, and so our sorrow goes out to the family as we stand here today.

1410

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): It's with a great deal of sadness that I rise today to join my colleagues, all 130 of us from all sides of the House. Of the many tasks that as legislators we're called upon to do, today's is far and away, and I have no hesitation in saying, of anything that I'm called upon to do as a legislator and as leader of the party, the most difficult. It is a task that is the most difficult for the chief of police, to talk to the family.

It is a time when, as my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, my colleague from the Liberal Party, has said, we tend to, in our sadness, look at ourselves, look at responsibilities that we have, and we will surely do this. It's a time when it brings home to us the absolute, every-minute-of-every-day peril that men and women who serve in our police force put themselves in. Every shift, every time they go on duty, they know that their life is in danger. It's a time when we want the Baylis family and we want every police officer all across this province to know that we're not only extending sympathies today but we are understanding of the difficulties that they and their families face every time a police officer goes on duty.

On behalf of my caucus, I too extend our deepest sympathies to the Baylis family and our understanding to all the men and women of police forces across this province and to their families of what they live with every day.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): As everyone has so eloquently said in the last few minutes in this House, when we have the shooting of a police officer, we all struggle in a non-partisan way to find some meaningful thing that we as legislators can do. My question is to the Premier, because I know he feels very strongly about this. I'm hopeful that perhaps there is something we can do in an expeditious way that we know will not solve the whole problem of violence in our community but will show our constituents and the people of Metropolitan Toronto and the province that there is something that we as legislators are willing to do expeditiously to begin to deal with this problem.

We know that the justice committee is meeting and considering a bill and is ready to report on the bill. We know, Premier, that with your support it would be possible for that bill to be reported to this Legislature so that it could be passed on an urgent and expeditious basis. I'm asking you today if you'll do that; if you'll ask that Bill 151 be brought forward so it can be dealt with before the House rises before the summer. It's one small step; it certainly isn't going to solve the problem -- I'm not suggesting that; but as a legislator in this House, I would like to feel, and I know my colleagues on all sides of the House would like to feel, that we are doing what we can to begin to address this issue.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think the Solicitor General should answer that because of the work that he's done on this matter.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I would like to say to the honourable member that it was very much in this same kind of climate and understanding and feeling about what's going on in our communities that the suggestion was made that indeed we have an all-party committee, setting aside partisanship, look at the issue of community crime prevention, as well as the issue of a more responsible regulatory system around the availability of ammunition. It was in that same spirit that the third party and the government agreed to join with the opposition in putting together terms of reference for a legislative committee to look at those very issues.

We are very close to them finalizing their work and I sincerely believe that the best thing we can do on this issue, and out of respect to our colleagues and the process that we agreed to, is to allow that committee to complete their work, see what their findings are and then respond quickly and adequately to the recommendations they may make.

Mrs Caplan: We know that the issue of ammunition control is clearly and wholly within the responsibility of the province. The evidence before the justice committee has said that.

I'm asking you today, Minister, if you will expedite the passage of that bill so that all of us in the House, while we don't expect that it's going to end all violence, know that it's one small step. We very much support the issue being fully discussed and debated and looking at what everyone can do, all governments working together. The Ammunition Control Act, Bill 151, is something that we can do today. My request of you is to expedite that so it can be passed before this Legislature rises.

Hon Mr Christopherson: One of the things that we asked of that committee was to bring in constitutional experts, firearms experts, to give advice to the committee so that they might give advice to the House. I do not have the benefit of their report, of their findings. That report has not been issued. Yet I understand it's expected very shortly, within the next few days or a week or so. I really believe that waiting for that report is the best thing for us to do.

We've come all this way on the issue. To suddenly bail out of the process a few days before the end I don't think is the right type of process for government or for all members of this Legislature. I still maintain that we should have benefit of that report. That's the very issue we asked them to look at. I certainly, as the minister responsible, would like benefit of their work and the expertise that was provided to that committee.

Mrs Caplan: I think today I'm expressing the frustration of all members of this House who would very much like to be able to take some action in response to this tragic event we've had in Metropolitan Toronto. I think if you asked, you could have the report that you're requesting within a matter of a day. This House has four days to sit. Minister, we're offering you our support to see that this bill is passed before the House rises. If it is at all possible, we're asking for your commitment to do that. Will you see that Bill 151 is passed before this Legislature rises?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I don't believe the committee has concluded its work. If they had concluded their work, we would have the report and I would be able to comment on that report on behalf of the government, but they've not completed their work yet.

I think it's also important that we recognize that the federal government has indicated, at least at this point, its interest, and we're hoping it's prepared to make a commitment. I would ask the honourable member to use her influence with the federal Liberals to make that commitment, because one of the things that we do need in Canada is uniformity of the laws surrounding gun control or we run the risk of leaving major gaps in our ability to provide the protection that we're trying to give to the public.

I have said on every occasion I've been asked that this government stands wholeheartedly behind the issue of more responsible control around the issue of ammunition. The question before us is: What is the best way to do that? We've asked, at the recommendation of the opposition, to have a committee look at that issue. They have almost completed their work. I do believe that it makes eminent good sense for us to wait for that committee to conclude their work and make their recommendations to this Legislature.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): To the Minister of Housing: In August 1993, Sharron Pretty was appointed as a tenant director to the board of a provincially funded non-profit housing corporation, the Van Lang Centre in Ottawa West. As a director, she became very concerned about the management of the board and repeatedly was refused information a director is normally entitled to, including the corporation's annual return to the ministry and tenant waiting list information.

She was advised by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to report the matter to the crown attorney, and the crown subsequently charged four directors with provincial offences under the Ontario Corporations Act. Ms Pretty and the former manager, Ms Trinh Lu, have also made other very serious charges of mismanagement. The crown is also presently considering fraud charges against a member of the board.

1420

Minister, my question to you is this: Time and time again we have heard ministers say they cannot comment on a matter because it is before the courts, yet last Friday, having full knowledge of the provincial offence charges involving matters within your ministry and by your own admission, you attended a meeting and endeavoured to mediate a matter before the courts and requested Ms Pretty to speak to the crown to have the charges withdrawn. Minister, will you resign now?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I did in fact have a meeting with members of the board, including Sharron Pretty, last Friday, and it was an attempt in good faith to try and see if it were possible to work out the kinds of difficulties that board members have experienced in the operation of the Van Lang non-profit development. In the course of that, we discussed many options. I never asked anyone to speak to anyone about withdrawing anything.

Mr Chiarelli: Minister, at the very least you should never have attended a meeting at which details of a court case involving your ministry would be discussed. But you went further. According to Ms Pretty, with whom I spoke today, you clearly left the impression that the best way for her to get information she was legally entitled to receive, both from the non-profit corporation and from your own ministry, was to speak to the crown about dropping the charges.

Minister, you did the honourable thing and resigned when you were Minister of Health for an error caused by a staff member. Why won't you resign now for your very active role in breaching the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I have not breached the guidelines of the Premier on conflict of interest at all. We did not discuss the details of legal actions. Among the options that were discussed was what might happen if the various parties were to step back from all the intense actions that has been going on, including a motion to the board to remove Ms Pretty as a member of the board.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I think that --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Get the Joan Smith/Bob Rae speeches out.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- anybody involved in that meeting felt that it had been a helpful meeting. I left the meeting not convinced that a solution was imminent, but that it was possible that board members would be able to work things out without pursuing the kinds of intense actions against each other which have happened to this point.

Mr Chiarelli: Minister, I think some of the people who attended that meeting have a different recollection of what happened. I spoke to Ms Pretty and Ms Lu today and they have both confirmed to me that they were trying to resolve these issues outside of politics; indeed, the issue became public when somebody in the Ministry of Housing itself leaked this file to a newspaper on June 1, when there were published reports for the first time.

Ms Pretty and Ms Lu are two conscientious and honourable citizens. Ms Pretty confirmed to me that her quote in the Ottawa Sun was accurate; namely -- and I'm quoting here -- "Pretty said Gigantes attempted to defuse the situation by suggesting she ask the crown to drop the charges in exchange for the other directors not following through on a threat to kick her off the board."

"'On two or three occasions, (Gigantes) said, "Let's deal with this without going through the courts," openly saying I should drop the charges,' Pretty said." So there obviously is a disagreement on what happened at that particular meeting.

Minister, I have a very simple question for you: Have you spoken to the Premier about this, and if you have, what did the Premier say? If you have not spoken to the Premier, why have you not spoken to him?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I do talk to the Premier and of course I have discussed this with the Premier, but I want to underline to the member for Ottawa West that I agree with him: All the people involved in this discussion are honourable people of integrity. What we were trying to do was to resolve the difficulties among honourable people with integrity.

Mr Sorbara: You're interfering with the justice system.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I do believe that it is an important kind of initiative for the Ministry of Housing to be undertaking --

Mr Sorbara: We have standards in this place.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- indeed for me to have attempted to undertake to resolve issues that had been outstanding for many months, which had not been resolved completely to the satisfaction of Ms Pretty, in spite of the fact that the ministry had undertaken a compliance report in the fall, and the ministry continues to work with the board.

At the end of our meeting, what we had agreed was that people would think about the options, that they would think about whether to hold another meeting at which I had suggested perhaps we could involve not only a representative of the Ministry of Housing but also a facilitator, a person who would assist the meeting, perhaps a representative of the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association.

I think we all felt it was a fruitful meeting, and there was no suggestion that I was pressing anyone to speak to the crown.

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

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question to the Premier is concerning the same matter. Premier, your Minister of Housing acknowledges in the quote in the Toronto Star today that she said, "(talking to the crown) is a possibility and I presume it is, but I don't know." Those are her words.

Ms Pretty has indicated that Ms Gigantes had said, "'Let's deal with this without going through the courts,' openly saying I should drop the charges." Certainly the quote from Ms Gigantes and the understanding from Ms Pretty are not inconsistent one with the other.

Premier, I think you would agree with me it would be most inappropriate, against your guidelines, unacceptable for a minister of the crown to interfere in this case directly with the crown attorney. That would be unacceptable. It has been acknowledged unacceptable behaviour for any minister of the crown to intervene with a crown attorney even when it doesn't deal directly with their ministry, but in this case this is something directly within the control and jurisdiction of the Minister of Housing.

Given that this would be unacceptable behaviour, against your conduct, are you telling us today with your inaction that it is okay, because she couldn't directly go to the crown, to encourage somebody else to go to the crown and interfere and intervene in this case? With your silence, that's what I'm interpreting.

The Speaker: Would the leader complete his question, please.

Mr Harris: Do you think that's okay, Premier?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): If I've been silent, it's because I'm waiting to answer your question. I'll say very directly to you that you're quite right when you suggest that for a minister to talk to a crown attorney would be quite inappropriate, and not only in breach of any guidelines, but also I think clearly the wrong thing to do. But that is not what we have in this situation at all.

The member for York Centre who says from his chair that what we have here is an interference in the administration of justice is quite wrong, and it's quite unfair, and it's a gross misinterpretation and reflects very poorly on the member in terms of the kind of allegation that he's making.

What we have here is a bona fide attempt -- the minister met with the members of the board of this particular non-profit housing corporation because of a series of problems that had arisen within the corporation, which were well known to everyone concerned, in which the minister was asked if she would have a meeting with members of the board, and she agreed to such a meeting. She went in with the regional manager of the Ministry of Housing, who's a public servant of long standing, in which she simply tried to use her good offices to try to effect a resolution of some differences which were affecting the good-faith operation of the board.

1430

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

Hon Mr Rae: That's all she tried to do. That's all the meeting was an effort to deal with. There was no suggestion by the minister that she would ever contact a crown attorney, or no suggestion on her part that she would urge that any charges be dropped. All she was doing in that meeting was making a good-faith effort to deal with this question.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm having difficulty hearing myself, Mr Speaker.

If he would like to have the matter referred to a committee of the House for a discussion with respect to who said what and what was the exact nature of the meeting, I'm sure that could be done and that could be arranged. But to suggest --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please take his seat. There will be a supplementary.

Mr Harris: Premier, you've acknowledged that the minister used her good offices. I assume that is an intervention that the minister was engaged in. You indicated that the minister did not make any reference to the crown. The minister's own words -- unless this quote is inaccurate, if that's what you're telling us -- her quote, not the allegations by others, the minister said, "Talking to the crown is a possibility." That's a quote. So you're telling me then that this story is inaccurate, and it's in quotations, and that this is false.

The Minister of Housing knew that charges had been laid against members of the board of the Van Lang Centre in Ottawa; she knew that. It was inappropriate to even suggest that a member of the board speak to the crown to have the charges dropped. In fact, what the minister has done is to essentially tamper with a person who presumably would be a key witness in the crown's case.

I suggest to you, Premier, that if any one of your cabinet ministers tampered with a key witness, went to meet with him, tried to resolve, using their good offices, in a murder case or in any kind --

The Speaker: Could the leader place his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- of a serious criminal action, you would say, "That's inappropriate." Presumably, you're judging this case isn't that serious so this intervention is okay. Is that what you're telling us, that the intervention is okay because the intentions were good and it's not really a serious criminal offence?

The Speaker: Would the leader complete his question, please.

Mr Harris: It is a very serious charge. I ask you to reflect again. Do you think this was an appropriate meeting, for the minister to go and try and talk witnesses out of -- to go to the crown attorney, out of proceeding through the courts? Do you think that was appropriate?

Hon Mr Rae: One of the issues that led to the meeting was an effort by some of the board members to have Ms Pretty removed. One of the things the minister was trying to do was to mediate in what is admittedly a difficult situation in that particular corporation.

