Journal des débats 1994-oct-31 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Scary stories are appropriate for Hallowe'en. This new book, entitled Rae Days: The Rise and Follies of the NDP, provides Ontarians with a scary but true look at the incompetence, ignorance and arrogance of Bob Rae's New Democratic government. The stories are really scary.

On page 126 we have Jenny Carter, the former Minister of Energy, advising the cabinet not to provide aid to Elliot Lake uranium workers, saying: "Why bother?...They'll all be dead of cancer soon anyway." I tell you, that is scary.

On page 68, Bud Wildman tells the Premier that the best thing about his appointment as the new Minister of Environment and Energy is that he'll be able to reverse Ruth Grier's decision not to allow Toronto's garbage to be shipped to Kirkland Lake. So what happened? That's scary.

In one of the most important and I think incompetent moves in political history, Ruth Grier described on page 179 her failure to read the social contract simply because she was in a rush to go on vacation. Very scary.

But the scariest comment of all that I think sums up Bob Rae's incompetence and his government's incompetence is what David Reville says on page 49. To remind you, David Reville is the man who, until accepting a patronage appointment last month, held one of the most senior posts in the Premier's office. This close friend and trusted adviser of Bob Rae summed up the NDP government as a group that had good intentions but didn't have any idea how to make things work -- and they still don't.

This goes on to point out what a scary government we have as we begin this session on Hallowe'en, and what he says is that their leader, Bob Rae, doesn't know who or what he stands for any more. That's scary.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health and it concerns her long-term care bill, Bill 173, which is a misguided attempt at revamping care for seniors and disabled citizens.

The Health minister and her government have embarked on a campaign to stamp out many of the 1,200 volunteer groups, charitable organizations and businesses, such as the Canadian Red Cross and the Victorian Order of Nurses, that provide seniors and disabled citizens with services. This would mean that an agency like the Canadian Red Cross, which provides 97% of homemaking services and 100% of all home-based, non-medical support services in Simcoe county, except Orillia, would be shut down in favour of a government-mandated multiservice agency.

In Huronia, more than 280 volunteers complement the home support service program that employs eight people for the nearly 300 frail elderly clients in the region. Red Cross homemakers in Huronia employs nearly 50 staff and services a range of clients who also number about 300.

Officials with the Canadian Red Cross, the VON and the Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association of Ontario estimate as many as 11,900 of their employees would face layoffs if Bill 173 passes.

The Red Cross and the VON support initiatives to improve the quality of service. In fact, both groups have developed an MSA model that builds on existing strengths and eliminates any perceived problems without dismantling the existing structure.

I say, withdraw the bill; amend it properly.

OPPOSITION PARTIES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): It's Hallowe'en night, and there's going to be a lot of knocking on doors all over Ontario. I wonder if the leaders of the opposition and third party have thought about sending their caucus members out for some practice.

Both the Liberals and the Tories are good at disguising themselves, but once they get in your door, they cart away all the goodies they can carry. Liberal leader Lyn McLeod could go out as the Invisible Woman: Knock, knock; flip-flop. Who's there? Lyn. Lyn who? Now you see her, now you don't. The Conservative leader's clown suit is tiresome with the electorate this year, so he's going out as the Grim Reaper, or should I say the Grim Ripper. Slash, slash, slash. Mike the Knife has gone so far to the right that his own party members are scared. No matter what you put in his bag, he's going to be asking for more.

But if Ontarians really stopped and thought about what they were opening the door to, I think they'd be scared silly. We've seen the horrors caused by the Liberals' vague policies and window-display spending and by the Tories slash-and-burn policies. They're the ones who littered the streets and soaped Ontario's windows in a fright night that lasted for decades. We're the government that cleaned up the mess, and we're the ones who cut spending more than any other ruling party in Ontario's history. We're the ones who got people back to work and companies investing again. We're the ones who are managing.

And at last the Liberals and Tories have agreed on something. They'd like to throw about 85,000 Ontarians out of work. They'd like to dismantle Jobs Ontario, the most successful job creation program in North America. The Tories and the Liberals want to dismantle it, but both parties promise to create jobs if elected. I'd like to see how they do that on this scary night.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP LEGISLATION

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The government has stated that in two months' time, new laws governing advocacy, substitute decisions and consent to treatment will be proclaimed. Those laws will mean that advocates and rights advisers will be able to intervene when a person requires medical care, when a person needs consent for medical care given by someone else and when a person wishes to exercise a power of attorney for property or for personal care.

From the beginning, we have insisted that the advocacy legislation will hurt people who require care by creating unnecessary delays and by pitting the patient against the practitioner. The government plowed ahead and brought some 400 amendments to the table, many of them ill thought out, confusing and contradictory.

Where are we now, two years later, two months from the start date? Are the rights advisers in place and trained? No. In fact, there are no trained rights advisers because there's no training program and no training manual is being written and no trainers are available.

Will the rights advisers be in place to ensure that the law's applied equally everywhere in Ontario? No. Not one trained rights adviser's in place in Toronto for its 44 hospitals, let alone in Red Lake or Sudbury or Cornwall or any other place.

Once again, this government has shown its incompetence and once again people will be hurt, because its words and its music are once again in a serious mismatch.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): In the first words I uttered in this chamber in November 1990, I called upon the Minister of Transportation to proceed with improvements to Highway 6 in Wellington county. Part of that work is nearing completion, the stretch of Highway 6 between Guelph and Fergus. The resurfacing and the addition of passing lanes will improve the flow of traffic and improve safety in that area.

I want to extend my thanks to the municipal councils in Wellington and to ministry officials who supported my efforts and encouraged the provincial government to start work on Highway 6.

Today, as the new minister assumes the Transportation portfolio, I would like to draw to his attention the need for further improvements to Highway 6, including more passing lanes in the stretch north of Fergus to Mount Forest.

Highway 6 is a major north-south transportation corridor for all of Wellington, and it's our main access to Highway 401. The construction of passing lanes for this stretch of highway is particularly necessary in order to help us attract new industries to Wellington.

We have ambitious and aggressive industrial development plans under way in Wellington county. Our area offers many benefits to industries that are seeking an Ontario location. Wellington county is centrally located and has the most loyal, hardworking and cooperative workforce in the province. Industrial land is available at a very competitive rate, and local governments in Wellington are very supportive of industrial growth. The county's proximity to Highway 1 is also an important consideration for many companies that are looking for a location that will allow for efficient movement of their goods to market.

The continuation of improvements to Highway 6 north of Fergus to Mount Forest is an investment in the area's infrastructure which will pay handsome dividends in terms of industrial growth, prosperity and job creation in Wellington, as well as improved safety for all motorists who use it. I urge the new minister to act promptly and give high priority towards needed improvements to Highway 6 through Wellington county.

1340

PRINCE EDWARD HEIGHTS

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Prince Edward Heights is a schedule 1 facility for people with developmental disabilities. A staffing review recently completed indicated that there should be a reduction of about 66 staff. As stated in the review, the purpose of the direct care staffing review was to ensure that the staffing responses required by the residents of Prince Edward Heights were sufficient and were organized effectively and efficiently to meet the needs of the residents.

I understand that the staffing reduction, if necessary, would be accomplished over time and mostly through attrition.

The administrator, John Hewitt, has indicated that no decisions have been made as yet and has asked for responses to the review by those affected. I believe all staff should have had input throughout the review process in a genuine, cooperative partnership to thoroughly examine the need for all services within the context of existing resources.

Prince Edward Heights has for 24 years been an integral part of the town of Picton and the major employer in Prince Edward county. The viability of Picton and the county depend on the existence of Prince Edward Heights. Prince Edward Heights complex is a well-maintained community, a place where people live and, most importantly, a place that special people call home.

Before I was elected to this office, I fought to maintain the excellent services provided by Prince Edward Heights. I have continued this determination throughout my tenure and will continue to do so. Let there be no doubt I am extremely concerned about client care and supervision, the potential reduction of 66 staff positions and the continuing existence of Prince Edward Heights as the province of Ontario's finest facility/community for people with developmental disabilities.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On this October 31, I would like to award Mike Harris a prize for the best costume for his impersonation of Doug Henning and his yogic flyers dressed in Preston Manning's new taxpayer-funded suits.

You remember the Common Sense Revolution, don't you? That's where PC Mike Harris says he'll make magic by cutting $6 billion out of the budget without touching a penny of health, education or police spending.

Over the weekend, we heard more from that financial wizard and author of the Common Sense Revolution, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives. It seems that Progressive Conservative Mike Harris was addressing a group of tourist operators last weekend when not only did he promise that he would not cut the budget for the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation; he also promised a separate Tourism ministry and increased Tourism spending.

Funny, a couple of months ago when Mike was in Sudbury he promised that the budget for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines would not be cut. There seems to be a pattern developing here. When speaking to farmers, presto, Mike Harris promises not to cut agricultural funding. When speaking to women's groups, he promises to increase child care funding.

PC Harris is trying to be all things to all people. He is an old-style politician who tells people what they want to hear in order to get votes. He hopes that if he closes his eyes, waves a magic wand and says, "Abracadabra," everyone will forget his promises. I am here to tell him that we won't. What we see is nothing more than just some tired Tory promises.

BREAST CANCER

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): October was Breast Cancer Awareness Month and I would like to remind all members of the importance of this issue. Unfortunately, one in nine women can expect to develop breast cancer during her lifetime, and 6,000 women in Ontario will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, while 2,100 will die.

Given these shocking statistics, I am concerned about recent reports that the government is limiting women's access to new and innovative drugs which can help them. For example, many women are being denied access to Taxol, a drug which has been described as the most promising anti-cancer drug in decades, because hospitals are unable to cover the costs of this drug without assistance from the provincial government. Many women are not even being offered the chance for treatment with this drug because the hospitals must cover the cost and they cannot afford to do so.

This problem goes beyond simply providing access to this one specific drug. As new drugs and treatments are introduced, women will be denied access to them because of this government's mismanagement of the health care system. It is imperative that the government recognize the importance of providing women with the best possible treatment when they are stricken with breast cancer. I urge the Minister of Health to take immediate action to ensure that women do have access to the drugs and the treatment that they need and deserve.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Last week, Liberal leader Lyn McLeod, along with the member for Ottawa-Rideau and Liberal hopeful Chris Ward, stormed St Joseph's Villa, our senior citizens' facility in Dundas, supporting claims that Bill 173 and long-term health care will eliminate thousands of volunteers and staff positions, create a huge government bureaucracy, and even went so far as to claim that less funding was going towards health care. Those claims are absolutely ludicrous and they know it.

In our local paper, the Dundas Star, on the third page the headline reads, "Liberals Will Try to Stall Long-Term Care." There it is, right there. The first paragraph says, "Ontario Liberal leader, Lyn McLeod, says her party will do what it can to prevent an NDP plan to overhaul long-term health care from becoming a reality."

Are the leader of the Liberal Party and her members that much out of touch that they don't realize that long-term care reform is an issue that people in Ontario have been asking for for at least 10 years? When the Liberals were in power, they promised reform and they did not deliver.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Abel: You did not deliver, plain and simple.

I find their tactics nothing more than fearmongering, instilling fear in the minds of our senior citizens in Dundas all for the sake of obtaining votes. Their behaviour is shameful and inexcusable.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given that we are beginning the fall session of Parliament and given the fact that there have been so many cabinet changes over the past few weeks, I wonder if I might ask that all of the cabinet ministers stand up and identify themselves and tell us what portfolio they're responsible for over the next week or two.

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, I appreciate his interest, but unfortunately he does not have a point of order.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I ask all members to join me in welcoming the 19th group of pages to serve in the third session of the 35th Parliament:

Jessica Arsenault, Hastings-Peterborough; Jennifer Balez, Nickel Belt; Lisa Carty, York South; John Chapman, York Centre; Julia Croome, Mississauga East; Lesley Grieve, Oxford; Geoffrey Hamilton, Durham Centre; Jonathan Hooper, Timiskaming; James Istchenko, Victoria-Haliburton; Brian-Jason Lackan, Scarborough Centre; Brady Laska, Renfrew North; Mark Lewis, Huron; Shelley Manuliak, Halton Centre; Angus McLean-Wilson, Elgin; Kimberley Misner, Brampton South; Elora Moreau, High Park-Swansea; Ianjai Mounsey, Durham West; David Petheram, Norfolk; Kenneth Schott, Bruce; Gerry Thibert, Windsor-Walkerville; Tiiu Vail, Nipissing; Tara Voros, Chatham-Kent; Lise Watson, S-D-G & East Grenville; and Graeme Whitty, Beaches-Woodbine.

Please welcome our latest group of pages.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite the members to join me in welcoming to our assembly this afternoon, and indeed our country, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, members of the Lower House Parliament of the state of Bihar, India, headed by the Speaker, the Honourable Ram Vilas Paswan. Welcome.

We have other special guests also seated in the Speaker's gallery, and I would invite all members to join me in welcoming Ms Gillian Sorensen, the undersecretary general of the United Nations; the Honourable Walter McLean, former member of the House of Commons, Canada, and the United Nations 50th Anniversary Committee chair; as well as Ambassador Dean Brown, secretary of the United Nations 50th Anniversary Committee. Please welcome these people to our gallery.

1350

RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that during the recess, vacancies have occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignations of Zanana Akande as member for the electoral district of St Andrew-St Patrick, effective Wednesday, August 31; Donald Cousens as member for the electoral district of Markham, effective September 30; Murray Elston as member for the electoral district of Bruce, effective October 15; and Will Ferguson, member for the electoral district of Kitchener, effective October 8. Accordingly, I have issued my warrants to the chief election officer for the issue of writs for by-elections.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I understand there is unanimous consent from all members to recognize the countdown to the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

ANNIVERSARY OF UNITED NATIONS / ANNIVERSAIRE DES NATIONS UNIES

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Today I had the pleasure of participating in the celebration of the countdown of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, together with His Honour the Lieutenant Governor; the Speaker of the Legislature; Ms Gillian Martin Sorensen, the undersecretary general for the United Nations; the Burlington Teen Tour Band; the Orde Street school choir; and youth representatives from UNICEF.

Today's events at Queen's Park were part of an effort across Canada and around the world to reflect on the achievements of the United Nations and to look towards renewal and reform of the UN to prepare it for the challenges of the 21st century.

On October 24, 1945, a group of 51 countries, including Canada, formally became the United Nations. Now, 186 nations send representatives to the UN. Canada has played a role in the United Nations that we can all be proud of. In 1956, Prime Minister Lester Pearson delivered a historic address to the United Nations proposing that military forces should be used for peace, and thus the first UN peacekeeping force was sent to the Sinai. Prime Minister Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his contribution to the resolution of the Suez crisis.

Some 50,000 Canadians have worn the blue beret of the United Nations, more than from any other nation. I would like to take the time today to recognize members of this House who are former members of Canada's peacekeeping efforts: Mr Gilles Morin, the Deputy Speaker of the House, and Mr Gordon Mills, the MPP for Durham East.

Not only have Canadians committed their energies to peacekeeping forces, but thousands of civilians have devoted their lives to UN service. A former member of this Legislature and the former leader of my party was the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations and now works for UNICEF. Maurice Strong, the chair of Hydro, was involved in early UN relief efforts in Ethiopia. He's headed two historic UN world environment conferences and is the founding director of the UN environment program.

The current director of the UN environment program is also a Canadian, Elizabeth Dowdeswell. Dr Brock Chisholm, a famous Canadian, was the first director of the World Health Organization established by the United Nations, and William O'Neil, current secretary general of the UN International Maritime Organization, is also a Canadian.

Ontario too has a proud history of involvement with the UN. L'Ontario a également une fière histoire pour ce qui est de sa participation aux activités de l'ONU. La collecte d'Halloween de l'UNICEF est maintenant une tradition vieille de 39 ans qui a commencé en Ontario. L'année dernière, des enfants canadiens ont amassé plus de 3,4 millions de dollars pour l'UNICEF et pour les enfants qui bénéficient du programme dans les pays en voie de développement. Un peu moins de 1 million de dollars a été amassé par des enfants ontariens.

As I'm sure you know, Mr Speaker, in 1994 the United Nations declared Toronto the most multicultural city in the world. In a sense, Ontario is very much like the United Nations. Like the United Nations, the government of Ontario sees health, education and the environment as top priorities, and so the Ontario government's involvement in the celebration of the United Nations' anniversary for this year will focus on these central issues. In the forthcoming year, the Ministry of Education and Training, the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Health will all highlight programs with United Nations themes. I am particularly proud that this government and this House, together with the people of Ontario, have had this opportunity to demonstrate our support for the United Nations.

If I could just speak personally for one moment, I grew up in a family in which work and support for the United Nations was second nature. I am looking across to the member for York-Mackenzie, whose uncle was also one of my father's closest colleagues and dearest friends. He was, I believe, present at the San Francisco conference in 1945, while my father was at the Paris peace conference in the same year. If I can just say personally, for me it is a moment of reconciliation with our history and with our best international traditions to recognize that Canadians from all walks of life have been the key and critical supporters of this magnificent international institution, which needs our support and our understanding at this time as at no other, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to say these things to the House.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My colleagues and I would also like to pay tribute to a world organization that has now become a world institution on its own. As we look at 1995, when we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, we know we have to re-examine what it was formed about. It has grown to a very large institution now. As it's stated, it was then put in place to promote social progress and better standards of life and larger freedom and to employ international machinery to the promotion of the economy and the social development of all peoples.

I recall too that when the United Nations was formed -- when I say "recall," it is through history and looking at the books -- there was great hope in the world; that when we saw a lot of violence and war, we hoped we could come together as one people in order to realize that we fight for freedom and fight for some sort of peace and tranquility in this world.

But there are other issues that the United Nations has been noted for. Canadians, of course, have played a very, very important role and have made their mark in this great institution, this great organization. Their accomplishments have been remarkable. But as we look back at the last 50 years, we realize that there are many other things which we must address.

We talk about reform now in the time when we are looking at issues of hunger and starvation and housing, many of these issues that plague many of the developing countries. I recall too that in 1986, when I visited Kenya in my portfolio as the Minister of Housing, in the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless that was put on by the United Nations, Canada itself was struggling to acknowledge the fact that it too has a problem of homelessness. The fact is, in getting together with many of my colleagues across the world, we realized that we have a struggle that we must get together in order to resolve.

Over 50% of the children of Africa are still being malnourished. The fact is that we have to come together in a world where we have more food than could feed all the world, but still yet we have hunger. We have more materials to build houses, yet again we find we are unable to house the people of this world. Also, of course, people are dying from the lack of good health plans and still yet we are unable to distribute effectively, to resolve some of the diseases, although the record of the United Nations stands very, very strong in eliminating many of those diseases.

One of the things very close to my heart and which is painful in a way, is the matter of illiteracy. Illiteracy has plagued this world, especially the developing world. I know the United Nations can be charged in the sense of addressing that issue, and with that could come many other things: good health, good housing and many other things that need to be addressed. Women in our society, across the world, have not yet been addressed in the proper way in where they can assert themselves with equal rights within this world.

As we stand today and celebrate the coming of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, and as we stand today and see almost 1,000 people now are part of the United Nations, we still have many of the challenges there. So in the reform of the United Nations -- and I'm glad that those who are present here were very much part of the reorganization, the reform -- to look very much so that we are one people suffering in many ways, from lack of income, lack of food, lack of good health care, that this can be redistributed in a proper way.

1400

Canada, yes, has played a very important role. We can play more. Many of the people of this world are still reaching out and wondering, why is it that they still cannot assert themselves in a world that has such great abundance?

The environment itself is something that must be addressed with more vigour. Of course, as the Premier stated, that his government has asserted itself in that direction, I would say that all members here in the Parliament feel so strongly about the environment that it also must find in a nonpartisan way that this in itself must be addressed, because as they say, the chicken will come back home to roost. If we don't look after the environment itself, we ourselves will suffer from that.

I look forward in the 50th year, as it comes forward, that poverty itself, hunger, the ill health of thousands of people and illiteracy itself could be wiped away from this wonderful earth of ours.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I too want to speak to the Legislature briefly on the very important issue of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Today we are joined by hundreds of representatives of Ontario's schools, UNICEF, in a dedication to global peace and to the children of the world.

Ontario is beginning a year of planning and of celebrations to commemorate the founding of the United Nations, and indeed it is a celebration at the same time as it is a wish and a desire to go forward, always with some fear and some trepidation, but always with a desire to go forward as the role of the United Nations, we hope, changes. It's a particularly important celebration here in Canada, because since 1945 we as Canadians, certainly per capita or per wealth, have contributed so much to the United Nations and to its mandate to prevent war and to maintain peace.

Back in the mid-1960s Canada played a leading role in the UN by coordinating the first international UN peacekeeping force. Since, we've sent peacekeepers to Cyprus, Mozambique, Egypt, Somalia, Bosnia, recently to Haiti.

Recently I was in the Israel airport in Tel Aviv and there were a number of young Canadian peacekeepers. I chatted with one, a young woman who was getting ready to head to the northern border as part of the Canadian role. I had my Canadian flag on, and we had quite a nice chat. I was impressed with the pride and the sense of doing something meaningful for Canada and for the world that this peacekeeper felt. Perhaps showing my age, I also was a little surprised that this young woman, to me, didn't look old enough to be there and ought to have been back in school.

Over the past 30, years Canada has been both a leading financial supporter and a leading military contributor to United Nations peacekeeping efforts. But I want to say that we've also played a most important role through UN's affiliate organizations such as the World Health Organization. Canada has sent delegations to every major World Health Organization conference and been involved in special projects in Third World countries to provide our less fortunate brothers and sisters with vaccinations, clean water and medical care.

We've served as an outstanding role model for other nations. We've maintained the world's longest unprotected border, I think an example that we and the United States should be proud of to show the rest of the world. It's in that spirit that I believe Ontario will make a significant contribution to the celebration.

I particularly today think of the children, the musical featuring the renowned Scarborough Children's Concert Choir, made up of children from 40 ethnic backgrounds; as the Premier said, very much a reflection of multicultural Ontario, very much, of course, a reflection of the multicultural diversity of the United Nations. The Burlington Teen Tour Band, Canada's premier tour band, acknowledged as such, is off in May to Holland to represent Canada. Sometimes we're too close to our own, as the member for Burlington South has said, to appreciate the excellence of so many of our youth. Of course, the Scarborough children's choir is off to tour North America in June.

We indeed can rise with some pride -- not perfect, of course, but pride -- in goals that have been universally accepted by us all in Canada, and indeed Ontario played a major role in this. I might add that we, in celebrating, ought to look to the future, ought to look to children of the world, to the more vulnerable of the world.

If I might make a pitch for something we could do in a very non-partisan way in 1995 here in Ontario, for whichever 130 or 99 of us are here, for whichever party is governing at that particular point in time, I might add that during this 50th anniversary of the United Nations one of the leading global concerns of the United Nations has been for victims' rights. Perhaps here in Ontario we can find within us the ability to move forward. Here in Ontario, where Professor Irving Laller, an Ontario professor, drafted the UN resolution on victims' rights, we could lead the way in this province in having legislation protecting victims' rights in our own province.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to make a few comments about Murray Elston, the former member for Bruce, who has joined us this afternoon in the opposition gallery.

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

MURRAY ELSTON

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): As I said a few moments ago, Murray has joined us this afternoon in the opposition gallery. I'm not sure, as this would have been his first day absent from this place as a result of his resignation, whether Murray's quite fully made up his mind to leave or not.

Murray Elston was first elected in 1981, just four years after I was elected to this Legislature, and in the early 1980s Murray and I got to work together, both of us at that time in opposition, around some environment and energy issues. That was our first exchange of ideas, I guess is the best way to put it, and our first growing to know each other and beginning to understand each other.

Since that time, though, in many respects our careers have been quite parallel. After the 1985 election, Murray was appointed to cabinet as Minister of Health and then two years later moved to Management Board and then into Financial Institutions. As you know, those are both portfolios which I have held during this term of office; Health Murray had, and I had Energy in addition to that. But although our careers have been quite parallel, it would appear that Murray's has ended slightly before mine.