But I would say to the leader of the third party that if he wants to be taken seriously, to make the kind of allegation and then to make the kind of comparison that he's just made really puts him right over the top in terms of dealing seriously with the issue which is at hand.

Mr Harris: I'm sorry, but if the Premier thinks he can judge the seriousness of an offence and say, "It's okay with this offence but not okay on a serious criminal charge or a murder charge, clearly that wouldn't be okay," now you are acting like judge and jury and saying, "I'll decide which cases are serious enough that the minister can intervene on or not intervene on."

Premier, what happened here is clearly a case where, for incompetence or mismanagement or indifference or any number of reasons, the minister did not deal with the problems of the Van Lang Centre months ago when she knew about them, and she should have. As a result, the situation worsened to the point where the crown laid charges. At that point, it is now too late to use good offices to meddle with the justice system. Clearly, you should understand that. I don't expect the minister to understand that. She hasn't understood the fair rules of what a minister should do or ministerial conduct at any time that I have seen her in the performance of her duty.

The Speaker: Would the leader place a question, please.

Mr Harris: I don't expect that from her, but I expect it from you, Premier. I ask you, for the final time, do you accept those standards of intervention as okay? Is that your standard now, the Bob Rae standard of conduct?

Hon Mr Rae: I expect ministers to exercise good judgement and to exercise high standards. I would say to the honourable member, a member for whom ordinarily I have some regard from time to time, that his description of these events and his use of whatever rhetorical comparisons he's seeking to make are really quite unfair and don't reflect very well on him in terms of his exercise of his own judgement. I would say to him directly and I'll say to him once again that if there's a matter with respect to this meeting or with respect to the operation of the co-op that you think should be referred to committee, we'd be more than pleased to have it referred.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I accept your offer. We'll have it referred to a committee. Let's hope you don't use your majority on the committee to cover it up like you do everything else.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier as well, where the government has used its majority once again to stifle any input on Bill 91. This is a piece of legislation that fundamentally affects Ontario's 60,000 farm families. Your agricultural labour legislation, Bill 91, treats a family farmer's field like a factory floor.

Two weeks ago you used your majority once again to ram through a motion that effectively shuts down debate on this bill, but more importantly, prevents farmers from having their say through any public hearings. One of the fundamental rights of those who are affected by legislation is to have the matter referred to a committee and to have hearings so you can hear from those affected by it.

Can you explain to me why the so-called New Democratic Party is so quick to stomp on the democratic rights of farmers and those in rural and agricultural Ontario from even having a direct say or input through hearings on Bill 91? Can you explain that?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think I'll let the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs answer that question.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is a Labour bill. I do not think the Premier can pass it back to the Minister of Agriculture. It should be the Minister of Agriculture, but it's a Labour bill. It should be to the Minister of Labour.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I understand the point of order raised by the member for S-D-G & East Grenville. However, I listened carefully to the question, and the Premier is certainly within his right to refer the matter to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I would point out to all the members that this was a cooperative venture right from the start. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs cooperated with the Ministry of Labour in developing this bill. Beyond that, in the field, this bill and the associated regulations were developed in consultation with farmers, farm groups and labour groups.

1440

There was a task force that brought forward a series of recommendations that were put together and vetted in the farm community and the labour community. This bill was put together through very extensive consultation with all the groups. It was put together in the proper way, the way a bill should be put together, and was brought before this Legislature with the support of all the farm groups that are represented on that committee.

We're very proud of that bill. It has been put together in a very broad, consultative method.

Mr Harris: The only cooperation on this bill has been you and the Minister of Labour and your cabinet conspiring to jam this through without consultation from the farmers. That's been the only cooperation.

I've got to tell you that I find it embarrassing that the one member of this cabinet who should be fighting for farmers and standing up for them is now defending this action, defending the Minister of Labour and defending the Premier jamming this legislation down their throats, refusing to even have public hearings.

Given that you have abdicated your responsibility to speak up on behalf of farmers, will you now intervene and allow this bill to go out for hearings so farmers who don't have a voice at the cabinet table can express their views themselves?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Most farmers across this province belong to one or more farm organizations, and through those organizations have been well represented on the task force --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The members on both sides of the House are making it difficult for me to hear the reply from the minister.

Hon Mr Buchanan: As I was saying, the farmers across the province usually belong to one or more organizations. Those organizations have taken on the responsibility of developing a bill that suits the needs of farmers and agriculture across this province.

Some of the key ingredients of this bill were brought forward by the farm groups. One was the fact that they cannot afford to have a strike. Despite what the official opposition party continues to say, this bill clearly says there will be no strikes or lockouts. It also provides opportunities for dispute settlements to be worked out cooperatively between labour and farm groups.

This bill has been put together in the proper way with consultation and a task force made up of the interested parties. The member across the way should get on board, take a look at the bill and realize that the family farm everyone is very supportive of in most cases is not going to be affected by this bill at all.

Mr Harris: This is a sad day for farmers in Ontario. It's a sad day. It's a sad day for democracy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: This is a sad day for democracy when you won't allow hearings, and this is a sad day for farmers when the Minister of Agriculture will not stand up, not only for their rights in this legislation, but will not even stand up for their right to be heard. In the face of the abdication of all responsibility, I don't think I have any further questions to the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member across is quite interested in farmers and rural Ontario. His revolutionary document does not mention farmers or agriculture at all, other than it says it will cut funding of all the ministries by 20%. I don't know where he comes from if he's worried about farmers and agriculture today.

The other thing is that this makes our province the same as all other provinces, except for Alberta, so this is not a revolutionary thought. Maybe that's why the member doesn't support it, because it's not revolutionary, because this brings us into line with all other provinces. If the member is so concerned about --

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

Hon Mr Buchanan: -- agriculture and farms, he should include that in his document.

REFERRAL OF QUESTION

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I realize it's question period time. I have two points of order, actually. I didn't know it was appropriate for somebody to respond to a non-question. There was no question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Eves: Point number two: I'd like the Speaker's interpretation of standing order 33(f), which says, "A minister to whom an oral question is directed may refer the question to another minister who is responsible for the subject matter to which the question relates."

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Eves: I hear the Premier saying yes. He might want to look at Bill 91, because the sponsor minister of Bill 91 is the Minister of Labour, Mr Mackenzie. If you think it's an Agriculture bill, you should have had your Agriculture minister bring it forward. It was an improperly referred question.

The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound on the two points which he raises, the last one first: The member will know that the minister to whom the question is directed has the option of referring the question to a minister he or she feels is most appropriate to answer the question under the circumstances. The subject material dealt with farm and rural matters. Hence the Premier had the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the House comes to order, I'll address the questions.

On the other point of order raised by the member for Parry Sound, a member rises to be recognized by the Chair during question period in order to place a question. When the member rises and begins to say something, there is an automatic assumption that a question will follow. If the member did not have an interest in placing a question, he should not have taken the opportunity to be recognized by the Chair.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): A question to the Premier: I'm hoping that you've been improperly apprised of the facts in the situation which we raised earlier, because there can't be any other explanation for your response and your attitude towards this. As you know, interference with any matter in the justice system is a very serious matter, and you seem to be treating it very nonchalantly.

Ms Pretty, who was a tenant member of the board since last August, August 1994, wrote to the minister, wrote to the ministry, looking for information she was entitled to as a member of the board. Ms Trinh Lu, who managed the non-profit corporation for a year, who's a university graduate, now a law student, had the same concerns, raised the same issues with the minister and with the ministry. When they received no response, no information, they made inquiries with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Officials there referred them to the crown. The crown interviewed them, looked at the facts, and the crown, in its own wisdom, decided to lay charges against the directors of the non-profit corporation. They're also looking at additional charges in the area of fraud.

My question to you, Premier, is this: Do you think it's appropriate for a minister of the crown to meet with any complainant or witness after charges are laid, particularly in a matter touching upon a minister's own ministry?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I can only say to the honourable member that the minister was invited to a meeting with all the members of the board, including Ms Pretty, it is my understanding, and I would say to the honourable member that if he has a different interpretation of what has taken place and he has other allegations that he wishes to make, I've suggested already to the members opposite that this is a matter that can be readily reviewed by committee. It can be looked at in terms of that context.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: To put it into a whole set of other series of contexts I think is quite unfair and stretches what took place to a point which simply won't bear serious analysis.

I would say to the honourable member that if he and his House leader want to discuss where this matter can be looked at, Mr Sutherland, who is the regional director of the Ministry of Housing, was at the meeting. There was simply a good-faith effort to deal with some ongoing issues at the housing corporation, and to suggest anything else with respect to the administration of justice is quite inappropriate on the part of the member.

1450

Mr Chiarelli: I take it your answer to my question is yes, that it is appropriate for the minister to talk to somebody under those circumstances.

This is a matter of your own conflict guidelines. You are the ultimate arbiter of this conduct by your minister. We can't force you to do anything on this side of the House. The media can't force you to do anything. You have to look in the mirror and answer to yourself.

Quite frankly, you know in your heart that this is absolutely unacceptable, that your minister made a mistake. Her motives may have been great, she may have been trying to resolve an issue, she may have been trying to bring people together, but the fact of the matter is she's a minister of the crown. There are charges that are laid affecting her ministry and she's getting involved in it. You know, you've always known, that this is a no-no.

Premier, how can you sit there, stand there, and tell the people of Ontario that this is your standard and you accept it? Please tell the people of Ontario that you accept that standard.

Hon Mr Rae: The member opposite is doing something which I suppose happens every day of the week in this place, but you get used to it: He is drawing his own conclusions based on his own interpretation of his own understanding of a situation. I would say to the honourable member that you have reached all your own conclusions and you've reached all your own bottom lines. You therefore make your allegations and you reach your conclusions as if that is the only interpretation.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Oh, shocking.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David is out of order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that if he has the kinds of concerns which he clearly does, I would say to him that this is a matter where different people who were at the meeting could bring forward --

Mr Chiarelli: You looked at it. It's your wrong --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: If he will just try to get hold of himself.

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

Hon Mr Rae: If you don't want to hear the answer, that's fine.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Last month the Lucknow Medical Centre was closed for six days.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take his seat. Would the member for Mississauga North please come to order. And they think it's hot outside.

Mr Jim Wilson: During the six days that the Lucknow Medical Centre was closed, persons needing any type of medical attention were referred to the Wingham and District Hospital for care and treatment.

As you know, like 41 other Ontario hospitals, the Wingham hospital has experienced a great deal of difficulty in ensuring that there is adequate physician coverage in its emergency room. The lack of physicians in the area prompted the closing of the Lucknow Medical Centre for the six days and it has placed a great strain on the emergency room coverage at the Wingham hospital.

Minister, a year ago you promised the Ontario Medical Association that you would solve this health care crisis that plagues both northern and rural Ontario, yet today you have not resolved this matter. As a result, many other rural communities will soon face the same fate as the Wingham area, that is, the closure of a medical centre and an overburdened emergency department.

What assurances can you give the people of rural and small-town Ontario that overburdened and underserviced hospital emergency rooms will not result in a tragedy -- and I say will not result in a tragedy -- that you could avoid if you would just take some action on this issue?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): This is an issue that I've addressed on many occasions, and I know all members of the House, particularly those from rural and northern areas, share the concern of the member and myself that it has not been resolved.

I certainly have committed myself to doing whatever the ministry can to work with the other people who have responsibility for resolving this issue to get it resolved. That has got to be the Ontario Medical Association, as the bargaining agent for the doctors who don't believe the compensation they receive for being in emergency rooms is adequate, as well as the Ontario Hospital Association.

As the member knows, last November we began discussions with the OHA, the OMA and the ministry as to how it should be resolved. The OMA withdrew from those discussions in February. Last month they agreed to come back and enter the discussions again. I'm pleased to be able to tell the member that discussions are taking place this very day between all three parties, and I remain optimistic that we can find a resolution.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Wingham emergency room is under severe pressure, Hanover had no emergency room coverage this past weekend, the Four Counties hospital will have its agreement with physicians expire in just 10 days, and 40 other hospitals have the same threat hanging over their heads if nothing is done soon.

It is dangerous and wasteful for patients to be referred to emergency rooms unnecessarily, especially when these emergency rooms are already underserviced. Nothing has been done, Minister, to solve this problem since it was brought to your attention last year. In spite of your promise to solve this problem, you've still done nothing.

The tripartite committee has not worked in the past. People in rural Ontario are becoming understandably very worried. In places like Wingham, where they have an extremely high population of senior citizens, people in fact are becoming terrified that there won't be emergency coverage when they need it.

Minister, if the Ontario Hospital Association's July 31 deadline is missed, will you act on the suggestion I made to you two weeks ago in this Legislature and bring in an arbitrator to recommend a solution to this escalating crisis in rural Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: I understand the fear and the worry that people in rural areas have about the actions of their physicians, but I say to the member that the answer lies in the physicians living up to their responsibilities and fulfilling their responsibilities in exchange for the $3.85 billion they negotiated with this government as their remuneration for the physicians of this province. The OMA could work within the schedule of benefits to provide adequate compensation for doctors in emergency rooms or they could work with us and the hospital association to try to find a solution.

The frustration that I feel, the member feels, the administrators of the hospitals feel and the public feels, of being held to ransom over a financial issue, is very, very strong. I am not in a position to say unilaterally to a physician, "Thou shalt practise." I think that physicians have a responsibility to put the public interest ahead of their own financial interests in this matter and to serve their patients at 3 in the morning just as they do at 3 in the afternoon, but I am not in a position to order or to instruct them to do that.

The Speaker: The Solicitor General has a reply to a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville.