1410

I'll leave it to Murray's caucus colleagues to perhaps reveal some of the anecdotes about life in the Liberal caucus with Murray, but I'd like to take a few moments to speak about my relationship with Murray as a House leader. As you know, Mr Speaker, in addition to his cabinet responsibilities in the late 1980s, he spent a good piece of the last four years as the opposition House leader.

He was out of that role for a short time while he played interim leader and then while he participated in the leadership race but has been a very, very able and I think effective House leader for the official opposition. Especially when you take into account the range and variety of different viewpoints in that caucus, the member for Bruce did I think a very magnificent job of pulling that together from time to time and playing a very effective role on behalf of the official opposition party as House leader.

Murray is also one of those people who I think it can be fairly said was very sincere about his support of the legislative process here in this chamber. There have been some who have spent time in this House who have been committed to the parliamentary legislative process that is reflected in both the current day and the traditions of this Legislature and a number of others around the world. Murray was one of those and is one of those who was very committed to the operation of this place and to the adherence to the rules of the Legislative Assembly, unlike some others who have been much less reverent about our day-to-day business here.

That was constantly reflected in how Murray operated as the House leader for the official opposition. It was reflected in how he challenged the government around the use of the rules. It was also reflected in how he dealt with the government and with the third party in the House leaders' discussions around the process of business in this place. Murray I think added a very important dimension, and I guess in the same mouthful I should say that the current House leader for the third party is of the same ilk, which to some extent has helped us in terms of the role that House leaders have in terms of from time to time lowering the level of emotion in this place and bringing the orderly operation of this place back to some kind of momentum that was useful.

Murray Elston I think is an example of a public servant in this province, someone who gave of himself in political life, who left a law practice to get himself elected here and who left his family in rural Ontario and I think felt some significant pressures as a result of that with very young children and so on, to serve in what you know, Mr Speaker, is a very difficult setting away from home. In the roles he took on I think his commitment is reflected, not only because of their importance but because of the hours that we know those roles demanded.

The kind of commitment that people like Murray Elston and others in this Legislature bring to this job I think is a wonderful credit to a system that sometimes is criticized and abused from outside somewhat unfairly. Murray, for me, is one of those parliamentarians and elected representatives who in fact took of all his responsibilities here seriously and I think carried them out extremely well.

The Legislature will miss Murray and I personally in many respects will miss him as well in terms of our personal relationship as House leaders. I know his predecessor will be different to work with, but --

Interjection: Successor.

Hon Mr Charlton: Isn't that what I said, "successor"?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): You said "predecessor."

Hon Mr Charlton: Oh, I'm sorry. His successor will be different to work with but I think appropriate.

But I will miss Murray. I wish him well in his new job and I hope that his family will be much happier with him much closer to home. I honestly hope he doesn't get the urge to return here.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I welcome the opportunity to say some things about the member for Bruce, but I'm going to save my best material for the Rotary person of the year roast that I'm sure is coming up to honour Murray once everything gets settled at the Bruce Energy Centre with sustainable development and what not. Let me confine my remarks today to a few anecdotes and a few words that I believe reflect the esteem that the member was held in by all members of the Legislature.

It was interesting that the member for Hamilton Mountain indicated that the member for Parry Sound was of the same ilk.

Interjection.

Mr Harris: I thought they were of the same ilk. They were elected together, as I was, in 1985.

Interjection.

Mr Harris: You're right, they weren't cut from the same cloth or the same silk; we didn't hear that. But the member for Parry Sound, beside me, said: "No, we're not of the same ilk at all. We're very different." Yet in many ways both left one profession, which I was just reminded of, the profession of law, and went on to the profession of politician, so you choose between which of those two the public deems to be of the highest esteem these days; I'm not sure. Both, though, sought to serve people: their constituents, indeed the people of Ontario. In that sense, I agree they're of the same ilk.

The only other comment I want to make about the member for Parry Sound was that in 1981, when we were elected together -- Ernie, Murray and I -- a long time ago, 1981, the only person I think who won with fewer votes than did Murray -- I think it was 220-odd votes -- was landslide Eves from Parry Sound. Both of them came in the great landslide election. Of course, they went on from there, after Murray's constituents saw the work he did on their behalf, to get elected with bigger and bigger pluralities, regardless of the provincial trends.

When Murray was leaving for the private sector, I wasn't surprised that he didn't go with the Ontario Medical Association, as I reflected on a number of the achievements over the years. Some have suggested that maybe there would be opportunities in the insurance industry; I'm not sure. But isn't it fitting that with all the years of service that he put into his constituency, he took a job that he felt was going to provide the maximum benefits, the success of the endeavour so crucial to the people whom he represented for those 13 years? I believe that says something about Murray as well.

1420

We've served together in opposition and in government, and in this we were unanimous in agreement: We preferred being in government to being in opposition. We were of like mind on that. We've travelled together. We fought acid rain battles together in the sulphur-laden coalfields of Michigan. I don't think I've ever put on the record how disgusted I was with the senator -- I can't even remember his name -- of Michigan.

Interjection: Byrd.

Mr Harris: Byrd, who tried to hijack a conference on acid rain emissions, suggesting that the best thing that could happen to the world would be to continue to burn, virtually unabated, heavy sulphur-laden Michigan coal.

Perhaps these comments can get back to him at some particular time, how insignificant I thought his contribution was to that particular conference, paling in comparison to that of a very non-partisan representation that was made by the House leader from the New Democratic Party, along with the government and with Mr Elston. At that particular point in time, it was a Progressive Conservative government, but it was a united Legislature fighting for what we believed in for Ontario and Canada against, at that particular time, a US policy.

I indicated when Murray stepped down that throughout the opposition, working together, the friendships, I felt his character through these common bonds certainly left me -- and I say on behalf of my caucus and party that Ontarians are losing certainly one of the ablest of their legislators. The integrity, the dedication, his experience, the memory of government and its workings are a loss to us all regardless of party, and indeed his good humour and his intelligence served his constituents and his children well -- sorry, his constituents and Ontario well. I was getting ahead of myself to his children, because we share something else in common, and that is raising young children at a time when we are in Toronto and around the province living in smaller towns is very difficult.

I know if there is a winner, and there are always winners and losers in decisions, in this one we're the losers, Ontario is the loser, the Legislature is the loser. The winners are indeed Trudy and Jeannine and Erin and James and Gillian and Sean, who will see a little more of their father than they have seen in the past 13 years.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): It is with considerable appreciation and equally with considerable regret that I join in the tribute that's being paid to Murray Elston today. My regret of course is that Murray will no longer be with us in the Legislature or in our caucus. Without any question at all, we will miss him.

My appreciation is probably equally clear, and that's for the absolutely enormous contribution that Murray has made and that the government House leader and the leader of the third party have touched on, an enormous contribution, certainly to our caucus, to the Legislature, to the Ontario Liberal Party, to the people of Bruce and I believe to the people of the province of Ontario.

When I arrived in government in 1987, Murray Elston had already established his reputation for competence in dealing with the very tough issues that faced the Minister of Health. In the government of 1987 he was stickhandling the equally tough internal issues that face the Management Board chair, and I can tell you that I appreciated, as a colleague, as a new minister in that government of 1987, the approach Murray brought to his role.

I think I can best describe it as saying that Murray Elston has a capacity to see the essential issues clearly and that he is always ready, has always been ready, to provide support for a case that he felt was a sound one. I consider those qualities to be absolutely essential in a trusted colleague and I think that was true of Murray Elston's approach to any issue, that he combined a grasp of the essence of what was involved with a commitment to support what he believed was the right direction.

We all recall, of course, that Financial Institutions was added to the responsibilities that Murray had as the Chair of Management Board, and in the interest of a totally non-partisan tribute today, I am not going to dwell on one of the significant issues of his tenure in that particular portfolio. We've leave the auto insurance recollections for another day and another place.

Murray has made an outstanding contribution to our caucus, I believe, in his work as our House leader over the past two and a half years, and that is one of the reasons why we'll miss him, although I agree with the government House leader that the member for St Catharines will bring equal measures of experience and determination to carrying out that role.

I can share with you also that I will personally miss the advice and the support which Murray Elston has always so generously provided and which I have valued so highly.

I know that Murray's constituents in Bruce county are going to miss him, because Murray, whatever his responsibilities in government or in opposition, stayed very close to the constituents of Bruce county. He cared about them, he understood what mattered to them and he was always ready to voice their concerns. There is no doubt at all that through Murray Elston, the grass roots had a very real and a very direct influence on policy and direction in this place.

Fortunately, the people of Bruce are not going to lose Murray Elston. In his new job, which he has already begun, he will be kept closer to home, and I am sure we are going to continue to hear Murray speaking out on the issues that matter in Bruce county.

As the government House leader has said, Murray Elston has always had a very strong commitment to public service and to the importance of the work that we do here as elected representatives in serving the public. But you do pay a personal price to make your contribution in this business, and for Murray, without question, it was time away from family when the children were very young. So we wish him the joy of spending more time with his family now.

I know that Murray is not going to miss the three-hour-plus drive at least twice weekly to Bruce county. I was always impressed by the fact that it took Murray longer to get home to Bruce county than it takes me to get home to Thunder Bay.

We will miss Murray but we wish him well in what will be a challenging new role. I am confident that Murray will approach that new role with the same kind of competence, the same kind of commitment and the same kind of concern that he has always brought to his role in politics, and that is a guaranteed formula for success.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought you should be aware that I have today tabled a resolution and I have also ordered a request to the government House leader that the government table a motion.

In view of the fact that the Legislature of Ontario has not been in session since June 23, over four months, and in view of the fact that we'll be sitting for only one week before the constituency week, according to the parliamentary calendar, I have asked the government to reconsider its position.

Seeing as how we're only going to have five weeks in this session and we've already lost five weeks due to a unilateral decision of the government, surely they would now like to change their minds and table a motion, which I know everybody on this side of the House would support, to sit next week.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for Parry Sound will know that he does not have a point of order.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR51

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a report from the commissioners of estate bills with respect to Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Will of Edmund Anderson Cleary. Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 86(e), the bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

1430

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Over the past months all of us have become increasingly alarmed about incidents of violence in our communities. It seems that every week, in fact lately it has seemed almost every day, we are confronted with a new incidence of violence.

It was less than two weeks ago that on the same day in two very different communities two shooting incidents occurred, one here in Toronto and one in Port Perry. Last night a man in Etobicoke was stabbed to death defending his girlfriend. This past weekend a 19-year-old woman who was pregnant with her second child was shot and killed outside an after-hours club in London. This was the second incidence of a shooting in an after-hours club in less than a month.

We all agree that there are no magic solutions to the growing concerns about the safety of our communities, but we all agree too that we have to do everything that we possibly can to prevent these kinds of horrendous crimes from occurring. I believe that controlling after-hours clubs is a place where we can start and I have called for a bill that would allow greater control over after-hours clubs to be brought forward and passed in this session of the Legislature.

I ask the Premier whether he will support my call to see such a bill passed in this session.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Let's regulate what's already out there.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Let me say to the minister and to the member opposite that all of us share this concern. It's a concern that affects every citizen in the province. It's not confined to any one political party; it's not confined to any part of the province. I look forward to having an opportunity to see the bill which stands in the member's name.

I would say to the member that there is a lot of discussion with the municipalities as well as with the police on what additional enforcement powers are necessary, both with respect to municipal bylaws as well as with respect to various provincial statutes as well as federal Criminal Code matters, and I would hope that together the municipal, provincial and federal governments can come up with solutions.

The Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and I as Premier are very concerned to make sure that there is adequate enforcement power where that enforcement power is required and expected. We have to recognize that there were certain changes made in the laws in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s by various governments in this province and it may be the time for us to look hard at what additional powers are now necessary for municipalities as well as for the province, as well as for the federal government, to deal with this question of ensuring safety in our communities. I don't think it's inappropriate for us to do so; I think it's quite appropriate for us to do so.

I can't give a blanket endorsement to the bill which stands in the name of the member for Fort William, but I will certainly have a look at it, ask our staffs to have a look at it, and consider, in cooperation with all the agencies involved, just what more we can do.

Mrs McLeod: I'm pleased to hear that the Premier is prepared at least to consider the type of bill which we've called for. I should indicate that the bill that has been put forward that is before the Legislature as a private member's bill is a bill that stands in the name of the member for Fort York, a member of your own caucus.

I would hope that the government, recognizing the seriousness of this issue -- in fact, that there have been a number of specific incidents which have heightened concern about after-hours clubs -- would have been looking at this particular bill, considering it and considering its implications. But I also would like to indicate to the Premier that as the incident this past weekend in London has demonstrated, this is not a Toronto-only problem and the bill that stands in the name of the member for Fort York is only looking at giving some greater responsibility to Metropolitan Toronto to deal with this issue.

I would ask the Premier, given his indication that he would like to work cooperatively to determine what can be done, if he would be prepared to move this bill into committee so that together we can look at what might be appropriate and possible in terms of giving municipalities across the province greater power to control after-hours clubs and that we can work with the municipalities to ensure that we can provide the kinds of tools that they need to deal with this very serious problem in their communities.

Hon Mr Rae: Of course I'm aware of the bill that stands in the name of my parliamentary assistant. It's a bill which is of great interest to us. I've discussed it with a number of municipal officials and even this morning I was discussing it with people to see the steps that could be taken. I don't want to fog the issue at all, but I just want to say to the honourable member I agree with her when she says this is not simply a Toronto issue.

The question of places which are illegal and which are operating illegally and which then become the centres for other kinds of trouble is an issue that we have to deal with and we have to make sure that those who are best equipped to deal with it, whether it's the municipalities, whether it's the police, whether it's the other agencies of government, we've got to take the steps to deal with it and to make sure that the enforcement power is there and that neighbourhoods and neighbours and innocent people can be protected.

I just say to the honourable member, it's something we are looking at. It's something we want to address in connection with a number of other things which need to be addressed. I can assure the honourable member that we believe very strongly that the people of this province have a right to live in safe neighbourhoods. They have a right to live in communities which are safe --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- in which their children can walk home safely and in which they can live safely. That commitment to community safety is one which is shared, I know, by all the members of the House.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the fact that the Premier indicates he is not trying to fog the issue. I am equally not trying to deal with this issue with any kind of opposition rhetoric, but I do believe that it is an urgent issue and that it necessitates more action and fewer words. There is an action that can be taken. I'm concerned about how quickly the government is prepared to act.

I am, quite frankly, very well aware that although we were able to act jointly last spring in order to take what I believe is a constructive step in passing the ammunition control bill, it did take a month before we could get that bill into committee and it took two months to pass the bill itself.

Premier, we are only sitting for 20 days in this session. I believe this is a very positive and constructive next step. We're willing to work with you on it. I would ask for at least a commitment today that this issue, this bill, can be moved immediately into committee, that we can begin to work to ensure that a bill that will allow greater control over after-hours clubs can be passed this session.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say that I would hope the House leaders could deal with this matter on an urgent basis this week with respect to the timing and consideration of the bill. The only thing I would say to the member is that I hope the scope of the bill is broad enough, in terms of the issues that are being raised, that in and of itself it will be sufficient. We're right now looking at it in terms of the steps that will be required to have that effect.

I want to repeat for the honourable member that, yes, the House leaders should deal with this on an urgent basis in terms of bringing this forward, if there is a consensus about dealing with the bill and having a discussion about it, but I want to emphasize to the honourable member that these are issues which the House should be prepared to consider. These are issues which all of us should be prepared to consider as we recognize the concern about public safety and about what's happening on the street, what's really taking place, the risks that we're asking many of our police officers to run in terms of the operation of some of these places.

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

Hon Mr Rae: All these are things which are worthy of the highest consideration by every member of the House.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister of Health, for I think the last four years, we in this caucus have been calling on your government to bring forward legislation providing for reform of our long-term care system. There is no question that everybody agrees on the need for reform, but after weeks of hearings on Bill 173, which is your government's bill on long-term care reform, it has become clear that there is almost unanimous disagreement with the approach you're taking to reform.

The main problem people have with your bill is the very centralized, very bureaucratic approach to setting up agencies that you are forcing on the province's seniors and on others who need long-term care and support. This is a one-size-fits-all approach that will be absolutely devastating in its effect on community agencies that have a long history of providing these services in their communities. A lot of people are asking why your government is so determined to shut down these community agencies and replace them with an anonymous government bureaucracy.

I ask you why you feel it is necessary to drum out of business agencies like Saint Elizabeth's, the Red Cross, the Victorian Order of Nurses, Meals on Wheels, agencies that are backed by hundreds of committed volunteers and agencies which have provided care in their communities for years.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to address this question, because I know we're joined today by many people from agencies who have been serving the elderly and the disabled of this province extremely well for many, many years. I come to this responsibility with an enormous respect for those voluntary agencies and with the recognition that we have been blessed here in Ontario by a system that was a combination of voluntary agencies and government-provided services. But many of the people in those agencies have been in the forefront for a decade in advocating for a better system, for the creation of a system, because they know, because they meet the elderly -- they serve these people daily -- that in fact there are gaps in services, that there is fragmentation and that there has never been a government, until this one, prepared to put the money in place to make long-term care real.

1440

I regret that the Leader of the Opposition in her question perpetuates the myth that voluntary agencies, called multiservice agencies or whatever they end up being called in the different communities across this province, are somehow going to be government bureaucracies. These are voluntary agencies with a board elected by the people they serve in their communities and with a requirement that 30% of that board be consumers of services, something which her party opposes and which the third party opposes. How less bureaucratic can you get?

Mrs McLeod: It's hard for me to believe that this minister really understands what the impact of her own bill will be, and it is certainly clear that she is not hearing what people in communities across this province are saying about this bill.

Go and talk to the Red Cross, Minister. Hear what the Red Cross is saying about whether it can function under the bill that you're putting in place. They can't. They can't work with the bill that you're setting out.

Talk to volunteers. Talk to the volunteers I've talked to in every community I've visited this summer and they'll tell you that they volunteer for the Red Cross or the Victorian Order of Nurses or Saint Elizabeth's because they identify with that. These MSAs, to those people, look like government and they feel like government and they're going to respond to them as if they were government and they will not volunteer, and your bill will destroy the services these agencies have provided for years.

There is nobody who disagrees with the need for coordination. The goal of long-term care reform is to coordinate service to provide it more effectively to people in our communities. But I happen to believe that you can have coordination without sacrificing the host of community service agencies that are providing service.

I am also absolutely convinced, by talking to people in those agencies across the province, that they are ready to work with you to provide the coordination and make sure they're offering services to people in the most cost-effective way. I think you can work with these people without destroying the organizations and I ask you --

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

Mrs McLeod: -- after four years of study, do you not believe it's possible to find a way to achieve coordination without simply gutting all of these organizations?

Hon Mrs Grier: I know that the Liberal Party supports coordination of services. That was the proposal they had made before the last election, for service-coordinating agencies appointed by the government.

We listened to the seniors and the disabled and said no, we agree with the people whose services are to be provided that what they want is a consumer-centred program where the consumers decide who shall deliver the services and where the consumers have a say in the services.

But it is the myth about the destruction of volunteers that troubles me most about the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has characterized this issue. Volunteers are the key to providing many services in communities around this province. Volunteers volunteer for hospitals. Are they non-bureaucratic organizations? Volunteers volunteer for sports organizations, for everything. Volunteers are doing the planning for long-term care, volunteers will be on the boards of long-term care and in fact one volunteer who wrote to me -- and the member says we should listen to volunteers -- says, "I've read in the newspapers that organizations like VON and Red Cross are predicting there will be a loss of volunteers once MSAs come into effect. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, volunteers in my community are advocating and willing a local MSA because that will provide better services." That's what volunteers are saying.

Mrs McLeod: What consumers in the province of Ontario want is a community-based approach to delivering care. They want the flexibility to be able to develop the models that work for them in their community. They do not want, they do not need this top-down, one-size-fits-all approach that your government is bringing in with this legislation. They will lose that flexibility and that choice under this bill.

Perhaps I can get the minister to focus on one specific concern, and that's the fact that there is surely no question that there is going to be dislocation and layoffs and disruption of services if this bill proceeds. You have already brought forward an amendment which says that if people are laid off or displaced by Bill 173, your government is prepared to pay for the severance packages. I believe that is an acknowledgement that the bill will cause layoffs and the dismantling of community organizations. You intend to replace these community organizations with what I believe to be a nameless and a faceless bureaucracy, and you are already planning for layoffs from the community organizations.

Can you just tell us why any government would pass a bill which already foresees the layoff of dedicated employees and which tells volunteers that they're no longer wanted, to boot?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): What a terrible thing to say. What a terrible suggestion.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: The kind of fearmongering, the kind of scaremongering which the Leader of the Opposition has bought into is even more troubling than the distortion of what this reform is all about.

We are spending in this province now $300 million more on community-based long-term care than we were in 1990. Does that mean layoffs? That means jobs. We have increased home care by 53%, integrated homemakers by 65%, home support services by 37% and attendant care programs by 36%; that, in tough times. For the Leader of the Opposition to say that that degree of spending involves layoffs shows that she does not know about what she's talking.

JOB CREATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Tonight, Premier --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: Premier, tonight perhaps you'll be heading out trick or treating with your kids. I know I will be out with my kids. I know you're a busy man, Premier, so I thought I'd help you with your trick-or-treat bags. I have trick-or-treat bags here for you.

In the trick bag, Premier, what we have is your best effort to create jobs: giving people their own tax dollars to create jobs that they were going to create anyway, a million and a half dollars --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I bring to your attention the rules and regulations that prohibit props to be had in this House to support --

Interjections.

The Speaker: There is nothing in the standing orders. We have always dissuaded members from using props in the House. I would ask that the honourable leader of the third party place his question and then, of course, remove the props.

Mr Harris: Here are all the tricks: trying to buy jobs with taxpayer dollars, a million and a half dollars of advertising on a program that businesses tell us is an unmitigated failure, jobs they were going to create anyway. Anyone who wants it, free cash that you're giving out, trying to trick voters with all this money.

Premier, then in the treat bag what we have is a commonsense plan.

1450

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm the only one with a costume. The honourable leader of the third party with his question.

Mr Harris: What we have here is a $4-billion tax cut to create jobs in this province. What I would like to ask you, Premier, is: Do you really believe that hiking taxes to give out taxpayer grants and money is still a better way to create jobs than cutting taxes is? Do you still honestly believe that?

The Speaker: Before the Premier responds, there's a point of order from the member for York East.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the Common Sense Revolution includes the laying off of disabled people, and that's hurting disabled people. That's not a treat; that's a trick.

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

Interjections.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): There are all sorts of jokes I could make about the member's intervention. I've never actually heard a pumpkin ask a question before. But I would say to the honourable member, with great respect, that if he's asking for a serious comparison between a proposition that he is singlehandedly going to cut taxes by $4 billion, if that's the proposition, that's the biggest joke of all.

When you look at the reality of the economy today, there are now tens of thousands of people working today who are working as a result of a variety of approaches that have been taken, including Jobs Ontario Training. There are parents today who are going to be in a better position to spend time with their families and go out for Hallowe'en and who are going to be able to afford to buy candy for those kids that are coming to their door thanks to the fact that the economy is improving and that more jobs are being created every day.

I would think that sensible people out there, commonsense people out there -- and anyone who claims that he has a monopoly on common sense, as the honourable member does, has in fact neither; he hasn't got a monopoly, and he hasn't got any common sense. That's the position the leader of the third party has now put himself in with his preposterous proposition. There's no government in Canada which is putting forward the kind of nonsensical proposal that's coming forward from the honourable member. We need a focus on jobs, not on gimmicks; not on gimmicks and not on goodies and not on treats and not on candies, not on something for nothing, which has been the position now of the Conservative Party.

So I can say to the honourable member, in all due seriousness --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- when I compare the record of this government with respect to job creation and look at the series of fanciful fantasies that are being put forward, in costume, by the leader of the third party, I much prefer the approach being taken by this --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: The Premier's quite right. Nobody has a monopoly on common sense. It's available for anybody to use and we're suggesting you start to use it, that's all: suggesting you start to use it.

Premier, the question dealt with whether government giving out cash or government cutting taxes created more jobs. Now let me quote from your budget of 1994.