YOUNG OFFENDERS' ACTIVITIES

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): This is in response to the questions raised by the member for Leeds-Grenville in the House on June 16 regarding a program for young offenders at the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre. The program the member is referring to is called Challenge by Choice. It was initiated at the Metro Toronto West Detention Centre as an extension of the education program operated at the centre by the Etobicoke secondary school board of education. A principal at a local high school arranged to try the program at the facility as an extension of their program.

This is an internationally recognized self-esteem-building program. It challenges and encourages young people to work cooperatively to solve problems with others, to learn to trust others and to experience success. The program has been operating successfully in several Etobicoke schools for a number of years and is modelled on a program used elsewhere in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

Six young offenders who met the criteria for temporary release qualified for the program based on reports of their positive behaviour in their unit and involvement in the standard young offender educational and recreational programming. They participated in team-building and problem-solving activities in an exercise yard at the Metro West Detention Centre and were not engaged in any rock-climbing exercises. This program matches the identified needs of the young offenders contained in their plans of care, which are directed to the positive social development of young persons in the ministry's care.

The Metro West Detention Centre does offer a range of educational programming for young offenders, including computer training.

1500

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): The minister read a prepared response. I'd like to know his views as the minister responsible for the corrections ministry in this respect, if he indeed believes this is an appropriate program for young offenders. He talked about experiencing success and team building, and no doubt they're appropriate goals, but I wonder where those successful experiences will occur and, indeed, what kind of teams we're talking about.

I personally do not support what the minister is suggesting here as an appropriate activity for young offenders. He said they didn't do any rock climbing, but it was my understanding as well that they were having a temporary absence pass as part of this program to go out and actually experience rock climbing.

I simply want to ask the minister, does he indeed support this program, and would he like to see it continue?

Hon Mr Christopherson: We've talked at great length in this place about the issue of young offenders and the Young Offenders Act and rehabilitation and what should be the balance. This government has consistently supported the position that in the areas of extreme violent crime, older young offenders should be treated in a fashion different than younger offenders, and certainly those who are not involved in violent crime.

We've also said that at the other side of the scale there needs to be the ability to provide some balance and some rehabilitation for very young offenders prior to their becoming so involved in criminal activity that we're faced with them being violent offenders at the higher age.

The member asked me very directly, do I support this? I would compliment very much the principal of that high school who thought enough of his society and his community, who had a program in his school that he thought might be of benefit to young people in circumstances where they were heading down a dangerous path. Yes, I do support this, and I very much support that principal who saw a need in our community and tried to step in to help. I wish a lot more people would take that same approach to these issues.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question to the Premier. Mr Premier, you've recently returned from a trip to the Far East. I would have expected that you would have made a statement to this House about your trip, and particularly what you were able to accomplish in Jiangsu.

Could you tell us the status of Ontario's twinning relationship with Jiangsu and what progress has been made at the Ontario-Jiangsu Science and Technology Centre?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm delighted to be able to answer the honourable member, to say that we had a very successful series of meetings in Jiangsu.

I would encourage the honourable member, because I know of his personal interest in this, to pay a visit to the centre. He will find that the centre is in very good shape. We have re-established the management committee, with the Deputy Minister of Economic Development and Trade as our representative on that management committee. We've had officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade who were there before my visit, and we've identified a number of projects which we're working on.

In particular, I think it's fair to say that we now see a much greater possibility on the infrastructure side in terms of encouraging Canadian, Ontario-based investment in Jiangsu province. We're looking at the field of electrical power generation, which I know he'll be interested in. We're looking at the area of highway, road and bridge construction. We're looking at the use of environmental technologies. We're also seeing, in particular, what we can do with Nanjing.

We have a very strong twinning relationship between the Mount Sinai Hospital and Nanjing People's Hospital, which has been very productive and which we're seeking to expand. We're going to renew the educational exchanges between Jiangsu and Ontario. I think it's a very, very positive piece of news.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I would encourage the honourable member to return there and perhaps take some of his colleagues with him, and spend a very good time there looking at how those interests can expand. I would be glad to expand on any answer in answer to a supplementary.

Mr Kwinter: I appreciate the Premier's inviting me to go. He didn't invite me to go with him, but he says, "Go on your own, and be my guest." I should tell you that the reason for my question is because I was there about a month ago, and that has raised some of the concerns.

Mr Premier, do you find it strange that the governor of Jiangsu, Chen Huanyou, recently came to New York and did not visit Toronto, which is only one hour away? Do you not also find it interesting that while in New York, the governor signed an agreement with Governor Mario Cuomo aimed at fostering high-technology trade between New York and Jiangsu?

The deal calls for the two governments to develop business alliances and share high-tech information, primarily in information technology, optics and imaging, biotechnology and medical products and energy-saving technology. The pact also calls for New York to open a trade office in Jiangsu in 1995, and for Jiangsu to set up a similar office in New York. Jiangsu representatives were also invited to New York for several high-tech conferences this year and next year.

Mr Premier, Ontario has a twinning agreement with Jiangsu and has invested several millions of dollars in the Ontario-Jiangsu Science and Technology Centre, yet there seems to be little tangible activity between Jiangsu and Ontario, while there seems to be a great deal of activity with our bordering neighbour to the south. Could you explain this and maybe enlighten this House as to what has happened?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm not sure I have the time to explain it to the honourable member. The Speaker will be on his feet. We've got seven minutes, and I'd be glad to take that full time, Mr Speaker.

First of all, in terms of the visit by the governor to New York, not only is Jiangsu twinned with New York, Jiangsu's also twinned with Georgia and Jiangsu's also twinned with Baden Württemberg. We are twinned, as you know, with a number of the states in Europe. As well, we have a much longer standing relationship in terms of a memorandum of understanding, and now, with the kind of relationship that's there, we have an opportunity to gain significant advantage in terms of our trade with Jiangsu, with Shanghai and with other parts of China.

I would say to the honourable member that there's a lot of work to be done. He himself will know, because he was a member of the government when it took place, that there were certain decisions made in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square by the government of which he was a member which had an impact on the relationship. Now, after the visit by myself, the visit by the minister responsible for international trade just a few months ago, we feel we have a very successful basis for a relationship.

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

Hon Mr Rae: We had a huge delegation from Jiangsu province here just a few short months ago.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): New York got the deal.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: In suggestion to the raucous bellowing that's coming forward from the member for Mississauga West, I would say to him that he may want to continue to run the province down. That's not my interpretation of it.

Mr Mahoney: New York got the deal.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: New York has come lately into a relationship which Ontario has had for some time.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm trying to complete it, Mr Speaker. We are very proud of the relationship. I think given the fact that we also have a twinning relationship with New York, that we have an ongoing memorandum of understanding with them, there may in fact be an effective triangle that we can create and maybe even include the state of Baden Württemberg in Germany as we attempt to create the kinds of relationships that will take the province into the 21st century.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Ontario grain growers are seeing their prices undercut by western grain, which is subsidized heavily by Ottawa through the Western Grain Transportation Act. Shipments of western wheat into Ontario at the current time exceed last year's total sent to Ontario. Further, these shipments are tying up rail cars which Ontario growers need to ship corn to the US and elsewhere.

Can the minister tell us what he and the Premier are doing to bring about the immediate halt of federally subsidized grain shipments from western Canada into Ontario?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): In terms of the western grain transportation subsidy, in fact it's a historic subsidy that's been in place which provides subsidies for western grain moving primarily to export. It has caused some concerns in tying up rail cars and not making them available to Ontario producers.

However, having said that, I don't think it's necessary that we take a lot of concrete action here in Ontario, because we have the federal government in Ottawa which says it's going to eliminate the transportation subsidies, in fact to some $600 million. Mr Young, the Minister of Transport, says he's going to eliminate those subsidies, so I think it appears as if the federal government in Ottawa is certainly going to take care of any subsidies that are available to western grain producers.

1510

Mr Villeneuve: Until the federal government in Ottawa fixes that problem, it's costing Ontario grain growers very much on a per-tonne basis. Despite confusion in Ottawa over the future of the subsidy, there are now reports that the Liberals are ready to remove the transportation subsidy on grain, as you mentioned. Surely this is unacceptable, if they don't give us a time and date. We need to know now.

What are you and your government doing to make sure that subsidy is removed and that indeed Ontario producers can get the price that the market would dictate for their grain?

Hon Mr Buchanan: There are a couple of things. One thing: I don't know if the member is aware or not, but over the last couple of years, in fact the last government, when the interprovincial agricultural ministers met, I chaired a couple of the sessions dealing with the western grain transportation issues in an attempt for us to encourage all the parties to negotiate, discuss the issue and resolve the matter. We were quite concerned, and have been, with some of the movement of grains being subsidized into Ontario.

We have worked with the various producer groups in Ontario and continue to work with our colleagues in other provinces to make sure that we have fair trade issues, that we don't have subsidized product, whether it's grain or any other, for that matter, moving from one province into another unfairly. The Minister of Economic Development and Trade is trying to resolve interprovincial trade barriers.

The other side of that coin, quite frankly, is subsidies that one province provides to one type of producer in order to move materials to another province. We continue to work with other provinces and with our producer groups to make sure that no one is disadvantaged by subsidies in another province.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. As you are aware, for the last three years I myself, along with the parents and children at St Boniface separate school and the local trustee, Harold Adams, have been lobbying and advocating for redevelopment money. Just to refresh your memory, overcrowding at St Boniface has reached critical proportions and there are currently 15 portables onsite. The St Boniface capacity is 439 people. However, they currently have an enrolment of 625 students.

Minister, my question to you is quite simple. We keep hearing about the list of priorities and the Metropolitan Separate School Board placing St Boniface sixth on its list of priorities. How can I, as the member for the area representing the children and the teachers, hope to get this school higher on the list of priorities and how can we, as supporters of a separate system, ensure that St Boniface receives the redevelopment money that's urgently required?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I appreciate the question from the member who has spoken to me about this issue on several occasions on behalf of the community he represents.

I should indicate that the process for approving capital is such that requests went out to school boards last fall. School boards have to make tough decisions and rank their capital requests to the ministry. Then they are evaluated at the regional level and recommendations come in to the minister. We do accept the recommendations that come in from the regional offices because they reflect the prioritization that local school boards have set.

In this particular case, the Metropolitan Separate School Board ranked this capital project as its sixth priority. There is only one school board in this entire province which got its sixth priority funded, because of the very high growth in that particular area.

I think it would be appropriate that if this should be a higher priority, the parents and the taxpayers in that community should be talking to their trustees in that area and the Metropolitan Separate School Board.

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, refuse to accept the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital emergency department and the reduction of available hospital beds. We strongly urge the hospital boards and the Niagara District Health Council to crush the consultant's report. The Hotel Dieu Hospital board has already taken this position. Implementation of the report would have disastrous consequences for the people of our community. We are committed to keeping two emergency departments in St Catharines and beds open.

"We, the undersigned, find the plan to close the Hotel Dieu emergency room to consolidate care at the St Catharines General Hospital emergency room unacceptable and hazardous to the health of the members of our community. We deplore the lack of consideration for our health care needs, considering the fact that it is paid for by dollars that we contribute through our taxes."

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL AND MARINE HOSPITAL

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

"Whereas continued government funding cutbacks will force the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital to close eight more hospital beds and these cutbacks are having a continued negative impact on employment in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government is failing to adhere to their own 'principles of restructuring,' which state that restructuring of the hospital sector must be linked to equitable funding, appropriate and accessible community-based health services, and that restructuring initiatives must address the impact of these changes on hospital staff, the local economy and the health care needs of the community;

"Whereas the government refuses to give the green light to redevelop the General and Marine Hospital even though the provincial government announced funding for the project in 1987, and even though the General and Marine cannot achieve additional operating efficiencies unless the hospital is redeveloped;

"Therefore, we demand that the provincial government immediately approve the redevelopment of the General and Marine Hospital and that the hospital be given some financial breathing space to assess the impact of these bed closures on the labour and health care needs of the Collingwood community."

Mr Speaker, I've signed that petition, and add a few more names to the already 6,000 people from the area who have also signed this petition.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition that I'm presenting on behalf of the member for Rainy River. The petition is 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....

"Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby 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."

These petitions have been signed by people from Fort Frances, Kenora and all throughout the Kenora-Rainy River area.

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition that has been signed by Ottawa residents of Gloucester-Orléans, and it's addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"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 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 have affixed my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): A petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada and Parliament assembled:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

"Whereas the majority of Canadians believe that 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, would be given to same-sex relationships if any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act were to include the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation' as grounds of discrimination;

"Therefore, your petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Human Rights Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms 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.'"

This has been signed by about 100 people. It comes from one Calvary United Church in St Jacobs, Reverend Brian Robinson, and from a Mr A. Birch in St Catharines.

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I would like to submit a petition on behalf of 74 residents of the Niagara Peninsula, living in various communities. They all wish to express their opinion relating to the Ontario Waste Management Corp, and the final "Be it resolved" is:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to change the mandate and directions being promoted by this crown corporation, the OWMC."

I do agree with this petition.

1520

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition regarding long-term care.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Legislative Building, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single local point of access for long-term care and support services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating use of commercial providers;

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

I heartily support this petition and sign my name and turn it over to the House for documentation.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

That is still possible in spite of the argument we heard from the leader of the third party saying it's been killed.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the provincial government has recently slashed health coverage by 75% for Ontario citizens who are hospitalized out-of-country; and

"Whereas this reduction in coverage will affect all Ontarians but will have the greatest impact upon seniors, many of whom travel south of the border for important health care reasons and who will be forced to absorb a tremendous hike in their health insurance premiums; and

"Whereas the government has justified its decision on the basis of not wanting to pay exorbitant hospital costs, even though currently out-of-country hospital coverage is based solely on the rates charged by Ontario hospitals; and

"Whereas the reduction in out-of-country hospitalization coverage below the rates charged by Ontario hospitals represents an indisputable violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Canada Health Act; and

"Whereas the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party makes the preservation of medicare a priority in its Common Sense Revolution party document;

"Therefore, we petition the government of Ontario to act in a fair and just manner by preserving the sacred principles of medicare and to immediately restore out-of-country hospitalization coverage to the rates charged by hospitals in Ontario."

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are of the opinion that private insurance companies are exploiting Ontario motorcyclists and snowmobile operators by charging excessive rates for coverage or by outright refusing to provide coverage; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, understand that those insurance companies that do specialize in motorcycle insurance will only insure riders with four or more years of riding experience and are outright refusing to insure riders who drive certain models of 'supersport' bikes; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that this situation will cost hundreds of jobs at dealerships and in the motorcycle industry and is contrary to the rights of motorcyclists and snowmobile operators;

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

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

It's signed by 96 residents of Ontario from the Ottawa and Peterborough area. I affix my signature as well.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from residents in the Frankford, Wooler and Trenton area.

"Whereas in our opinion a 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."

I have signed it.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by over 3,000 residents of Ontario addressed to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disagree with Bill 119 aspects of generic cigarette packaging which has not been proven to reduce smoking. This will force Shorewood Packaging, Chroma Corp and other suppliers to close, resulting in thousands of lost jobs in Ontario."

I'm affixing my signature in support of the petitioners.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition in the hope that it will lead to speedy passage of this legislation.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

I've signed the petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 1,031 signatures from the town of Caledon and the town of Orangeville.

"Whereas the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, commonly known as same-sex benefits Bill 167, will change the definition of 'marriage' and allow homosexual couples to adopt children; and

"Whereas it does not reflect the mainstream priorities of the people of Ontario or the priorities that the Ontario government should be dealing with; and

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

"Whereas this bill caters solely to the demands of a vocal special-interest group; and

"Whereas redefining 'marriage' and forcing the private sector to pay same-sex spousal benefits will have serious negative economic and social ramifications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to withdraw the same-sex bill and encourage all MPPs to vote against the bill on second and third readings."

I've signed this petition.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition signed mainly by people from my riding. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products.

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

1530

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ms Poole from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's report on issues concerning Houselink Community Homes Inc and the Supportive Housing Coalition and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member for Eglinton have some remarks?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Yes. As Vice-Chair of the committee, I would like to comment on the report. This report of the standing committee on public accounts focuses on internal audit reports of two supportive housing projects, Houselink Community Homes and the Supportive Housing Coalition of Metropolitan Toronto.

Our all-party committee reviewed actions by the ministries of Health and Housing and reached consensus on 11 recommendations dealing with, among other things, unauthorized expenditure approvals, the strengthening of procedures for prompt remedial action, sanctions for non-compliance by funded organizations and improved controls.

May I say, on behalf of the committee, that we would like to express our appreciation to both the Provincial Auditor, Mr Erik Peters, for his cooperation and assistance, as well as the exceptional report produced by our researcher, Anne Anderson.

I move adjournment of the debate.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

UNCLAIMED INTANGIBLE PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES BIENS IMMATÉRIELS NON RÉCLAMÉS

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

Bill 178, An Act to amend the Unclaimed Intangible Property Act / Projet de loi 178, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens immatériels non réclamés.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the Attorney General wish to make a short opening statement?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Yes, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to introduce amendments to the Unclaimed Intangible Property Act, which was previously passed in 1989 but has not, to date, been proclaimed.

These amendments reflect extensive consultations with the financial community which took place in early 1990 and again in the spring of this year. The essential purpose of this legislation is to return lost and forgotten money to the people of Ontario. Thousands of people across Ontario are entitled to money they do not even know about. This law will help them find out about this money and recover it.

It is anticipated that $10 million to $15 million worth of unclaimed property will be returned to rightful owners annually. The province will hold the funds in perpetuity and to the benefit of all provincial taxpayers until the money is claimed by the rightful owners.

Following today's tabling of the bill, we will resume a full series of consultations with the financial community and will establish a holder advisory committee. This committee will be meeting over the summer to identify and make recommendations to address any outstanding concerns.

With this act, the government will ensure that rightful owners will be reunited with their unclaimed, lost, forgotten or abandoned funds through a valuable new public recovery notification and distribution service to the residents of Ontario.

J.G. TAYLOR COMMUNITY CENTRE INC ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr117, An Act respecting the J.G. Taylor Community Centre Inc.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the Attorney General have some opening remarks?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Just very briefly, this bill has had a thorough discussion among the opposition critics and also with the justice committee. There were a few amendments that were agreed upon during that process which answered some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition critics during the second reading.

This is a very important act in terms of the administration of justice because it does a number of things. I would just remind members that it will, first of all, permit the expansion of the Unified Family Court. It will change the way in which the Judicial Council conducts disciplinary hearings into the conduct of judges. It will cement the establishment of the judicial advisory committee which advises the Attorney General on appointments to the provincial bench. It will do a number of other corollary measures which will work with the administration of justice in the Small Claims Courts, will review some of our processes around the justices of the peace.

So I would say that this is a good day for Ontario. We have shown that by consulting with the judiciary, by consulting with the bar and by working together with all those concerned in the community about the administration of justice, we can devise an act that moves us forward in a way which has met with the approval and the enthusiasm of most of the community. So I would urge my colleagues in this House to pass this law in this Legislature at this particular point in time.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable Attorney General. Questions or comments? Further debate?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'm pleased to join in the debate on this particular bill. I think Mr Chiarelli, as the critic for the Attorney General, has indicated that we'll be supporting it. But it seems to me, having said that and having reviewed the bill, that justice in itself is in a shambles in this province.

I've been doing some research around this province in terms of the speediness with which you can get a civil trial on. I was in London yesterday. I understand it's 18 months there. In Brampton, it's probably beyond that; other areas, equally long lists. The difficulty of course, as the Attorney General will appreciate, and I think any practitioner will appreciate, and soon the public will appreciate, is that the old adage of justice delayed is justice denied is a truism.

We're seeing difficulties that are existing not just in terms of the facilities that are available to deal with these issues. The Attorney General quite kindly came out to my riding to reannounce for the third time the building of a new courthouse. Well, I haven't heard anything further about it. I have grave concerns, as I think do the justice officials out there. Obviously that building will be an essential part of any fixing of the system or attempting to fix the system.

I'm pleased to see that there are some considerations of alternative dispute mechanism resolution. That's probably going to be the salvation of the justice system. We've reached the stage where it's like the sausage machine. We've put so much sausage in there that there's no room for any more sausage.

Civilly, it's a problem, but more importantly it's even a greater problem in terms of the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system seems to be receiving tinkering but not a real look at what is the result of us not dealing effectively and in a futuristic fashion with how we are going to deal with these matters. The net result is that those people who are innocently charged -- and there are some, believe it or not -- in fact have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for a much longer period of time before they finally receive their day in court and have the opportunity to receive their acquittal.

When that happens, if the charges have been perhaps charges where the evidence was rather thin, it results in that person's reputation being damaged; it results in them having to pay a significant amount of money for legal representation to defend themselves, and at the end of the day they really have no recourse.

1540

Look at the victims and the witnesses who are involved in the justice system. They are not being given the consideration they should be given. The net result of that is that our system will become weakened because witnesses and victims will decide that it's not worth the aggravation to have to rearrange their plans and be present in court and find that the case is being adjourned to another date or whatever.

Look at the question of jurors. It's absolutely outrageous that juries, I believe, for the first two weeks of a trial are paid nothing. In fact, in my jurisdiction two jurors, I believe, had their cars towed away while they were sitting on a jury. That says eons about some of the more significant things. One might say, "Well, what's so bad about having your car towed away?" Well, if a juror is in the middle of deliberating on a trial, you can imagine that they're either going to take out their objection on the person appearing before the bar or they're going to take it out on the crown, and the net result is that justice is not achieved. It's tough enough that they don't get paid anything for that initial period of time.

I've heard stories that jurors are showing up in court with tank tops and shorts on, knowing that judges will probably refuse to allow them to be called as jurors. That to me says a lot about our system.

I have to say the whole question under this legislation of the appointment of judges was originally started under the Liberal administration by the former Attorney General, Mr Scott. It was not continued, as far as I know, in the initial intent. We now see it being brought forward before us. I think it's a good effort, a good attempt to try to ensure that appointments to the bench are quality as opposed to what party you belong to or who you know.

Perhaps the Attorney General can correct me, but I notice in the bill that there is no provision for that in connection with the appointment of justices of the peace, and there are a lot more of them who are appointed. I don't really understand what the process there is. I would have thought they would have been part of the courts of justice amendments to ensure that their appointment would also be devoid of any possible political connotations and that they would be appointed on the basis of ability. I don't say that in any disparaging way, because in my experience in the courts there have been very many men and women who have been appointed as justices of the peace who have been very good. Then, on the other side of the coin, as in, I suppose, the instance of anything, there have been those who have been not so good. I guess that's the issue of human experience.

But if the Attorney General, through this bill, is attempting to achieve what I think she's trying to achieve, and I think it's admirable that the political issues be taken out of it so that people can believe the appointments are being made on the basis of merit, then this bill, as I read it -- I must say that I've taken a quick look through it in terms of that issue, but I don't see the justices of the peace being subject to the same type of consideration.

The question of how a judge is dealt with is one that gives me serious concern. I know the bill goes a long way in trying to ensure the public will have the opportunity to ensure that a judge does not use his or her power in such a way that it will impact on the individuals who are before that man or woman. However, there is a section here, subsection 51.3(1), which says, "Any person may make a complaint to the Judicial Council alleging misconduct by a provincial judge." That gives me a little cause for concern too, because obviously the judges in the justice system of this province and this country are hearing what are contests. They're hearing contests between two people, be it in a civil matter or in a criminal matter between the crown representing the state and the accused. I would imagine that people who are involved in those contests will either find that the judge is one they like or one they dislike. If they're on the winning side, I guess they'll love the judge; if they're on the losing side, they may not be that happy with the judge. Therefore, judges are placed in a very sensitive position, having by oath to fairly listen to the evidence and make a determination of the facts and then apply the relevant law to the facts.

That becomes increasingly more difficult for judges today, because we see the press, particularly in the criminal bar, dealing with sentencing and criticizing the sentencing. We see letters to the editor from people criticizing the sentencing, yet they're not in the position to have seen what the judge saw or to hear what the judge heard, and therefore these armchair decisions made afterwards, without that information, are unfair.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that the press should not report fully on what takes place in our justice system, be it civil or criminal, but what I am suggesting is that ever more increasingly, with the advent of greater media coverage, the judges are being placed in a very much more difficult position, to make certain that every word they use is one that's not going to receive criticism from some faction in society. They have to be ever more vigilant that in sentencing a person or in dealing on a trial, be it civil or criminal, they in fact are going to not incur the wrath of the public or the press.

That becomes very dangerous, because the judicial system in a democratic society, if it stands for anything, stands for the fact that people are entitled to expect -- and in the main in this country and in this province we have not, to my knowledge, had any instances where this was not the case. But I do have concerns about too much of the microscope being placed on these men and women who serve our province and our country, oft-times in very difficult situations.

I'm surprised that judges are able to carry on the way they do without being burned out very significantly. We've all read criticisms in the press about the fact that judges only sit five hours a day. I suggest that perhaps the individual who makes that judgement should take on a five-hour job that puts you in a pressure-cooker, where you're dealing with evidence, witnesses, you have to assess the credibility of witnesses, you have to listen carefully and make notes as to their testimony and then you have to hear submissions from counsel as to the relevant law. Very often, the law is conflicting. There's an old adage that in law school the facts were always clear and the law was unclear. When you get out into practice in the real world, the law is normally clear but the facts are unclear.

So I have some reservations about that and I will certainly be monitoring, as will I'm sure all people who are interested in seeing that justice is done appropriately, just how successful these amendments are in that regard. If they place too much emphasis or place too much difficulty or pressure on judges, I think they will have to be reviewed.

We certainly don't want to place our judges in a position where they're going to be ducking or looking behind them, or being required to do that because of the criticism or because of complaints that are made that perhaps prove to be unfounded but can certainly cause an individual, particularly in that capacity -- because they really are in a goldfish bowl, like I guess we are. It can make it very difficult for them to carry on in an appropriate fashion their judicial job while trying to figure out what's going to happen to this one that's now before some committee.

1550

In terms of the recommendations in this bill for an expansion of the Unified Family Court, I think that is an essential item. It's probably at the very heart of some very significant issues today. We all watched over the weekend -- I didn't; I went to bed, but my wife and my son came up at 2 o'clock in the morning and told me about the whole instance of O.J. Simpson. The press took an unbelievable view of that. Here's the man, if he did it. He's been charged with a very serious count of assault against his wife. We're hearing domestic spousal assault is -- it was on the radio today. I was listening to it as I was coming in from Brampton.

We have to understand, and I think we do, that in matrimonial matters, although we have the former government, the Liberal government, and I believe the Conservatives before that -- the New Democratic Party government has made amendments to the bill, the family law reform act. It was a marvellous bill. What it did, in essence, was to take the fight out of the division of property when two people decided they were no longer in love and no longer wanted to continue their marriage. We set the stage. Basically, it's a mathematical formula almost in the family law reform act. The unfortunate thing is that we have not contrived or put together a formula to deal with the very essence of any matrimonial claim, which is the children, the issue of custody. There's nothing as simple as dealing with a matrimonial matter if there are no children. If it's just a split-up of the family assets, the bill itself provides for it.