In the spring budget, the Treasurer of Ontario told us that government spending to create jobs averaged about $32,000 per job through what we call Bob's Ontario. Also in the budget, under "Cutting Taxes to Create Jobs," the minister told us his teeny little tax cut would create jobs at a cost of about $16,000 a job. In other words, Premier, by the Minister of Finance's own numbers in his spring budget, by cutting taxes, he says you can create twice as many jobs as by hiking taxes or collecting those dollars and you running around the province giving it out.

I would ask you this, Premier: In light of that, why do you continue to advocate policies of giving out government money that business doesn't want, when even your Treasurer acknowledges that if you would cut taxes, you'd create two jobs for every one you're creating?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is on record as saying that he would abolish Jobs Ontario. That's fine. Let him fill the SkyDome with the people who are now working as a result of Jobs Ontario. Let him talk to the 20,000-plus businesses that are involved in Jobs Ontario and let him tell them. I've had people come to me from all walks of life. There are women who are working who were not working before. There are people who are now --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- expanding their businesses who would not otherwise have done that, and yes, I'm delighted.

I'm delighted that the member has finally recognized that in our last budget the Treasurer did in fact give a holiday with respect to the employer health tax on new hires. I think that was a very good idea. I strongly supported that. I'm delighted with that approach and I can tell the honourable member we are going to continue with that approach, but not with the fanciful nonsense of 30% tax cuts, and 20% this cut and 90% that cut. Will you please get real? Will the member opposite get real and understand that these are decisions that have to be made in a balanced, sensible, careful way and not like some sort of Hallowe'en game, which is the game he's playing?

Mr Harris: According to the business community -- small business, large business, chamber of commerce, federal, Ontario, CFIB and your own Treasurer -- not only could we fill one SkyDome, but we could fill two SkyDomes full of people working with a tax cut versus your silly giveaway programs.

Premier, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Ontario division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association all have passed resolutions asking you to stop giving out taxpayers' dollars. They don't want them. What they want instead is to cut taxes by the equivalent amount, and they're telling us they'll create twice as many jobs doing that.

Why, other than running around the province getting your little photo ops all across the province, actually reminding people how silly your proposals are, do you insist, against every job creator, every business large and small, with your nonsense of giving out taxpayers' dollars, on doing that instead of simply to stop spending our money and stop collecting those taxes?

Hon Mr Rae: I was at Queen's University on Friday. We've just opened a library, which is going to be a world-class library, with Jobs Ontario funding. I was at Chrysler where, together with Chrysler and the federal government, we are now sponsoring more research and development at the University of Windsor than ever before. We have people being hired across the province now.

1500

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Did Chrysler send back the cheque?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I know it's hard for the opposition. There are 157,000 more people working today than there were in February 1994. It's hard for the members of the opposition to come to terms with the fact that things are getting better.

I would say directly to the honourable member: I think there is a real difference between him and me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills.

Hon Mr Rae: The difference between the leader of the third party and me is that he's running to be the governor of the 51st state as the Republican candidate and I'm running to be the Premier of the province of Ontario.

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

Mr Harris: The difference between you and me is that I'm fighting so we have enough prosperity and wealth and jobs and opportunities here that Ontario can be restored to its rightful place.

The Speaker: Would the leader place his second question, please.

Mr Harris: The other difference is that under our proposals we'd have 350,000 new jobs.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat. Is there a second leadoff question?

COURT RULING

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. At the end of last month, the Supreme Court of Canada brought down a ruling that disturbed many Canadians and I think every Ontarian. They ruled that extreme drunkenness can be used as a defence against rape. Premier, I think most of us in this House were shocked and upset by that decision. Can you tell me what action you as Premier and your government have taken on behalf of all Ontarians to express our outrage at this decision and to take whatever action we can to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to refer this to the Attorney General.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Indeed, I think people were very upset at the decision as it was reported in the press, and it's very important that members be aware that what we mostly heard in the press was the dissenting view of the minority of the court. It is important to read the whole ruling because the intention of the majority was clearly that this not be able to be used as the kind of precedent that people fear.

However, whatever the intention of the court, it's very clear to us, and very much a concern to the crown system in Ontario, that we may see that kind of defence coming forward in cases. The member is well aware that this government, as well as the previous governments, took a very strong stance that drunkenness ought not to be an excuse for criminal activity.

We are supporting the study that the federal Minister of Justice has undertaken to look at how this particular ruling may in fact change some of the very concerted efforts that have gone on to make people accept responsibility for their actions whether or not they have indulged in mood-altering drugs, including alcohol.

The minister is well aware that he has our full support, that in all of the discussions around what changes might be made in the Criminal Code and what changes might be made in guidelines to crown attorneys around the prosecution of cases where that defence is attempted to be used they will have our full cooperation and indeed our full commitment.

Mr Harris: So far we've supported the study; I understand that. One approach that has been advanced to counter the effects of this decision is to amend the Criminal Code to ensure that those who become voluntarily intoxicated are responsible for whatever actions they commit.

I support that move and I would like to ask you if you as Attorney General, on behalf of the government of Ontario, have expressed that support or if you support immediately amending the Criminal Code so that we don't have to wait for another decision, and if you have expressed that support to the federal government that we would facilitate, in any way that we possibly could, immediate passage of amendments to the Criminal Code so that this cannot even be hinted at being used as a defence. Have you done that, Minister?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We have indicated publicly and through officials to the Department of Justice that we support the Minister of Justice in looking at the implications of such changes to the Criminal Code. At this point in time, the federal minister has not brought forward amendments that we can look at so that we can study their effect and how effective they might be, but we have certainly indicated that we would be supportive of an effort to find the right solution to this.

I can assure the member that I'm on record many times as saying that those who voluntarily consume mood-altering drugs as an excuse for violent behaviour, as a way of letting go of their inhibitions, ought not to be sanctioned in that as an excuse for behaviour. That has been a very great focus of the actions that this government and previous governments in Ontario have taken. We fully support the fact that people must accept responsibility for their actions, including taking that first drink or imbibing that mood-altering drug.

Mr Harris: So far nothing's happening. We've seen so many cases where outrage has been expressed and concerns expressed and a study takes over and nothing happens. I believe, Minister, you would be expressing the will of 10 million Ontarians, I believe certainly you would be expressing the will of 130 members of the Legislature, even those who may not be in the Legislature today or those who aspire to be in the Legislature, if you would begin to publicly and vigorously pressure the federal government to immediately amend the Criminal Code before Christmas, as soon as possible, so that not one rape victim is denied justice as a result of the Supreme Court's decision. Will you do that? Because that is what I believe the people of Ontario want you to do.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I, along with the other attorneys general and the Minister of Justice, have a responsibility to ensure that every time there is a concern expressed, we are very clearly studying the effects of any change to the Criminal Code and whether or not that is going to be prosecutable. It does take some study. The member may like to wave his magic wand and make changes, but his government, when it was in power, didn't do that, any more than any other government. There are a number of considerations that have to be taken into account.

I have already indicated to the minister that I am supportive, and I am sure this Legislature is supportive, of the Department of Justice making every effort to ensure that if Criminal Code changes are required in order to prevent the effect he is saying, that is taken into account. But I would also caution the member that if he would read the full decision of the Supreme Court, he might have some question in his mind as to whether such a facile solution is in fact the answer to the concerns that all of us share.

ONTARIO BUS INDUSTRIES INC

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade on the government's operation of Ontario Bus Industries. I want, Minister, for you to tell us the following: How much money do Ontario taxpayers owe in total to all the OBI creditors as a result of your government's decision to take over the company? Specifically, can the minister tell us how much money is owed to tradespeople and to other creditors, how much money in deposits has at this point been returned to Ontario municipalities because of buses which have not been delivered, and how much money is owed to transit authorities in the United States cities in late delivery charges because buses have not been delivered on schedule?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member opposite will know that some of the numbers she has asked for are in fact subject to negotiations. With suppliers, for example, the outstanding amounts that are currently owed to suppliers will be taken into account as we gear production back up, and as we place further orders we will negotiate the repayment schedule with those suppliers. Certainly, the member does know that there is currently about $66.5 million invested in loans. Those are interest-bearing loans, secured by assets of the company, that the province has invested in taking over OBI.

1510

May I say that I appreciate that the leader of the official opposition is showing concern with respect to this file. We as a government are concerned as well. This restructuring is a very long and difficult process. We are committed to working through this with the company in trying to resolve this situation. There are over 600 jobs directly in Mississauga that we are dedicated to trying to save, and certainly all of the spinoffs, hundreds of employees employed by the suppliers.

I want to assure you that we are looking at this carefully. OBI has a strong potential. It has a very strong order book. There are over 900 buses on order that, as we gear up production, we plan to deliver. It's a market leader, with 20% to 25% of the market share in North America, a proven product, innovative in terms of the low-floor bus --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- clean environmentally in terms of compressed natural gas. It's an important and strategic firm with respect to Ontario, and I hope the member will be supportive of working through with us in trying to save this company.

Mrs McLeod: It has now been almost 11 months since the government took over this particular company, and took it over, clearly, without any plan for the management of the company. Our concern certainly is with the level of indebtedness that has been incurred over the past 11 months and it's with the continued financial risk that the government is taking with taxpayers' money.

I also have a concern that any attempt to avoid responsibility for debts that have been incurred will simply further erode confidence in Ontario Bus Industries' ability to continue its operations, and it could in fact threaten the existence of the dozens of supplier firms that are owed perhaps millions of dollars by OBI.

It's our understanding that there are indeed several hundred buses on back order to clients in the United States. These buses obviously have not been delivered, and our understanding is that so far the late delivery charges on these buses total tens of millions of dollars. It's also our understanding that late delivery charges on the buses can range up to $200 per day per bus. That's tens of thousands of dollars per day that Ontario taxpayers will have to pay because of this government's quickness to take over a company without a plan and without being able to provide a plan for management in the past 11 months.

I ask if the minister will confirm that these debts are indeed being incurred on a daily basis and to tell us quite frankly, will these buses be delivered, in what time frame, and at what cost?

Hon Ms Lankin: May I say first of all to the member opposite that when the Ontario government took over OBI in February of this year, it was as a result of the default of the previous owner with respect to a loan to the Ontario government, and in fact the owner at that point in time was unable to complete a recapitalization of the company. It was a company in transition from craft development of buses, craft assembly, to mass assembly, and that recapitalization and transformation didn't take place.

At that point in time, there was a huge debt owed to the suppliers. When we took it over, I negotiated and made arrangements with the suppliers to begin repayment. In fact they have done better as a result of the government taking over than they would have under the former situation when the company was facing bankruptcy at that point in time.

The order books are very strong, as I indicated. There are over 900 buses that are on order. Those are not all back orders. Those are ordered out into the upcoming years.

We are currently in a situation where we have brought in new leadership to undertake the financial restructuring that was necessary. We have uncovered problems in production. We have shut down production while at this point in time we are proceeding to address those problems. We've brought consultants in, and we are currently engaged in discussions with strategic partners who we believe will bring the production strength that will be needed to ramp up that operation again. I'm very hopeful that those discussions will be concluded in the very near future, in the next few days, and then I'll be able to report progress to the member at that time.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Since the Minister of Health has today indicated and her cronies on the social development committee have indicated that they won't budge on Bill 173, my question is to the Premier, and I would ask if he's available at all for this question.

Interjection.

Mr Jim Wilson: In the absence of the Premier, I'll ask my question to the Minister of Health. Minister, the stated purposes of Bill 173, as you know, include ensuring that a wide range of community health and related services are available to people in their own homes, improving access to these services, improving the quality of these services, promoting the efficient management of service delivery, and encouraging local involvement in the planning and delivery of these services.

I want to tell the minister for the record today, because she knows and she keeps misrepresenting this point, the PC Party in this House and in this province agrees with those stated purposes of the act. In fact, we worked very hard to strengthen the purpose clause during committee hearings last week.