This is why it's so important to have the Unified Family Court, because very often you had people who were being bounced between various courts. The provincial division of the family court could not deal with certain issues under the family law reform act. You might find yourself having to take proceedings there and then having to go on to the General Division or what was formerly the Supreme Court of Ontario, or county court, to have the other issues resolved. What happens there is you have a further backlog, a further delay.

There are two places where delay plays a very important factor. One of them is in a criminal prosecution where an accused is constantly on the front page of the paper, then is acquitted and they put his acquittal on page 65 of the paper. In the meantime his family and his reputation, or her reputation, have been destroyed.

Equal with that is the question that delay in dealing with matrimonial matters really has a significant impact, because it's a highly emotionally charged situation. I'm surprised that there are not more serious confrontations in the courts. We've seen them in the past. A lawyer and a judge were shot, or certainly a lawyer was shot to death tragically while involved in a matrimonial matter.

I've experienced it myself actually, being in a courtroom where police officers had to back you up in terms of protecting your back because you were dealing with an individual who was not rational. I think the rationality of people in matrimonial matters can range from the sublime to the ridiculous, and as the delay takes place, it becomes even more so.

If you have to wait 18 months or two years for a matrimonial matter to be dealt with while it goes through the normal system -- this is part of some of the comments I was making at the outset, that we have to get our system in order, we have to be able to speed up the system of justice -- you place at great risk, I suggest, the parties in that confrontation, particularly the women of this province, because more often than not when there are children involved, the woman gets exclusive possession of the house and probably custody of the children.

She's sitting there in the house and the husband is outside and he's really upset. As time goes on and as the delays take place in getting the matter resolved, he's out there, and the wife more often than not has changed the locks because she's afraid of what's going to happen. If you don't speed up the process and finally get it resolved, this woman is at serious risk or could be at serious risk. The children could be at serious risk.

The whole process of custody is antiquated. You have battles that go on between parents in fighting for custody, and the only losers are the kids. They sit in a situation where perhaps both parents are in the house and you're trying to get an order from the court to have the separation of the two warring factions, the mother and father, and you can't get them out because the process is delayed. The net result is that you have children who are deteriorating and becoming affected and wounded to the point that this will impact on their lives in the future. We worry about all the other victims of violence and so on, but we don't worry about the children of this province and this world who are caught up in that very battle.

I suggest that we should be looking at this in a more global way. The bill here is good and we'll support it, but in essence there should be a lot more to it. There should be a real effort to ensure that justice is a high priority in this province.

I can recall that at one time justice received about 1% of the provincial budget. That was elevated, and I was pleased, by the former Attorney General of our government, Mr Scott. He managed to get it to 2%. This is not a criticism of the present Attorney General, but I'm not sure what level you've gotten it to. I think one has to recognize that the thing around here that gets the juice is what's sexy. Justice doesn't seem to be a sexy issue, or wasn't in the past, and it became one that sort of got the back burner.

I think we're losing time on this. The public, in reading their newspaper every morning and seeing the things that are happening in this province, the dramatic changes that are taking place because justice is being delayed or because we're not dealing with the criminals who are caught in a way that returns them to the street to ensure that they don't offend again -- we are going to elevate the justice system to the sexiest political issue there is. When that happens, it will get a much greater portion of the money in terms of deciding how to deal with it. But I think we're running out of time. I think everybody in this House who has a passion for justice and believes in justice would say that's true: We're running out of time. We cannot afford to just pay lipservice to justice. We have to do more.

This bill addresses several issues. It addresses the issues of conduct of judges. It addresses the issue of complaints against judges, which is part of the conduct. It addresses the question of how judges are appointed. It addresses a few minor items in terms of the Courts of Justice Act. That's important, and also the question of Unified Family Court judges. But then of course you have to obtain, I believe, anyway, the funding, or you have to have their appointments as federal judges of the Ontario Court, and that will require Ottawa to act.

I understand that Ottawa is most anxious to expand the system of the Unified Family Court. They have told the attorneys general of the day, Mr Hampton -- my congratulations to you, Mr Hampton. I couldn't make your party, but all the best to you and your future wife. In any event, I believe it was to Mr Hampton and now the present Attorney General that Ottawa was saying: "All right, we'll give them to you. We'll provide the money. We'll cooperate with you, but we want the infrastructure to be in place." We haven't seen the infrastructure in place, Madam Minister, so it's important that we have that in place. That essentially is why this has been stalled, and it's a very important issue that it be determined and dealt with.

We are going to support this bill. We hope it's the start of -- not the start. We hope it's just a minuscule indication of things to come. We're looking forward to dealing with all the issues I've raised. I haven't raised them all; time doesn't permit. There are other issues to be discussed, obviously. But we'd better get busy with the question of justice. I hope the public will realize that justice is a politically sexy issue, that it is an important issue, because if we stay asleep at the switch and we allow the public to think it's not an important issue, we're going to do nothing more than have our society deteriorate right before our eyes. When that happens, it will be a little too late. We'll be going down for the third trip down, the drowning, and it'll be all over.

I urge you, Attorney General, and I urge your colleagues in cabinet to have a great deal more impact in terms of deciding what kinds of funds will be allocated to the administration of justice.

1600

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I will be very brief, in that I've put my remarks on the record during second reading.

This bill deals with the Ontario Judicial Council and some now-legislated rules to deal with the conduct of judges, and in addition is very important in that it indicates to judges that there are certain sensitivities judges have to appreciate.

To have legislated the rules of judicial conduct is probably a good thing for judges. It's probably a helpful thing to the judiciary in that we will not end up with the difficulties we've had in a recent inquiry, dealing with the conduct of a judge, where we really didn't know what the procedure should be. It is now in the courts because of questions about the procedural aspects of the actual trial that took place, or the inquiry that took place. This bill will very much, I think, alleviate that type of situation.

The second aspect of the bill is the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, and again that's an aspect of the bill that is really nothing particularly remarkable, because it's been in operation in the province of Ontario for many years, or for at least the last several years, dealing with the appointment of provincial court judges. Now we have legislated that procedure. We've recognized a formality to it that is, as well, a good thing. It's a good thing because both the Ontario Judicial Council and the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee involve significant input from the public so that the justice system is not elevated to a point or to a position above the public's reach and understanding. The public is very much a part of these procedures, and I think that as well is a good thing for the administration of justice in Ontario.

The third aspect dealing with this bill is the extension of the Unified Family Court throughout the province of Ontario. That as well is a very positive thing and it's been a long time in coming. That concept of the Unified Family Court began in the mid-1970s with the Ontario Progressive Conservative government of that day and it has since languished. It's been recognized at a very early stage to have been, as a pilot project, very successful, and it has taken too long to reach the stage where there has been a commitment to expand the Unified Family Court. It's been long overdue and we should certainly receive a commitment from the Attorney General that this expansion not only is going to take place, but is going to take place as rapidly as possible so that we can have a Unified Family Court throughout the province of Ontario with the utmost speed.

I said on second reading, and I will reiterate: Because so many judges who are now provincial court judges will be transferred and will become federal court judges to deal with the Unified Family Court, there will be a significant saving to the administration of justice in Ontario because the federal government will be paying for the salaries of all the new judges who are transferred to the Unified Family Court. That will be a significant saving to the administration of justice in Ontario.

I hope the Attorney General will make it clear to the Treasurer that this money cannot go back into general revenues. It should stay with the justice system and particularly it should stay with the Unified Family Court. It's money that can be used in communities to develop the Unified Family Court projects as they expand across the province. I hope the Attorney General will take that message back to the Treasurer in a very forceful way.

It's interesting to note that since this bill was proposed, a lot of things have happened within the administration of justice in the province of Ontario. We now have, and I think it's safe to describe it this way, a crisis dealing with legal aid. We now have problems dealing with the insurance fund that lawyers maintain for their own liability insurance, which is run through the Law Society of Upper Canada.

These two issues have brought the administration of justice, I believe, to a crossroads in time. I believe that is so because we are now at a point where it will be incumbent upon the Law Society of Upper Canada to solve the problems, in conjunction with the Attorney General, that exist in these particular areas. It will be incumbent upon the law society to deal with the Attorney General, and I hope the Attorney General will continue to recognize that the law society should and must be an independent body dealing with the governance of lawyers in the province of Ontario.

I think the Attorney General would do the administration of justice a major step forward if she would indicate clearly and publicly that the law society must remain a self-governing institution on behalf of lawyers all over Ontario. I think the Attorney General would facilitate the problems that are now existing in these areas of legal aid and lawyers' insurance if she indicated that it is incumbent upon the law society to solve those problems, but that the government will be there to facilitate those solutions, always mindful of the fact that lawyers are a self-governing profession and are governed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

I hope the Attorney General will make that quite clear so we can get on with the business of dealing with these very significant problems in a way that will be beneficial to the public.

Another thing has happened since this bill was proposed and it causes me some considerable concern, and that's the issue dealing with civil juries. The Attorney General has, in conjunction with the Chief Justice of Ontario, started by way of a committee to look into problems with the civil justice system in terms of courts administration, public access, the cost of administration and the cost of justice in the civil field of law.

One of the very concerning aspects of all this is what will happen to civil juries in the province of Ontario. I am concerned that the Attorney General will blindly listen to the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which I believe are fundamentally flawed. I hope with all my heart that the Attorney General will look beyond what the Law Reform Commission has indicated in its most recent report dealing with civil juries and speak to people who actually know what it means to litigate cases with a civil jury.

I looked at the names of the people who were involved in that study by the Law Reform Commission and I tell you that not one of those people has any experience whatsoever in dealing with the administration of justice and trying cases in front of a civil jury. That is the most obvious reason why the conclusions of the Law Reform Commission are absolutely flawed.

I want to take the Attorney General back to Bill 136. I don't want you to think I'm rambling away from the bill, because it's a very significant aspect of the rationale behind Bill 136. Bill 136 was created very much with a mind to public involvement in the administration of justice in the province of Ontario. If you remove, Madam Attorney General, civil juries and the right to a civil jury from the administration of justice in this province, what you are doing is taking the most fundamental step that you can take to remove the justice system from the people of Ontario.

It would be totally contrary to the rationale that you yourself used in creating Bill 136, very much designed to permit the public to comment on judicial appointments and the public to be involved in administering judicial conduct and judicial procedures for determining misconduct by judges.

1610

What I say to you, Madam Attorney General, is that to get rid of civil juries on the very, very thin rationale as set out by the Law Reform Commission is contrary to the philosophy that you yourself have used to develop Bill 136, and I would urge you to very soon make a statement to the people of Ontario indicating and reaffirming your commitment to the civil jury system in this province. I would not believe that someone who would draft Bill 136 would, in the same breath, turn around and take civil juries out of the system of justice in the province of Ontario.

As I have indicated, I had the opportunity to discuss and debate this after second reading. One issue I did deal with at that time that I was concerned with was the regulation of judicial conduct by Small Claims Court judges. I'm pleased to say that the Attorney General has brought some amendments forward which ameliorate that situation to some degree. I still think that what you're doing is overkill, but I'm confident that once a matter is referred to a judge of the High Court there will not be disputes, anyway, that go beyond that, so everything else you've done, I hope, is academic, because I don't believe you're going to have situations that escalate beyond that point anyway. I'm grateful that the Attorney General listened to some of those concerns and has taken steps to improve that aspect of the bill. I'm quite grateful that that has been done.

Those are the remarks I have for the record, Mr Speaker. It's safe to say that I will be voting in favour of this piece of legislation, and I hope the rationale that the Attorney General has used to develop it is foremost in her mind when she has to start making decisions about further amending this act to deal with the civil juries. I hope she doesn't do that. I hope she leaves the situation the way it is, because it's a very fundamental aspect to the justice system in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate? Seeing none, would the Attorney General have some concluding remarks?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Just very briefly to answer some of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues on the other side of the House.

To the member for Brampton South I would say, as I did at second reading, that this bill is not intended to resolve all the problems we face, the problems that we acknowledge we face, in the justice system. There is no question but that there are concerns about backlogs, both civil and criminal, in the court system.

But I would say that many of those issues are not issues that need to be dealt with specifically by this Legislature but are details that need to be worked out between the judiciary, the bar and the courts administration right across the province, and we are doing that. It's very important for people to understand that without having to bring forward any legislation at all, we have done a number of very important and significant changes that have already had their effect in terms of changing some of the problems that we all recognize within the court system.

I firmly believe that the Civil Justice Review, which was mentioned by both of my colleagues, will give us some of the answers, formed in a collaborative way by all those who are involved in the justice system, about how we can deal with the very serious civil backlogs that now exist.

The findings of that review, together with the pilot projects that we now have on case management, the kinds of rule changes that are being contemplated by the civil rules committee, the kinds of work we see being done by the judiciary in terms of ensuring that cases are scheduled in a more appropriate way, all of these things are part and parcel of the enormous change that needs to be made to streamline our system to make it more responsive to those who seek justice from our system.

In the criminal area, the kind of action this government was prepared to take to deal with the very serious crisis that arose in the early 1990s as a result of the Askov decision shows that we are prepared to take action. We have carried on with that in terms of setting in place the Martin committee, that made very, very strong recommendations about ways in which we can move criminal cases forward in a more appropriate way, in a more open way, which permits full disclosure and which enables both the crown and the defence to find ways to resolve some of these issues at an early stage and in a way which ensures that the justice system is well served, that victims' needs are taken into account, and that we see a justice system which is focused on deterrence.

I would say also that it's important for us to recognize that the province can't do this by itself, and that we have been greatly assisted by the kinds of actions announced recently by the federal government in terms of changes to the Criminal Code. Those too, particularly the procedural changes that were introduced last week, will enable us to streamline the process in a very effective way, and we look forward to an early passage of those measures.

With respect to appointments, the member for Brampton South seemed to be under some kind of illusion that the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee process set up by the honourable member for St George-St David, Mr Scott, under the Liberal government, had somehow fallen into disuse, and indeed it hasn't. It's been a very vigorous process. All of the appointments which this government has made have been made under that process, and that's why we are confirming the importance of that public appointments process.

We are saying very clearly that we want to see it enshrined in law, that we believe this is an appropriate way in which those who are involved in the justice system can advise the government on appointments. One of the changes from the informal process that was set up previously is that the Attorney General of the day must now appoint from a list provided by the committee or else require the committee to go back and re-examine its recommendations. In other words, every person who is appointed will have come through that process, and that's extremely important.

The member for Brampton South also seemed to have some confusion about the appointment of justices of the peace. He needs to know that there has been a very extensive public appointments process set up to deal with the appointments of justices of the peace, that justices of the peace are now appointed on the advice of local committees that are set up in local areas. Those committees determine the requirements for that particular area, they conduct advertisements, they conduct adjudication of applications, and they recommend to the Attorney General for appointment. That process has worked very well, and in conjunction with our procedure, which is converting justices of the peace to full-time appointments, it is strengthening the very first entry point to the criminal justice system through the justices of the peace, and is extremely important.

One of the most important issues in this bill is the accountability issue. The challenge has been to ensure that there is public accountability and yet that independence of the judiciary, of the justices of the peace, is not in any way infringed, and that is an extremely important balancing act that is necessary.

It is now the privilege of individuals to come before the court to complain if they have concerns about judicial conduct, but many people do not know that that process is in place, don't know how to access it. This bill will require that there be clear public education and information about the process, how it operates and what the citizen's role is in that, so that citizens understand that they can indeed complain if they perceive conduct to be prejudicial to them in any kind of way in front of the justice system.

1620

The member for Brampton South suggested that the openness of the process -- because under the bill, in most instances, this process would be fairly open -- is a drawback. I would suggest that indeed it is important for the judicial profession, as for every other profession, to be prepared to self-govern in a way that ensures that justice can be seen to be done. There is a provision that there can be a maintenance of confidentiality in very specific cases, but there has to be a justification for that. I would say that's extremely important in this process, that that is how we will win back public confidence in terms of their ability to deal with an independent judiciary. This is a confusion for many people.

I'm pleased that the member for Willowdale recognizes the changes that were made in the Small Claims Court judge disciplinary process. I agree with him I think it would be very unusual for matters to go farther than the regional senior judge, but we did believe it was important to leave a process there in case there was any question on the part of the public that accountability had been maintained. I say quite clearly I do not expect we will see a great many complaints under that section, but we did feel it was important for the purposes of accountability to ensure that that process was in place in its modified way.

With respect to the Unified Family Court, I'm very pleased that both the opposition parties support our bid to expand the Unified Family Court. I would agree with the member for Willowdale that I certainly wish this had been done years ago as well. What we depend upon now, of course, is agreement between the federal and provincial governments about the resource allocation to this. As the member for Willowdale pointed out very clearly, the federal government must be prepared to put the resources into judges' salaries and to appoint section 96 judges.

I would repeat the commitment that I made during second reading and that I know the deputy has made on many occasions, that if indeed the federal government and the provincial government are able to come to an agreement about the appointments process for Unified Family Court judges and we see those judges appointed from the specialists who already sit on the provincial bench, then my expectation, and certainly our commitment to the federal government, would be that the salary dollars saved by the province would be allocated to ensure that the services are there to ensure the success of that Unified Family Court. We are quite aware that the federal government will not be prepared to negotiate this situation unless it has an assurance that the services are there to make the court a success. We agree with them that that is extremely important.

The member for Willowdale also raised a number of issues facing the legal profession that have nothing to do with this bill and hopes the Ministry of the Attorney General and I, as minister, would respect the independence of the law society as a self-governing institution. I'm a little puzzled by his comments, since I believe it was just last week that the member was standing in his place asking me to take action to deal with the legal aid crisis because I was the minister responsible. Certainly the official opposition was making that requirement. At that time I stated very clearly my belief that it is important for us to recognize and honour the independence of the profession, to recognize that access to justice is a real concern for law society members, not just for those who are concerned about the possibility of a reduction of service from a client point of view.

I would say very clearly that our commitment as a ministry and my commitment as a minister is to work together with the law society and its members, to work together with the judiciary and the bar, to try to find ways in which the legal aid plan, the errors and omissions insurance plan, these very important aspects, are still very much under self-governing control.

It's very important for members to also recognize that the government's responsibility in this is a budgetary responsibility. We are saying that the way in which people meet their budget obligations certainly should be the responsibility of a self-governing and independent group to determine, but the budget limits are budget limits that we must set as a government.

Finally, there was a comment from the member for Willowdale about the whole issue of civil juries. I would remind the member that the Ontario Law Reform Commission paper is a discussion paper. It has gone out for consultation. We are looking for feedback. When that feedback is received, there will be a final report that will be forwarded in the fall and will be considered by the Civil Justice Review process.

It is important for the members of this Legislature to recognize that our practice in terms of civil juries is somewhat different from that of other provinces, that the suggestion in the Law Reform Commission report was not to do away with civil juries altogether but to make it not a set right of every litigant, but a situation where there would be a determination of the necessity for public input into decisions. We will see, as we go through the consultation process, the extent to which we are able to come to a consensus about the place of civil juries within the justice system.

Finally, I would like to say that I think we have every reason to be very proud of our justice system in Ontario. The member for Brampton South suggested that it is under great criticism, and he is right. Much of that criticism is based on misconceptions about how the justice system has evolved and how hard the judiciary and the bar and the courts administration staff are working together to try to resolve some of the problems which have built up over many years.

An example of that would be the voluntary agreement of provincial judges to sit many additional hours, up to an additional 3,000 presiding days per year, during the period of the social contract. I should report that having gone through two quarters of the year, the figures now show us that, indeed, the judiciary have kept that commitment and in fact have more than kept that commitment. The number of sitting days and indeed the number of sitting hours -- because it's important to know the sitting days have not reduced the number of hours in a sitting day -- have been met and in fact exceeded with both the trial judges and the managing judges in the province. That's a very important accomplishment.

It is important also to acknowledge the very strong efforts that have been made by the judiciary to manage in a responsible way, and to honour their independence by managing under our current memorandum of understanding, which is a very important way to ensure that independence but also to ensure better management of the courts. I think we all owe a great vote of thanks to the judiciary in this province for the efforts that they have made to try to work with others involved in the system, to resolve the problems that they too recognize with concern are exercising the citizens of the province of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for having the patience to listen to these comments. I look forward to seeing Bill 136 made into law.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs Boyd has moved third reading of Bill 136.

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

1630

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

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

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Today is a day for celebration and a day of thanks, and I'd also like to spend just a couple of minutes reviewing the bill we are now moving through third reading.

This financial services reform bill was introduced by our Minister of Finance in December 1993, and it sets out important reforms to the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, the Insurance Act and the Securities Act. These reforms are the result of more than two years of consultation with the credit union and caisses populaires movement, at least four years of consultation with the insurance industry, consumer groups and with the financial services sector as a whole. The reforms will help to modernize the regulation of financial services in Ontario.

The new act will removed outdated and unnecessary barriers and will allow credit unions and caisses populaires to compete in the new global marketplace. It will modernize how Ontario regulates life insurance agents, making the financial services sector more competitive, with better protection for consumers, and it will strengthen protection for investors in securities to enhance confidence in Ontario's markets as a safe place to invest.

I was asked by members of the opposition during second reading, while Bill 134 was an omnibus bill whose central theme was financial services reform, would the government consider other amendments to the financial services community?

I am pleased to report to the House that during the committee process, the government was able to support amendments to the Insurance Act in response to consultations with the farm mutual industry. These amendments will strengthen the ability of Ontario's farm mutuals to remain competitive and at the same time ensure that our prudential controls remain strong to protect Ontario policyholders.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank my colleague the member for Huron, Paul Klopp, who spent a lot of time lobbying me on this issue. As you can see, with his proximity to me, he has direct access. Mr Klopp let me know during the process that the last substantive review of farm mutuals took place in 1923. I would say it's time, and I'm sure you would agree, Madam Speaker.

Overall, this is an extremely satisfying day for me, as it is the culmination of a very productive and progressive process. The financial services sector worked with each other and with the government to make reform a reality. I believe these reforms are important to making Ontario's financial services sector strong and competitive.

With that, I'd like to take a minute or so to thank some people who worked extremely hard on this particular piece of legislation: from the ministry staff, Mr Harvey Glower, who has now become a vice-president with the Ontario Development Corp; Mr Terry Campbell; Mr Imants Abols; from the Ontario Insurance Commission, Mr Lawrie Savage, who spent a lot of time working out the various issues and bones of contention among insurers in the province; from the perspective of the Ontario Securities Commission, Ms Joan Smart, who came in to provide some excellent advice to me during the committee process and, along with commissioner Ed Waitzer, worked extremely hard to make our reforms to the Ontario Securities Act relevant and to add some much-needed consumer protection in the financial services marketplace.

Last but certainly not least I thank the folks from the credit union and caisses populaires movement who have worked with me both on this piece of legislation and on my review of the Co-operative Corporations Act: Pierre Lacasse from the Federation des caisses populaires de l'Ontario; Jonathan Guss, who unfortunately is not in the gallery with us, and I would imagine he's out working some magic with some of the associations of small credit unions to bring them onside and bring them into the family; Mr David Guiney, who had to bear with my translations of the English language into French, and I'm certainly pleased that we're able to have a written record of the proceedings because I'm sure otherwise it would make for some fairly strange financial services reform; Michel Paulin from the L'Alliance des caisses populaires de l'Ontario for his hard work and his great assistance to me as I travelled throughout the province conducting my reviews; and lastly, but not least, Marilyn Hood from Credit Union Central of Ontario.

With that, I again think that this is a day for all of us on all three sides of the House to be proud of the work that was done on this particular piece of legislation. Mr Elston, the member for Bruce, Mr Cousens initially and then Mr Johnson, the member for Don Mills, all worked extremely hard to make sure this was a process that was moved forward in as quick a manner as possible and in as productive a manner as possible.

I think in closing I'd like to repeat a question that was asked of me during the clause-by-clause section of the process by the member for Oakville South. Mr Carr asked me -- and I'm paraphrasing, so please, people, don't run to the Hansard to check out the word-by-word phrasing -- "Mr Owens, are you aware this has taken 17 years to bring credit union reform to Ontario?" My response was of course quite helpful and quite informative. I said, "Not only that, Mr Carr, not only has it taken 17 years for credit union and caisses populaires reform to come to Ontario, but did you know that it's been 44 years since there's been some significant life agent reform in this province?"

I also want to indicate that it's the Ontario New Democratic Party government that's providing this financial services reform. The former Minister of Financial Institutions, the Honourable Brian Charlton, the member for Hamilton Mountain, began this process back when I was his parliamentary assistant. Today we can take our hats off to Mr Charlton and of course Mr Laughren for moving this process through.

Again, I thank the members of the committee and the members of the industry. We look forward to further work in the future.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): I thank the member from Scarborough Centre for his remarks regarding Bill 134. Questions or comments to the member? Seeing none, further debate?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I just wanted to allay the fears of anyone who is watching the parliamentary assistant that this bill doesn't solve every problem that ever existed anyplace. I think he would want to acknowledge that, although he did go through a recitation of a fair number of examples of good things which we supported in the bill.

But there for a while I was thinking that we were going to get just about the answer to every problem that has ever struck financial institutions or financial regulation in the province of Ontario, and of course that's not quite the extent of our reforms here. In fact, some of the reforms in financial institutions are awaiting the passage of Bill 160, I guess. Some more are waiting for trust companies and others with respect to regulatory problems which were also being studied under Mr Charlton and other ministers' jurisdictions for several years, and I am told that those will soon be brought in by the New Democrats as well.

1640

Now, we're not exactly sure when "soon" is, but the definition used by the former Attorney General, as he then was, the Honourable Ian Scott, was that "soon" means soon and you will know "soon" as soon as it arrives. So I can expect that probably the parliamentary assistant will uphold that definition as it relates to some of the trust companies that have expressed some concern about the provisions of their industry or provisions of their act which have not yet been touched by this financial regulations amendment bill.

I was interested in several areas of the act. The credit unions, of course, have received, along with caisses populaires, a shot in the arm. We have raised in that regard the concerns which exist between the small credit unions and the large credit unions in the organizations, concerns that some will be driven to do things they might not otherwise have decided to do on their own, that the competition that is now allowed will push the boards of directors to do things they may not have decided to do on their own before. Whether anybody agrees with that or not is neither here nor there. I can tell the honourable member for Scarborough Centre that this is a real concern for some people who came to see us.

I am mindful that we have to be absolutely certain that we have the credit unions and caisses populaires that move into these new areas of endeavour very stable indeed, financially ready to assume the roles that are allowed under this legislation. In fact, we spent some time in committee reviewing the status of credit unions and caisses populaires to ensure, or at least to give ourselves the sense that we were sure, that they were able to depart into these new areas of activity.

I was quite pleased generally with the movement of this bill through the committee stage, but we should at least devote a moment or two to the help provided to us by Monte Kwinter, the member for Wilson Heights, who on more than one occasion saved us from developing amendments and leaving wording in the statute which would leave, at the very least, ambiguity staring us all in the collective face, and at some stages actually saved us from leaving some very grievous errors in the bill.