However, Bill 173 in its present form ignores your own fundamental principles and the purposes stated in the first part of the bill, and the bill in its present form will ensure that the new multiservice agency model will wipe out organizations like the Red Cross, the VON, Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses, organizations that have been delivering long-term care services --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- in this province for close to a century, long before your government ever got its paws on long-term care --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Jim Wilson: -- long before you were ever in existence. I ask the minister, what have you got against the Red Cross, the Victorian Order of Nurses, and Saint Elizabeth --

The Speaker: The member has placed his question. Would the member please take his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Simcoe West please take his seat.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): He's lost his Prozac.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Just one more reason why we have to protect the health care system in this province, so it will be there when the member needs it.

Let me say to him, as I've said already today, that what long-term care is about is the seniors and the disabled in this province, who have been served magnificently by voluntary organizations, but in a patchwork way. What we are doing and what seniors have called for is a reorganization of long-term care in a way that makes sure --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that no matter where you live in this province, you get the care you need to help you stay in your own home and in your own community, and that you get that care from a voluntary agency. The agencies you mention have been here in this province --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister please take her seat. Supplementary?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): One of the major concerns being expressed by the several hundred people who are in the gallery today, many of them seniors and workers who provide support services to seniors, and several hundred who couldn't get into the chamber today, is that you are imposing one specific model from the government of Ontario and trying to suggest that this somehow is going to respond to local decision-making concerns. The concerns they're expressing are that across this province there are several agencies that are doing an outstanding job: They're coordinated, they're providing cost-effective services, they've rationalized and they've cooperated within regional units. They're doing everything you say you want done within your legislation.

What we're saying is that the bill lacks flexibility. They, along with the Conservative Party, want to see section 13 amended, not so it's all of one approach or another, but that it's flexible for both approaches. We're asking you, Minister, will you not consider writing into the legislation, because we believe, such as in Simcoe county, for example, that to have the 80-20 rule imposed -- 100% of all the homemaker services are provided by the Red Cross in that community; by your own legislation, you'll wipe out 80% of the work they're currently doing. We're only pleading with you, Minister: Will you not accept a motion from the Tories that allows for that flexibility so that you can say, "I'll impose my model somewhere else" --

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

Mr Jackson: -- but in Simcoe or in Halton, where there is that level of cooperation, you'll preserve those good elements of what's been done in long-term care in this province without throwing out with the bathwater an excellent program where it exists currently in this province? Will you not consider those amendments?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think it's important that I explain to the member yet again the history of this legislation. There was a proposal from the previous government --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- for the kind of service coordination that he is suggesting, and as a result --

Mr Jim Wilson: The 80-20 wasn't in the history. You made that up. That's a socialist twist.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, please come to order.

Mr Jim Wilson: A point of order.

The Speaker: No. Will the member take his seat. His colleague the member for Burlington South posed a serious question. The minister should be allowed an opportunity to respond.

1520

Hon Mrs Grier: The member said there were several hundred people here today. I know there have been 50 or 60, and I hope, for those who are here, they understand the difficulty of having a constructive discussion around a piece of legislation that is critical to the seniors and the disabled of this province. The kind of distortion, the kind of misinformation and the kind of blinkers prevent the member opposite from recognizing that what we are talking about is a reorganization of the provision of care by communities for communities and for the seniors they serve in a way that is very clear, that the funding and the principles about the equity of services across this province are there and are part of the government's proposal.

But as part of the design of multiservice agencies, the election of the boards of those multiservice agencies, the determination of the ethnic, cultural, religious preferences of the groups that will be providing service, will differ from one end of this province to the other to serve the diversity and the needs of the people of this province.

SMALL BUSINESS

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Some three years ago, the small business committee of this government, under the capable leadership of my colleague Norm Jamison, pursued a mandate to reduce the amount of red tape faced by small business across this province. More efficiencies were demanded. We insisted that the seven to 10 different ministries and bureaucracies work together on this.

Minister, last Wednesday I addressed the chamber of commerce in our city of Niagara Falls. Our business people want to know what the government is doing to help reduce this burden of paper and to eliminate the obstacles to starting a small business.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I have to say that the small business committee did a great job. We know that the business community for many years has been telling governments of all stripes that red tape is one of the major obstacles to business growth.

This government has listened. We now have introduced Clearing the Path for business access, and this is a plan to streamline and simplify the registration and reporting requirements of Ontario businesses. It's a very exciting project. We now have 15 business registration access workshops up across the province, and more to come. What it means, in just a few sentences, is that people can now go into a workstation, sit down in front of a computer, with somebody there to help them if they need help, and within a half-hour complete four forms, the most commonly used forms today. There are more, but the four most commonly used ones can be completed on a computer within a half-hour. That's just the beginning of this program.

Ms Harrington: The businesses in Niagara Falls are very concerned about the excess cost of the paper burden -- that's in time, in effort and in money -- of their staff. What can we expect in the way of more efficiencies over the next year? What is going to be done?

Hon Ms Churley: There is a station in St Catharines existing right now which the member might want to know about. The expansion of this program will bring, by the spring of 1995, more workstations in communities across Ontario.

We are also working with the federal government to adopt the single business registration number, and that will apply to Ontario businesses to identify businesses at both the provincial and federal levels.

Also, by 1995 we'll be moving to a complete electronic registration process and introducing unified reporting. This is an incredible step forward for businesses. These services will eliminate paper and will allow businesses to remit all their taxes at once.

Over time, this government, having started the process now, has put in place an incredible system to start, finally, after years of protest by small business, the process to really streamline the process in Ontario.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, your government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, indeed millions, on TV and print ads extolling the alleged virtues of Jobs Ontario, trying to induce employers to hire people based on a wage subsidy. But I think that promise is a sham. We've heard reports from many employers who have been unable to penetrate the bureaucratic muck at Jobs Ontario Training to get their money.

In my riding, I've received many complaints. In fact, the most recent one involved a company which had to wait 18 months to get paid for people it hired in April 1993. In fact, the delay was so long it wrote off the expense as a bad debt. The money only got paid when a collection agency consultant got involved, but the price was 50% of the money that Jobs Ontario was supposed to pay to employees. Instead, it went to a consultant.

Minister, I want you to explain why an employer should have to hire a collection agency to get money from the administrative abyss at Jobs Ontario Training; how you can justify a delay of this length in getting that money, which is an experience many employers have had to face; and I want to know what your policy is relating to spending money in this way, whether it's appropriate that Jobs Ontario money be siphoned off by a consultant instead of going to employees.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): We can't deal with a complaint that has been raised by a member when he puts out a press release, refuses to name the company, refuses to give any details about the company that's involved. If you're interested in a particular problem that's been raised with one company, then come clean and come and talk to us and show us the name of the company and we'll take a look at it. But don't play politics with a program that is working by getting thousands of people off social assistance and into the workplace. The game you played last Friday was absolutely ridiculous. You're not interested in trying to point out any areas where the program can be improved. You're simply interested in playing politics, and as far as I'm concerned, that's despicable when it comes to this program that's helping thousands of people.

Mr Murphy: That minister should be embarrassed. I've given him the name of the consultant, who owns it, who's operating it. I in fact was asked not to reveal the name of the company that was involved in it, because they were afraid of the backlash from the people involved in your program. Eighteen months they spent, and they couldn't get a penny from you. Finally, because it's such a sham, someone who had access to inside information from your bureaucrats was the one who got them the money, and that's why. The police have been phoned about this, and I'm more than happy to talk to that employer to see if they're prepared to talk to you, but frankly they have been afraid to to date because of the sham that's involved in your program.

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

Mr Murphy: I'll be glad to place a question, Mr Speaker, as soon as I get an answer from this minister to the first question. So I'll repeat it: What is his policy? Is it his policy to permit 50% of the Jobs Ontario money, in a particular situation, to be siphoned off by a consultant, or not? I want to hear the answer.

Hon Mr Cooke: Well, I don't know that that's even taken place, because the member has presented no information, nothing to back it up at all, no facts at all, and based on the kind of research you've done in the past, why should I believe you this time? If you want an investigation, if you want a policy, then give us the name of the company. But don't play these kinds of silly, stupid games.

1530

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My petition deals with some of the people who were here today petitioning the government concerning Bill 173, and it comes from many of those concerned in the Quinte area with this particular bill. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

"Whereas seniors and the disabled are entitled to accessible community-based care;

"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-effective and accessible care;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the government of Ontario must recognize the value of the work of volunteers in this province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure that amendments are made to Bill 173 to allow for provision of community care based on the needs of the local communities in Ontario and acknowledge the role of volunteers in the delivery of care."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Stop the clock, please. I neglected to call for motions, so we must revert, according to our standing orders, to motions. The Chair's mistake. Are there motions?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I have three motions that I believe we should attempt to deal with today.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The first motion deals with all three caucuses, with changes to committees' makeup, members replacing members on committees.

I move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the standing committees:

On the standing committee on estimates, Mr Bradley for Mr Elston.

On the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Mr Abel for Ms Mathyssen.

On the standing committee on general government, Mr Hope for Mr Mills.

On the standing committee on government agencies, Mr Crozier for Mr Bradley and Ms Gigantes for Mr Ferguson.

On the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, Mr Rizzo for Ms Mathyssen.

On the standing committee on public accounts, Ms Martel for Mr Owens.

On the standing committee on resources development, Ms Martel for Mr Huget and Mr Mills for Mr Ferguson.

On the standing committee on social development, Ms Gigantes for Mr Hope and Mr Jamison for Mr Owens.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

WITHDRAWAL OF BILLS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the orders for second reading of Bill 55, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code; second reading of Bill 67, An Act to require the Minister of Environment and Energy to direct an Investigation into the deleterious human health effects of exposure to Radon in indoor air; second reading of Bill 112, An Act to amend the Assessment Act with respect to golf courses; and for committee of the whole House on Bill 126, An Act respecting Water Extraction Agreements, be discharged and the bills be withdrawn. These are bills that were submitted in the names of members, whose names you read earlier, who have resigned from this place.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): This is the last one. I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 67, 68, 69 and 70.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS (CONTINUED)

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): We resume with petitions and it's the member for Burlington South.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of said bill;

"Whereas seniors and the disabled are entitled to accessible community-based care;

"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-effective and accessible care;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the government of Ontario must recognize and value the work of volunteers in this province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure that amendments are made to allow Bill 173 to allow for provision of community care based on the needs of the local communities in Ontario and acknowledge the role of volunteers in the delivery of that care."

I have several hundreds of these signed petitions, including names of Mae Radford from Burlington, Margaret Warriner, Linda Sutton, Barb Henderson. There's a whole host of Burlingtonians who have expressed concern. I have signed it and it has my support as well.

SICKLE CELL ANAEMIA

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas sickle cell anaemia is a serious medical condition with 10% of the population of African origin carrying the gene;

"Controlled studies show a significant reduction in the number of childhood deaths by long-term treatment with penicillin to such a degree that it must be considered an essential drug;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Ministry of Health to implement routine newborn testing for the disease and to make penicillin available without charge to all affected children."

I have appended my signature to this.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by a number of people from my riding and around my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Bill 173, if unamended, will mean less service, more costly service, a decrease in volunteers and the inability of local communities to ensure the long-term care system meets their needs."

I've signed this petition as well.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

"Whereas seniors and the disabled are entitled to accessible community-based care;

"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-efficient and accessible care;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the government of Ontario must recognize and value the work of volunteers in this province;

I have also signed this.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a number of copies of a petition to begin, and there are going to be over 23,000 signatures that I'll be presenting to the House. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the provincial government for a haemodialysis unit to be placed in one of Chatham's hospitals for the use of Chatham-Kent kidney dialysis patients. This will enable these patients to have treatment in the city of Chatham instead of travelling to London three times a week."

It's signed by a number of people from the city of Chatham, from Florence and places throughout Kent county such as Bothwell, Dresden, Ridgetown, Highgate and Dover Centre. Again, this is the beginning of over 20,000 that will be brought forward to this Legislature for consideration.

LADY EVELYN-SMOOTHWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition here signed by 1,139 constituents in the riding of Timiskaming. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the comprehensive planning committee is developing a park plan for Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater designated wilderness park and land management plan for surrounding area;

"Whereas there has not been a social or economic impact study carried out that would explain the impact on the surrounding area's economy;

"Whereas there are concerns for safety and security of users of such a proposed massive wilderness park system;

"Whereas the draft date of January 1995 does not leave time to complete such studies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to require the Ministry of Natural Resources and the comprehensive planning committee to develop both an economic and social impact study and a plan that would ensure the safety of park users. Therefore, an extension of the draft date of January 1995 is required."