We have I think assisted in this legislation to change the face of our financial services packages. Obviously, life agent reform had been out in the field for a long time. It predated me. It didn't get done when I was there as minister, it didn't get done when the Conservatives were around and it has taken that capitalist group, the New Democrats, to actually move this reform ahead. To those strong-willed capitalists on the other side of the House, I say thank you very much. Perhaps we can expect more of the same from these folks as they try to earn new favour with the institutions that provide the sound funding and investment for our economic wellbeing in the province of Ontario.

Needless to say, I'm pleased to be here to say that our party will unquestionably support this bill on third reading. We have supported it right through. We have brought forward on occasion two or three amendments which have been of some help, but to be quite honest, the lion's share of the work on this bill has been done by the people at the Ontario Securities Commission, at the Ontario Insurance Commission and at the regulators and financial institutions.

All of those people who were mentioned obviously have been working at this, not just for the last three years but I can tell you for many moons prior to that. In fact, Harvey Glower has been, I would say, working at the end of his responsibilities towards a goal that had been shared by Norm Wilson and others who were in the credit union and caisses populaires branch of the Ministry of Financial Institutions for quite some time.

Perhaps I might say just for a moment, and then I will end my remarks, that the caisses populaires and credit unions organization inside the Ministry of Financial Institutions, now the Ministry of Finance, has been at least in my time there a group of devoted individuals who have seen their work as a special calling, and in some ways a special calling because it is clear I think that caisses populaires and credit unions have not always had the primacy of interest throughout the time that the mandate has been with the ministries of Finance and Financial Institutions.

It goes without question in my view that there are considerable disagreements about whether or not some of the things that were decided in the Ministry of Financial Institutions, as it then was, or the Ministry of Finance, have all been supported by credit unions and caisses populaires, but I can tell you that the people I knew there who were responsible for the organizations in the regulatory sense felt a strong sense of drive towards establishing and maintaining a very secure credit union-caisses populaires movement.

They were absolutely devoted to it. Not only was it their job; in some cases it quite clearly was the mandate that the people had personally in the back of their minds. While I can say that there were disagreements, the object of everyone's desire was basically to make sure that this world worked well for those people who had adopted the credit union and caisses populaires movement as their means of supporting communities and local economic activities in those communities.

From my side, from the Liberal caucus, we support this bill in all of its facets, although if you say that the central theme was financial services regulation, we might well have gone into any number of other areas, because there is still more work to be done. While there has been a great deal accomplished here and while there has been a great deal accomplished that will allow new programs to move into some of the communities that haven't been well served before because of the presence of credit unions and caisses populaires, there still remains yet a considerable degree of activity around the evening or levelling of the financial services playing field.

For all of us who have watched over the last seven or eight years in particular, the movement in this area is quite surprising. It takes the regulators full-time just to keep up to all of the changes and movements that are occurring not only here in Ontario but at the federal level as well. I think that for those people at the Ministry of Finance now who are regulating the financial services area, there will be more to be done and certainly a great deal more to be said and much more to be amended in the not-too-distant future.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I want to comment briefly on the legislation. For the most part, I would probably agree with the comments that have been made by the two previous speakers. I would also like to pay the government a compliment by dealing with the concerns of farm mutuals across the province. However, there is one small group of people who are still not entirely enamoured with the legislation, and that is the Ontario Association of Small Credit Unions.

As I'm sure the parliamentary assistant and the minister are aware, this was an association that appeared and made its concerns known before the committee. They are very concerned that the many smaller credit unions across the province have not had their concerns addressed by the new act. I want to touch on a few points that were made by the association before the committee deliberations and I will leave it at that.

At its presentation, the association started out by saying that their association was formed by a small group of credit unions in 1990 because they were concerned about the rapid decline in the number of small credit unions in the province and what they saw as a movement away from the true credit union philosophy.

They actually trace back the history of credit unions and their beginnings in the province of Ontario. They were formed by small groups of people, usually employees pooling their funds together to help each other. For many, credit was not available from banks, so the credit union movement began. Many of them started with assets of less than $100. Their motto, as it was reiterated by the association, was a smiling man holding an umbrella. Raining on him were the words, "Illness," "Hard Times," and "Financial Distress." He was smiling because he knew that he could always receive help from his local credit union.

It was explained in training manuals of credit unions that workers in the plant would be best suited to serve the credit union as opposed to the controller of a company, because a fellow worker could more easily relate to the needs of his or her co-workers than could a professional person. As credit unions grew and became more sophisticated over the years, that motto was discarded by some and replaced with, "Not for profit, not for charity, but for service." That too was ultimately replaced by a new, modern hands-and-globe symbol.

1650

Some credit unions have grown I presume beyond anybody's expectations in their size. It became clear -- quite frankly, the association recognizes -- that the current act did not meet the needs of these, as the Ontario Association of Small Credit Unions refers to them, near-banks, nor were the regulatory powers equipped to deal with them. Larger credit unions wanted and needed new rules and so did the regulators.

Larger credit unions have assets, many times, of hundreds of millions of dollars. Membership quite often is in the thousands. Many members are personally unknown to credit union employees. Over the years, of course, these larger credit unions have found that workers in the plant did not have the expertise to deal with their new situation in the credit union movement, so they recruited professionals from the banks, from the ministry, and in turn recruited examiners from banks.

Everything seems to be working fine with the advent of these changes to the legislation except with the smaller credit unions which are still in many smaller communities across the province. As one small credit union stated in a letter to the ministry with respect to the proposed legislation, "The very rules that are supposed to save us are going to put us out of business."

That has been the trend in the province. Ten years ago, there were over 1,000 credit unions in the province of Ontario; today there are less than 600. An article in Credit Union Central's Spectrum magazine in 1989 predicted that by the year 2000, the number of credit unions will be well below 300. It is not the larger credit unions of course that are disappearing; it is the smaller ones. They are having problems. They are having problems being what they have always been to people in small communities.

One general manager who's been involved in 16 different mergers has responded to the problems of smaller credit unions and their disappearance by saying, and I quote: "I believe that the credit union system's market share problem can be corrected to some extent through mergers. If limited service credit unions merge with full service ones, then we can pull business away from the banks and trusts."

I think that is exactly part of the problem that smaller credit unions in the province are facing today. There seems to be this philosophy that bigger is better, even at the expense of many smaller credit unions.

In an article in Spectrum also, commemorating Central's 50th anniversary, Central's very first, first-time general manager, Mr John Hallanan, is quoted as saying: "Credit unions are dominated by professional bankers. Many of these people don't know the historical background of the movement and focus on profit instead of service. We have gradually devolved into just another industry." He goes on to state that in his opinion credit unions have lost their values in the drive to become superprofessional banking institutions.

I give credit to the Ontario Association of Small Credit Unions, because although it has problems with the current legislation, Bill 134, which we're debating and talking about here today on third reading, it recognizes that larger credit unions need this reform if they are going to survive. But the query that it made to the minister and the ministry, both before the bill went through second reading and after in committee, is still the same, "What are you going to do to address our concerns?"

I would like to hear some response from the government as to exactly what it does plan to do to address the concerns of the smaller credit unions in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Are there questions or comments to the member?

Mr Owens: I very quickly want to thank the member for Parry Sound for his comments. The concerns that he raised on behalf of the Ontario Association of Small Credit Unions are not unknown to myself nor the minister nor the representatives from the credit union and caisses populaires movement.

When representatives of this group came forward to committee, yes, there was a concern about the decline of small credit unions, and yes, 10 years ago there were 1,000 small credit unions and today there are 600 and there is a projection of a further decrease. I think, if the member looks closely at the reasons for this, it's the result of mergers and some of the smaller credit unions simply going out of business. It's not as a result of business practices by the larger credit unions.

In terms of the smaller credit unions, the message we tried to give to them in a very concerted and direct way was that this legislation is not going to impact on their ability to do business. This is permissive legislation. You can choose to act on the new services if you choose to. Yes, it's true that the larger credit unions and caisses populaires need to have the kind of reform that we are proposing in order to meet the competition in the newly reorganized global financial community, but it's our view and the view of the credit unions and caisses populaires who work quite closely with the credit unions that this is not going to be an issue for them.

In terms of the issue itself, if the member for Parry Sound or any other member of the Conservative caucus, which, I will give credit to, has argued strenuously on behalf of these folks, would like to sit down for a briefing, we will go over these issues with them and point out that we are in no way negatively impacting on the ability of this association to do business.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My colleague the member for Markham, the previous critic, and I have both indicated that we would be supporting this bill and expediting this bill, and we certainly have done that. I think the parliamentary assistant would agree that we have done that.

Notwithstanding those comments, I must say that the comments of my colleague from Parry Sound are well taken, and these are comments that have been expressed to us by the Ontario Association of Small Credit Unions. I have a great deal of sympathy for their case, and perhaps we should take the parliamentary assistant up on his offer and sit down and discuss this further. But the small credit unions remember the way the credit union movement was back a few years ago, and still is today, whereby they know all their members, and they're not professionals: The people who perform the management positions, make the decisions, are people they work with on a day-to-day basis; they're all volunteers. They know their business; they know their people. They have an excellent default record, I might say, because they do know their people and they do know if there's a risk associated with their people. There's also the factor that since in a smaller credit union people know one another and interact with one another, work with one another on a day-to-day basis, one member is very reluctant to default on another member. So there's that sort of pressure.

The small credit unions have given excellent service throughout the province of Ontario, and I for one would certainly be very reluctant to put in place any measures that would discourage the small credit unions. It certainly deserves some further effort to address the concerns that the member for Parry Sound has brought forward.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further questions or comments to the member for Parry Sound? If not, the member has two minutes to respond.

Mr Eves: I won't be using my entire two minutes of time, but I too appreciate the offer from the member for Scarborough Centre. Perhaps we could get the association together with him and officials in the ministry to discuss their concerns. When they filed their report during committee hearings, they had four basic concerns or problems they saw with Bill 134, and I'm sure they would appreciate that opportunity to delve into those matters further with the member and the ministry.

Just to very briefly allude to a couple of the comments the member for Don Mills made, it's been pointed out to me by several members of the smaller credit unions in the province of Ontario that they still practise, it may be a surprise to some members to learn, on the basis that the three basic concerns in operating a small credit union that a manager always had were (a) the character of the individual seeking the financing, (b) the capacity to repay the loan, and (c) collateral.

1700

To smaller credit unions, it seems as if those three principles have been reversed. The number one principle now seems to become collateral, the number two principle is the capacity to repay, and, sadly, the third principle is the character of the individual. That is one advantage, I believe, that smaller credit unions have over the larger ones that are not in the same ballpark.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Come on, Ernie. That's unfair.

Mr Eves: The member for Huron says that's unfair. I can take him to a couple of smaller credit unions in my riding where the manager knows each and every single person who has a loan. When you compare that to, for example -- no offence to be taken -- the Auto Workers Credit Union in Oshawa, which has numerous offices, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of assets, is the member for Huron telling me there's one manager in Oshawa who knows every single person personally and knows their background and their character, every single person who's ever taken a loan from that credit union? Absolutely not the case --

Mr Klopp: You're comparing apples and oranges.

Mr Eves: -- and that's exactly the point of the smaller credit unions.

The Acting Speaker: Is there further debate on Bill 134?

Mr David Johnson: I was going to begin my debate today talking about the Ontario Association of Small Credit Unions, but the member for Parry Sound has stolen my thunder, and rightfully so, because he's been very close to that association for some period of time. So I don't regret that whatsoever.

But I will point out -- I wasn't sure if it was mentioned -- that the association itself put forward the possibility of having two different bills, one pertaining to large credit unions and one pertaining to small credit unions, and that there would be a one- to two-year phase-in and the credit union itself could determine which bill under which to operate. An alternative suggestion they put forward was to have one bill with part A and part B, and you would pick the part a credit union would operate under.

I realize that may be somewhat unprecedented, and perhaps that's why the government didn't proceed with it, but at least they put forward that suggestion, recognizing the difference, in their view, between the large credit unions and the small credit unions.

I will pass on to talk about just a few of the other concerns, and that's all I'm going to do, in a brief period of time, I hope: first, to register my support for the bill, which I've already done; to indicate that through the process, I personally believe that I and my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party have gone to great lengths to expedite the process, and I think the same can be said of the other opposition party. But there are one or two concerns that were registered, and I would just like to put them on record this afternoon if I might.

The Coalition of Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires presented to us an excellent presentation. I believe some of their representatives are here today. They presented on behalf of the Association of Credit Unions of Ontario, having some 19 members; L'Alliance des caisses populaires de l'Ontario, having some 14 members; the Federation des caisses populaires de l'Ontario, having some 43 members; and the Credit Union Central, having some 423 members, I believe. They presented to us and expressed their support of Bill 134 as being long-overdue legislation. I believe the last amendment was in 1976, almost 20 years ago, to the Credit Union Act, so it's perhaps long overdue.

I would just like to put forward one concern. They did register a few concerns, but they were supportive. One concern that was registered concerned a comparison between the credit union-caisses populaires movement and the banks.

At the federal level, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp insures the deposits of the banks and trusts. The CDIC, as it's known in short, has the right under statute to borrow from the consolidated revenue of the federal government. The authorized borrowing, I might say, in the first instance was about $500 million; it's now up, I believe, to some $6 billion that the CDIC is permitted to borrow as it guarantees the deposits in banks and trust companies. That ability to borrow from the consolidated revenue of the federal government is something that has worth, that has real value to the banks and trust companies.

By comparison, the equivalent unit in the province of Ontario is called OSDIC for short. It's the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp. That is the corporation that assists the credit union movement, but it has no equivalent right to borrow from consolidated revenue of the province of Ontario. So if OSDIC is required to borrow funds, it must go out on the open market, on the private market, and borrow money at a higher cost than would be associated with banks and trust companies.

So that puts the credit union movement, in its view -- and this was the view that was put forward fairly firmly and strongly by the coalition representing the caisses populaires and credit unions -- at a disadvantage to the banks and the trust companies in that regard. That was perhaps one of their major points, and I just wanted to put that on record in terms of their ability to compete in the markets today.

One other point that I wanted to put on record is from a presentation that was made by caisse populaire Ste-Anne-Laurier d'Ottawa. In their view, and they were fairly firm in this as well, the most flagrant shortcoming was the inability to impose a mandatory affiliation whereby each caisse populaire or credit union would have to be affiliated with a league or a federation. But apparently within the movement there's a split on that; some favour that mandatory affiliation and some oppose it. So the government has decided not to take any action on it, but from the point of view of this one caisse populaire, at any rate, they feel that that's a real shortcoming.

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: From the Ste-Anne-Laurier, that's right; that's the one. The parliamentary assistant was there, I'm sure, and heard the deputation. They put their views forward very firmly, and I thought it should go on record that they had done that. Apparently, all other Canadian provinces have that mandatory affiliation. Ontario is the only exception; that's what they've indicated, at least to me. They feel that it would be more efficient for the Ministry of Finance to deal with a federation or a league, which would then deal with its individual members.

Mr Owens: What did you say about the small credit unions?

Mr David Johnson: I'm saying there are different points of view, and I'm putting forward those different points of view, Mr Parliamentary Assistant.

The Acting Speaker: Please address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr David Johnson: It shouldn't be too difficult for the parliamentary assistant to be able to deal with that.

Mr Klopp: You are talking about one side or the other.

Mr David Johnson: So there's another point of view, Madam Speaker, and it was put forward very firmly. From the heckling on the other side, I guess they have a problem dealing with that, but that's too bad.

Mr Klopp: Read Hansard; your own colleague says something to that effect.

Mr David Johnson: Another piece of good news, perhaps, that I would like to bring forward concerns the presentation of the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association, commonly known as the farm mutuals.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Your friends.

1710

Mr David Johnson: My friends; for sure. They do a good job. They represent some 51 insurance companies in Ontario, known as the farm mutuals. Again, they are directed largely by volunteer board members, who may be farmers and small business people within their communities, and they provide property and casualty insurance, vehicle insurance and that sort of thing, largely within the farm community.

They have assets of some $360 million. I think I've got that wrong. Their total policy surplus stands at -- sorry -- $530 million in total assets, so this is a big operation.

The farm mutuals did come before us, did make an excellent presentation, and did request the ability to retail certain insurance policies, and this has been granted. In November of last year, they actually took a vote among their members, and their members recognized that they needed the ability to compete. By a 90% vote, they did recommend that they look for a broadening of the regulations that they have at the present time, and they have been given the right, through a subsidiary, to retail certain insurance policies.

That was one of the higher points, I might say, of the whole proceedings, which were excellent proceedings, excellent committee hearings, all the way round, but that was one of the pieces of good news.

The Investment Dealers Association of Canada appeared before us, and this was good news as well. The investment dealers are looking for the ability to have what they call an SRO, a self-regulatory organization. Within the investment community at present, this kind of regulation is taking place, but it is not sanctioned by the act that's in place at the present time. It has been challenged in the courts, and there's some concern that unless additional authority on this self-regulation was provided through this act, perhaps that self-regulation would be at risk, in jeopardy.

They made their case, and I must say that they were granted -- well, we will see through the regulations but it appears that that authority has been extended to the Investment Dealers Association, and certainly I support that. I want to put on record that I support that self-regulatory approach. It's more efficient for the taxpayer. It avoids bureaucracy here within the provincial government. We surely don't want a provincial bureaucracy doing that sort of thing. Within the financial community itself, it does have the expertise to do this, and indeed through its past actions has shown it's prepared to put in place more stringent regulatory controls than the government has mandated. I think that's a win-win situation.

Passing quickly now to the independent life insurance brokers, again a level of support for the bill, although they did express a few concerns which I'll just put on record at this point.

First, they felt that those agents who have been licensed for five years should be grandfathered in terms of the education requirements. There are new education requirements that are being introduced through this bill: level 1 education, level 2. They felt that those who were five years within the profession should be grandfathered. They felt the education requirements were too low, as a matter of fact. As I understand it, the requirement is for 30 hours over two years. They suggested that the education requirements for life insurance agents should be 24 hours a year.

They recommended that the code of ethics should be revised, and they felt that one code of ethics for all types of agents perhaps was not appropriate; that there should be a different code of ethics depending on the situation.

Finally, they raised the issue of replacement policies in the life insurance business. This general area is one that perhaps drew some concern from different angles. The agents themselves felt that when somebody is looking at the possibility of having a new life insurance policy, the bill apparently would require the agent who is proposing to replace it to lay out a comparison of the existing policy with the proposed policy.

The agents have indicated that in some cases that will be difficult to impossible to do, because some policies go back many years, perhaps even decades, and they will not be in a position to be able to lay out all the facts. So the agents feel that should they be marketing a new policy, they should be required to lay out all the facts for that policy, with regard to all the various components of the policy -- the premiums, the face value etc -- but they should not be required to go back to the previous policy and to provide the equivalent facts.

That's from the independent life insurance brokers. One or two of the companies have also expressed concerns with regard to this replacement policy. They've indicated that the proposed form that would have to be filled out for a replacement policy would blank out most of the information about the new policy and would make it very difficult for the company that has the existing policy to comment. They also indicate that it would allow the replacing agent to be less than forthcoming in his or her comparison tables because it will not be checked out by another insurance company, so they've expressed concerns with regard to the replacement process as well. That's coming both from some of the companies and from some of the independent brokers.

Although we've passed that now -- some of these complaints, I might say, have come up after the committee hearings -- perhaps it's still something that could be looked into. I look at the parliamentary assistant. I'm not sure whether he's nodding his head that there's a point there or not.

There's just one more aspect I want to mention today, time being short, and that was from the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc. They raised a couple of concerns. In their submission, they've asked that the same kind of ability that was granted to the farm mutuals in terms of marketing or retailing be extended to their industry. This was a common theme through the whole piece, that all involved in the financial community, whether the trust companies or the credit unions or the caisses populaires or the insurance people, all wanted to make sure there's a level playing field.

I think there is agreement that the credit unions and the caisses populaires were the most deserving of having up-to-date information and the most deserving at this point in time to be given a level playing field. But the other actors in this whole play were saying: "Don't forget about us. Don't forget about the insurance industry, don't forget about the trust companies," that they also have their eye on being brought up to date. In many cases, the legislation involving their industry is well out of date as well and needs to be addressed and updated so they too would be on a level playing field, particularly with the banks. That's the major concern: with the banks.

The second point the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association made was with regard to its filing date. They pointed out that by federal decree they are required, apparently, to file on October 31, and by provincial decree they're required to file, some of them at any rate, on December 31. So there's a period of two months in between where they don't coincide. They do one file and one audit for October 31, another file and another audit for the two months leading up to December 31, and it's very wasteful, it's very expensive. One firm indicated that the cost to do this was in the order of $200,000. Indeed, they're suggesting that they be permitted to select the date on which they can file so that there's one date and they can avoid the duplication, save money and make their business more competitive. Hopefully, we can recognize that and allow our businesses to be more competitive.

1720

There were other issues raised during the period of the debates, but those are the ones I wanted to bring forward, because there were a number of excellent deputations. And I have to say the government and the staff behind the government did a good job on this one.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Get that down.

Mr David Johnson: Get that down? When praise is due, I'll give praise, and I must say that on this bill the staff did a good job of consulting. There are a few concerns that fell through the cracks. That's only normal in a bill of this magnitude, some 184 pages I think it is. It's a major bill, a major piece of legislation. We did sit through some 127 amendments in the first instance. I don't know what we ended up with. But when all parties are thrown into the pot, I suspect there were about 140 amendments altogether. We did it in a very rapid fashion, with a high degree of cooperation, so perhaps this has been a good exercise, and my compliments to everybody concerned, but I did want to put on record a few of those concerns that some people feel perhaps haven't been addressed.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Don Mills for his contribution to the debate. Questions or comments to the member?

Mr Owens: I just want to address a number of things the member for Don Mills said. It's unfortunate that on this day of goodwill and celebration there would be some of the negative connotations brought into this House. If the member is going to read the presentations and concerns from the aforementioned groups, I believe he should also read the responses provided by myself and the ministry staff.

On the issue of the Ste-Anne-Laurier credit union from Ottawa and its concerns, we addressed these concerns quite directly and early on in the process. They were concerned about the cultural implications of this particular piece of legislation. We then informed them at the committee hearing that this government has done two things with respect to the caisses populaires: First, we have enshrined and reserved the name "caisse populaire." Upon proclamation, no other group can use the term "caisse populaire" unless in fact it is a caisse populaire. Second, we have enshrined in legislation the provision of services in French.

On the issue of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, as was quite adequately and quite simply explained to the committee and those who were in the room that particular day, there's absolutely no comparison between the farm mutuals and the Canadian life and health association. The farm mutuals stand behind each other to a company: Each and every member is willing and prepared to back the other member. It can't be said for the members of the Canadian life and health association.

On the issue of the small credit unions and the comments from the member for Don Mills with respect to mandatory membership in leagues, he has to decide what he wants. He wants either to have mandatory membership and support the Ste-Anne-Laurier caisse populaire or he wants to support the association of small credit unions. In terms of the work we've done with the small credit unions, we again can be proud of the work we've done and will continue to do so, notwithstanding the member for Don Mills.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too want to first of all compliment the government. My colleague the member for Don Mills has brought up some of the problems that were pointed out by the organization of caisses populaires, particularly in eastern Ontario, and they were addressed reasonably well.

Certainly as we go back to our mutual farm insurance companies, they brought forth very legitimate requirements, requests, to ensure their viability. I certainly speak for two, the Grenville Patron Mutual and the Glengarry Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. Both are very active in my community and I certainly agree that they should be allowed to do some investing of some of the moneys, and I think that's been accommodated in a very positive way.

I only wish that with Bill 91, which will be brought forth next, the government had listened in the same way. Common sense has prevailed in this particular bill. It would be awful nice to see some common sense prevail on Bill 91 as well, because I can tell you, we're getting ready to put up a real fight in this Legislature.

The parliamentary assistant talked about a great day and all the cooperation. I asked for a bit of cooperation. We got it in this bill. I ask for it on Bill 91. Let's have input from the people who are involved directly, the same people who support the farmers mutual insurance. They were accommodated very well in this bill. I say to the parliamentary assistant, let's extend it; let's do it throughout all of rural Ontario, because Bill 91 is something that the people of rural Ontario are not looking for. They were looking for these amendments and they got them, and I thank the government for it.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any further questions or comments to the member for Don Mills? Seeing none, the member may have two minutes to reply.

Mr David Johnson: I thank my colleague from S-D-G & East Grenville for his comments with regard to Bill 134 and Bill 91. The member is certainly very familiar with farm mutuals and understands the needs and concerns in that particular area. As I mentioned in my speech, the farm mutuals did come forward, made an excellent presentation and I believe were satisfied with the authority and responsibility that was given to them through the act.

With regard to the member for Scarborough Centre, it's unfortunate that one can't stand up in this Legislature and say basically that this is a good bill. This is a bill that my party helped to expedite. I, in particular, and the member for Oakville South and the member for Markham helped expedite this through, and I think the parliamentary assistant would recognize that. But you can't make a comment that one of the many organizations that came forward made comments where it would like to see various aspects of the bill improved. I'm not allowed to make those kinds of comments or I'm accused of being negative. Everything has to come up roses or else the parliamentary assistant gets upset. I'm a little disappointed in that kind of reaction, that in this Legislature you can't raise possible areas of improvement.

I didn't mention, for example, that the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario had gone to great pains to indicate to us the folly of Bill 164 and what Bill 164 meant to their industry. Apparently they had eight pages for the insurance brokers and that went up to 77 pages that they had to read through for Bill 164. I didn't bring that kind of comment here because basically I thought this was a positive exercise, but certainly some concerns have been registered and I think it's in my job as a critic to bring those to the House.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Don Mills for his contribution to the debate. Is there any further debate on Bill 134? If not, the parliamentary assistant, to make closing remarks.

Mr Owens: I'd like to thank members on all sides of the House for their hard work and cooperation through this process and also the members of the financial services community who have been of incredible assistance as we have moved through this process.

I forgot during my remarks earlier to thank one person, and that's Mr Andy Poprawa from the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp. Andy, before his move to OSDIC, was the manager of the credit union services in our ministry. Mr Poprawa has worked quite hard, both for our ministry and now in his new role in OSDIC to ensure that the credit union movement not only survives but continues to grow and thrive and is able to respond to the new global financial services marketplace.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Owens has moved third reading of Bill 134.

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

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL DANS L'AGRICULTURE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agriculture Industry / Projet de loi 91, Loi concernant les relations de travail dans l'industrie agricole.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): In accordance with orders of the House, Mr Mackenzie has moved second reading of the bill without further debate.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1732 to 1737.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would members please take their seats. Mr Mackenzie has moved second reading of Bill 91.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and be recognized by the clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Sutherland, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time to be recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Brown, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cunningham, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLean, Murphy, North, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Ramsay, Runciman, Sterling, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes being 56, the nays 33, I declare the motion carried.

This bill is ordered to committee of the whole House.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before we move to orders of the day, there's been a topic discussed around for the last couple of hours and I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to ensure that the flags in front of this building fly at half-mast for the next couple of days, until the funeral on Wednesday for the constable who was killed last Thursday.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Report continues in volume B.

20 juin 1994