I have affixed my signature to this.

AMALGAMATION OF HOSPITALS

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

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

"Whereas the board of directors of the Great War Memorial Hospital of Perth and District and the board of directors of the Smiths Falls Community Hospital have agreed to merge operations; and

"Whereas this merger is progressing in various stages without the final approval by the Minister of Health; and

"Whereas the health and safety of the community is at risk by certain departments being periodically closed;

"We, the undersigned residents of our community, urge the government of Ontario to investigate this matter immediately and direct the boards of directors of both hospitals to abide by all provisions of the Public Hospitals Act and include all stakeholders in a cooperative manner."

This petition was signed by 99 constituents, and I affix my signature.

1540

LAP DANCING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition today with 817 names on it. It is a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and rather than reading out all the words of it, I'll just summarize it. Basically it is a petition that is opposing the court decision of Judge Hachborn in the crown versus Mara and East, which is the decision that legalizes lap dancing.

This petition was presented to me by Councillor Pauline Brown, who is a member of the Woodstock city council and a member of the congregation at Chalmers United Church. Most of the signatures on the petition are either members of the congregation or friends of that church or of two other churches, First Baptist and Calvary Pentecostal Church in Woodstock in my riding of Oxford.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to the Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario, and the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of Health, the province of Ontario.

This is signed by a large number of people who reside in the Niagara Peninsula.

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

"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

"Whereas seniors and the disabled are entitled to accessible community-based care;

"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-effective and accessible care;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the Ontario government must recognize the value of the work of volunteers in this province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that amendments are made to Bill 173 to allow for provision of community care based on the needs of the local communities in Ontario and acknowledge the role of volunteers in the delivery of care."

I agree with the petition and have signed it.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas comprehensive health insurance is essential to everyone and the inability of temporary residents, including students and academics, to obtain adequate, affordable insurance is causing hardship and will deter others from entering Ontario's universities, and exclusions by insurers for pregnancy, HIV, psychiatric disorders and other serious conditions are unacceptable;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government to make OHIP coverage available to all temporary residents on payment of a reasonable premium."

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

"Whereas seniors and the disabled are entitled to accessible community-based care;

"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-effective and accessible care;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the government of Ontario must recognize the value of the work of volunteers in this province;

This petition is signed by a number of residents of the region of York.

GAMING REGISTRATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My petition is directed to the Premier and to the Honourable Marilyn Churley. It says:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully protest the intention of the registrar under the Gaming Services Act, 1992, c 24, who has given notice that she intends not to renew the registration of Raymond Shilling, resident of the city of Orillia, as a gaming assistant under the act and who has thereby stripped him of his employment and only source of income;

"We respectfully submit that the might of the Ontario government should not be arbitrarily used to deprive a private citizen of his or her livelihood;

"Furthermore, we protest any added burden which the registrar's decision may consequently place on the social assistance of the region of Simcoe and the taxpayers thereof in order to compensate for Mr Shilling's loss of income.

"We therefore petition the Honourable the Premier of Ontario and the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to prevail upon the said registrar in the strongest possible manner to continue the registration of Mr Shilling so that he might return to his role in the community as a contributing and gainfully employed person."

That's signed by approximately 300 people, and I've added my name to it.

LONG-TERM CARE REFORM

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition sponsored by the Victorian Order of Nurses, Hastings-Northumberland-Prince Edward branch, signed by a number of people from Trenton, and the petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Bill 173, if unamended, will result in less service, more costly service, a decreased number in volunteers and less flexibility for communities to develop a model that works for them."

It's signed by many people from Trenton.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Please build on the current strengths of the system and don't eliminate organizations like VON and Red Cross."

This petition comes from people in Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, Brampton, Hamilton and Toronto. I agree with it completely and I have affixed my name to it and I heartily recommend the sentiments that are contained in it.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have a petition:

"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

"Whereas seniors and the disabled are entitled to accessible community-based care;

"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-effective and accessible care;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the government of Ontario must recognize and value the work of volunteers in this province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure that amendments are made to Bill 173 to allow for provision of community care based on the needs of local communities in Ontario and acknowledge the role of volunteers in the delivery of care."

Signed by a number of residents of the province of Ontario, and I affix my signature.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition which is addressed 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;

"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 called 'supersport' bikes; and

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition.

1550

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 23, 1994, Mr Beer from the standing committee on social development presented the committee's report on Children at Risk / Les enfants à risque and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make any statement?

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): Just briefly, I wish to commend all the groups who work in this province with children who came before the committee and the members for coming up with the unanimous report. We hope very much that the actions we have set out will be accepted by the House for action.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Beer moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 23, 1994, Mr Hansen from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the committee's Report regarding Allegations of Breach of the Premier's Conflict-of-Interest Guidelines Made Against Evelyn Gigantes, MPP and Minister of Housing / Rapport sur les allégations d'infraction aux consignes sur les conflits d'intérêt du premier ministre faites à l'encontre d'Evelyn Gigantes, députée et ministre du Logement.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Yes, Mr Speaker. Being the Chair of a very difficult situation that we had to go through and with the long hours that the committee met, from early morning till after midnight many days, I'd like to thank the members: Mr Bob Callahan, Mr Bob Chiarelli, Mr Charles Harnick, Mr Paul Johnson, Mr Rosario Marchese, Mrs Margaret Marland, Mrs Irene Mathyssen, Mr Tim Murphy, Mr Steve Owens, Mr Kimble Sutherland and Mr David Winninger. It was a pleasure to work with these members on the committee findings of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

I'd like to move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: You don't have to move any adjournment on the debate.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 23, 1994, Mr McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 20th report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement, Mr McLean?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have no statement to make, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Could you move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr McLean: I move that the committee rise and report.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr McLean moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 24th through 29th reports.

The Deputy Speaker: Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mr McLean: I have no statement to make, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the reports are deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Cordiano from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's report on special education and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement, the member for Lawrence?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): The recommendations contained in the report stem from the auditor's findings in his report. A number of recommendations are made resulting from our deliberations which I'm sure will be followed up.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cordiano moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Cordiano from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's report on institutional services and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker: Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Cordiano: Once again, this is a report stemming from the auditor's annual report and a number of recommendations are made therein.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cordiano moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Cordiano from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's report on the child and family intervention program and young offender services and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker: Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Cordiano: The member for Brampton South will make a statement.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I ask for unanimous consent to make a statement.

The Deputy Speaker: Did you move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr Cordiano: I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cordiano moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

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

Pursuant to the order of the House of June 23, 1994, Mr Cordiano from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's report on curriculum development and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker: Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Cordiano: This is a report on curriculum on which the committee made a number of recommendations also stemming from the auditor's report and his annual findings. I'm sure many of the recommendations contained therein will be viewed with great receptivity by the ministry.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cordiano moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMMUNITY NETWORK OF CHILD CARE PROGRAMS (WILLOWDALE) ACT, 1994

Mrs Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr133, An Act to revive Community Network of Child Care Programs (Willowdale).

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

YORK ST. PETER'S EVANGELISTIC ORGANIZATION ACT, 1994

Mrs Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr121, An Act to revive York St. Peter's Evangelistic Organization.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PEACE BRIDGE AREA UNITED FUND INC. ACT, 1994

Mr Hansen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr136, An Act to revive Peace Bridge Area United Fund Inc.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

BRAMPTON BRAMALEA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP ACT, 1994

Mr Callahan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr130, An Act to revive Brampton Bramalea Christian Fellowship.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

1600

FRANCHISES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES FRANCHISES

Mr Wiseman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 182, An Act to regulate Franchise Agreements / Projet de loi 182, Loi visant à réglementer les contrats de franchisage.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Perhaps the members in the gallery are not aware, but you are not allowed to applaud.

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

Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Yes, I would. This issue has been festering in the province of Ontario for far too long. There are numbers of families caught in these franchise agreements that have been denied their democratic rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They have no recourse to dispute mechanisms, they have no standards of conduct within the contracts in which they find themselves. This business needs to be regulated in the province of Ontario and it's high time that this be done. I'd like to thank John Sotos and I'd like to thank Margaret MacKinnon of legislative counsel. I would also ask unanimous consent of this House to move to second reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to move to second reading? Is it no? I didn't hear a yes, so therefore there is no unanimous agreement.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (STREET VENDING), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ URBAINE DE TORONTO (VENTE DANS LA RUE)

Mrs Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 183, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act / Projet de loi 183, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la municipalité de la communauté urbaine de Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Yes, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Metropolitan Toronto council and councils in each of the municipalities are given the power under this amendment to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act to pass bylaws to regulate street vendors as well as including the establishment of a permit system. At the present time, only the city of Toronto has clearly defined authority over street vendors. That's provided through the City of Toronto Act, and that was initiated through a private member's bill; I would just point that out to the Legislature.

As we debated this at the beginning of December, this was brought to my attention by a member of Metro council. The concern is that there has been a proliferation throughout Metropolitan Toronto and no one at the local level has the authority or the responsibility to act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The 32nd order, An Act to amend the Statutes of Ontario with respect to the provision of services to the public, the administration of government programs and the management of government resources; Ms Boyd.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The Attorney General.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order concerning this bill that's just been called, Bill 175, which is formally entitled An Act to amend the Statutes of Ontario with respect to the provision of services to the public, the administration of government programs and the management of government resources. My concern is with the form of Bill 175. I feel that this bill goes beyond the generally accepted form of legislation and is using an omnibus format that is inconsistent with the practice of omnibus bills.

Omnibus bills are generally accepted to be bills that demand a decision on a number of quite different, although related, subjects. Bill 175 consists of 148 pages. It makes changes to over 100 statutes that fall under the jurisdiction of 14 separate ministries. Amendments range from automating the land registry office to allowing alcoholic beverages to be sold in provincial parks, to harmonizing federal and provincial food grading systems, to allowing individuals to pay for driver's licences, permits and plates by credit card and to banning the use of leg traps in the wild fur industry; and the list goes on.

The essential element of an omnibus bill is that although it may seek to amend many separate statutes, it has one purpose that ties together all the proposed amendments and therefore renders the bill intelligibly for parliamentary purposes.

I feel that Bill 175 fails to meet this test. The changes proposed in the 148 pages of Bill 175 do not have a common theme or purpose; the range and scope of the material covered in this bill are not related in any meaningful way.

In addition, I feel that my privilege as a member has been breached because I have been impeded in doing my job as a member of the Legislative Assembly. Specifically, an omnibus bill of this scope does not allow me enough time to debate the merits of the various Ministry of the Environment proposals as the Progressive Conservative caucus critic for the Environment.

The standing order changes that were introduced in 1991 prohibit members of the Legislative Assembly from speaking for more than 30 minutes unless they are the first speaker for a party.

Bill 175 was introduced by the Attorney General. Therefore, our lead speaker will be the Progressive Conservative caucus critic for the Attorney General. All other members, including the critics for the 13 other ministries, will be limited to only 30 minutes; all other members will have 30 minutes to deal with 148 pages.

The omnibus format of this bill does not provide me with the same opportunity to debate the various provisions that would have been presented if the government had introduced 14 different pieces of legislation for each of the 14 ministries that are included in Bill 175. The parliamentary implications of dealing with a bill of the kind before us are very serious both for the orderly consideration of the bill itself and for future legislative procedure on similar bills.

In making your ruling on my point of order, Mr Speaker, I would like you to consider the ruling of Speaker Lamoureux of the federal House of Commons on July 26, 1971, in which he said, with respect to omnibus bills: "Where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the honourable member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada, which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be Omnibus with a capital O and a capital B, but would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint."

I must indicate that Speaker Lamoureux went on to rule that the point of unacceptability in that particular application had not been reached. However, his compelling words with respect to omnibus bills indicate that other Speakers, including yourself, have a responsibility to rule on whether the point that he speaks of has been reached or has even been crossed. I submit that Bill 175 has gone beyond the point of being an acceptable omnibus bill.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I would draw to your attention the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms that states, "Speakers have expressed deep concern over the use of omnibus bills."

Mr Speaker, I thank you for listening to my comments, but I would ask for your ruling on the acceptability of Bill 175 before this debate begins.

1610

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On the point of order which the member has raised regarding Bill 175, first, Mr Speaker, you will know that this is not the first time we've had this discussion here in the Legislature. Second, you will know that in the process of drafting this government piece of legislation which is before the House and which has been before the House since June of this year, the government goes through extensive consultation with the Speaker, the table officers and legislative counsel with regard to the very questions the member opposite has raised.

I suppose it would be fair to say, although he didn't quote the federal Speaker at length, that judging from the quotes he did use and the assumptions he added into those quotes about creating one bill to represent a government's entire legislative program, the member's complaint might have somewhat more form.

The member opposite will note, however, Mr Speaker -- and I think you're well aware because you've been involved in trying to maintain the business operation of this Legislature on a fairly daily basis over the course of the last four years -- that a bill like 175 was an attempt on the government's part, and I admit that, to put together a significant number of items which are non-controversial, housekeeping in nature.

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that on many occasions I have stood in my place here in this House in the last year and a half that I've been in this job -- and my predecessors in this job did much the same -- complaining about opposition members abusing their privileges in this House, speaking at length on second and third readings and in committee on insignificant consequential pieces of legislation, of which we may have had 13 or 14, as the member suggests, in this piece of legislation, rather than perhaps one.

It's that approach by opposition members which says to a government: "Take those non-controversial items and put them into an omnibus bill. Sit down with the table officers, sit down with legal counsel and do that appropriately. Ensure that all the legislation you're going to amend is named in the title of the bill, and ensure that you don't offend the rules and traditions of the parliamentary system of this House." And that's what we've done.

Having said that, Mr Speaker, the members opposite will notice, and I think you're well aware, that when it comes to the major questions of policy such as we deal with in the four bills we had out before four committees over the course of the summer for public hearings and for clause-by-clause study -- the long-term care legislation, the sustainable forestry legislation, the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act and the major amendments to the Ontario Planning Act -- we dealt with those in a straightforward, single-policy-issue-area approach, as we always have and we always will.

You understand, Mr Speaker, because of the nature of debate and partisan intervention in this institution, that a government takes its best approaches, as does the opposition, to the use of the rules and traditions of this institution. That's what we've done in a very careful way with Bill 175, in consultation with the table and with legislative counsel, in terms of the drafting of this piece of legislation, and I maintain it is fully within appropriate order in this House.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to speak to the point of order that is on the floor. I listened very carefully to the government House leader when he said this is not the first time omnibus legislation has been brought into this House. I'd point out to him that we have argued, when previous omnibus bills were brought in that contained unrelated issues, such as the tax bill which contained drug policy legislation -- in fact the government agreed to sever those to allow for the kind of debate that was necessary, and the reason it allowed that omnibus bill to be severed and become separate acts was because the issues contained in that bill were controversial.

As a member of this House since 1985, I can see the value of omnibus legislation, most particularly as it is permitted today when you have related policy issues. I can also see, for the expeditious use of House time, the kind of omnibus bill which would cross ministries and which would be purely and simply non-controversial housekeeping issues. I believe that is new to this House, and we have seen the use of that only by this government in the last little while.

It is important to point that out while the traditions of this House are important, we know that from time to time Speaker's rulings change and evolve the traditions of this House through the setting of precedent in terms of what is and is not acceptable parliamentary practice. I'm pointing out that the practice of the New Democratic government to bring in omnibus legislation that crosses ministries and mixes, if you will, policy issues is a relatively new occurrence in this House.

The request I would make is that as I've heard the government House leader very clearly state that this bill is non-controversial, I would like to hear from him before you rule, Mr Speaker, whether he on behalf of the government would give his word to remove from this bill those items which are considered controversial. I've seen the amendments, and not all the amendments deal with those items about which there are concerns. What I want to hear from the government House leader today is a commitment that he will remove from the legislation those items which are identified as controversial, which require independent and full debate and discussion before they are passed into law, and a commitment that if they are going to use an omnibus piece of legislation which they declare is non-controversial, that in fact it be non-controversial, that it be housekeeping, minor technical amendments. I would ask him that where we, either in this party or in the third party, identify a section of this bill which we believe to be controversial, he will give us today his word that that will removed from the legislation.

He has stated in this House that all items in this bill are housekeeping and non-controversial, Mr Speaker, and I think that would influence your judgement in making a decision as to whether this act could proceed in its present form. As I've stated, the decision you make today is precedent-setting. I believe the member from the third party, Mr Tilson, has identified a valid and legitimate point. I would ask that the House leader for the government give his word to this House that they will remove any issue, any section of this act, which is deemed by the opposition to require further debate because of a nature that we believe is controversial.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Just very briefly, Mr Speaker, I think this is a fairly important ruling you're going to have to make. I've heard the member who introduced the point of order, the member for Dufferin-Peel, talk about a common thread that goes through legislation, and I think he's quite correct. But before you make your ruling, I think you should consider that the common thread should be one of subject matter. It's the subject matter, I think, that has to be the common thread in an omnibus piece of legislation.

I'm sure the government House leader will correct me if I am incorrect in his perception of the bill, but I understand that the bill is dealing with efficiency in 14 separate ministries affecting some 100 pieces of legislation. If that is acceptable, I ask you, would a piece of legislation that dealt with 22 ministries affecting 972 pieces of legislation be acceptable? Then surely we would come to the point in legislatures and the parliamentary system where at the beginning of every session we'd simply have one gigantic omnibus bill that would deal with every statute and every ministry we ever wanted to change in the course of that session, and that would be it.

I strongly suggest, Mr Speaker, that you might want to give some thought to that before you make your ruling. I may be wrong, but I can't recall in my tenure here an omnibus piece of legislation that has affected 14 separate ministries and proposed to alter some 100 statutes in the province of Ontario and there's absolutely no connection in the subject matter between the various aspects of various ministries.

I would ask you to consider that in your ruling, because I think this is just the next step along the way to, as I said, having one gigantic bill. What would prevent any government in the future from dealing with all ministries and all statutes it wanted to affect during the course of that sitting just by doing one simple bill? Well, it wouldn't be too simple; it would be about this big. I think this place is almost going to become redundant. If in fact that happens, why don't we just do it by fax machine? We can all stay home and it would save a lot of money: We won't need any clerks, won't need a Speaker. We'll just do it by fax. The government can just send us one gigantic fax at the beginning of every session, and maybe we can vote by proxy.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On this point of order, I'm concerned that we are coming back some five weeks later than the Legislature should have sat, and the government's excuse is that it doesn't have very much legislation. Yet the very essence of the House rules, according to the government, was that it was going to streamline the debate process and that would allow the lead speaker, the critic for that area, to be able to comment on it.

In fact, this legislation, because it's so wide-ranging, covering so many ministries and so many issues, has many critics, but there will only be one critic who will be allowed the luxury of being able to fully exercise debate on this and all the other people will be limited to 30 minutes. There can be no excuse for a government that tries to eliminate the comments of the critics for the various ministries by putting all the legislation into one package and simply saying, "We'll only allow one lead speaker on this issue." I hope you will consider that, Mr Speaker, in arriving at your determination on this.

The Deputy Speaker: I'd like to thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for having brought this matter to my attention. I strongly believe it deserves at least seven minutes of recess to consult, and I will be back shortly.

The House recessed from 1623 to 1633.

The Deputy Speaker: Previous members, both in this House and other parliaments, have often expressed their concern about omnibus bills. I do share these concerns that were raised by the member for Dufferin-Peel, the member for Parry Sound and the member for York Mills. However, it is not the responsibility of a Speaker to take upon himself or themselves to split proposed legislation. Furthermore, in the past when omnibus legislation has been split, it always has been as a result of an agreement between the House leaders.

Therefore, because there are plenty of precedents for omnibus legislation of many types and also because of the reasons I've just explained to you, I find that there is no valid point of order.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX PRATIQUES DE GESTION ET AUX SERVICES DU GOUVERNEMENT

Mrs Boyd moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 175, An Act to amend the Statutes of Ontario with respect to the provision of services to the public, the administration of government programs and the management of government resources / Projet de loi 175, Loi modifiant les Lois de l'Ontario en ce qui a trait à la fourniture de services au public, à l'administration des programmes gouvernementaux et à la gestion des ressources gouvernementales.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): We all know that it can be very difficult for large organizations to change with the times and maintain good services. It is particularly hard for governments to adapt when, in order to change the way government works, the laws of the jurisdiction must be changed.

Statute law, like all law, has to evolve with changes in the society which it governs. Statutes can become slowly outdated because of gradual changes in technology, in the economy, in demographics or in standards of conduct, for example.

Good ideas for modest changes to statutes are sometimes not implemented for the simple reason that there is not enough time in the legislative calendar to address them individually. The legislative calendar is crowded with larger-scale or more urgent matters. However, a failure to keep the statutes up to date can result in a gradual deterioration in service to the public and in government efficiency. So our government has introduced Bill 175 to make a number of these modest changes to benefit the public and improve the government's use of its resources.

Bill 175 will amend over 100 statutes, generally in very minor ways, to produce moderate but real improvements in the way our government works here in Ontario. Some of these amendments will help modernize rules and procedures to reflect advances in technology. Other amendments will eliminate red tape and unnecessary rules affecting businesses and others and will eliminate duplication. Still other amendments will make minor adjustments to the statutes to clarify the law, to respond to recent court decisions or to catch up with changed circumstances.

Most other jurisdictions in Canada enact a bill like this one at regular intervals. Our government hopes that a bill like Bill 175 will become a regular feature of Ontario's lawmaking too.

Many of the amendments proposed in Bill 175 were developed in consultation with organizations representing the people who will be affected by the changes, organizations such as the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the minister's mining advisory committee, the Ontario Medical Association, the Farm Products Marketing Commission and the Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators.

A large number of proposals were suggested by public servants who also have identified ways to improve service to the public.

I am going to give only a few examples of the amendments which are contained in Bill 175:

The registrar general for Ontario will coordinate its data collection about births and deaths in the province with the Ministry of Health. This process will alleviate problems with fraudulent health cards. Policies and procedures used by the registrar general will be simplified. This will result in shorter lineups and quicker processing of applications and registrations, something which all members of this House will welcome. These improvements require changes to the Change of Name Act, the Marriage Act and the Vital Statistics Act, which are included in sections 76, 90 and 103 of this bill.

1640

Red tape and unnecessary regulations will be eliminated by amendments to the Business Corporations Act, the Business Names Act, the Corporations Information Act, and a number of other statutes governing businesses. These are included in sections 72, 73, 79, 80, 83 and 88 of Bill 175. Corporations and other businesses will be permitted to file information with the government in electronic format. Real estate transactions involving corporations will be made less expensive by eliminating some corporate searches that are now required.

Taxis used by persons with disabilities will be exempted from municipal bylaws that allow only locally licensed vehicles to pick up passengers in any given municipality. This will allow the person who is disabled to arrange a return trip across the municipal boundary using only one taxi. This requires an amendment to the Municipal Act. Subsection 124(11) of the bill will accomplish this task.

Currently, when someone's spouse dies without a will the amount that the surviving spouse is entitled to, which is called the preferential share of the estate, will be established by regulation. Now the surviving spouse is entitled to $75,000, the cost of a modest house in Toronto in 1977, when the Succession Law Reform Act was passed. This amendment, in subsections 63(1), (2) and (3) of the bill, will ensure that this law is updated to better reflect the average level of the estate at this current time, an advance on the 1977 provision. It can be done by regulation in such a way that statutes do not have to be amended each time there is a tremendous change in the value of estates.

Advances in technology will improve services at land registry offices. Changes to the Land Registration Reform Act will establish a scheme for the electronic registration of documents affecting land, and these changes are included in sections 86, 87 and 100 of the bill. When the necessary regulations are passed, lawyers will become able to access the land registry system from their offices to file information directly in electronic format and to access land registration records. This should reduce costs to the consumers who are buying real estate.

Federal and provincial food grading systems will be harmonized so that people have only one set of grades and standards to learn. This will also reduce interprovincial trade barriers. To accomplish this requires a change to the Farm Products Grades and Sales Act, the Livestock and Livestock Products Act and the Milk Act, and we will accomplish that by the changes proposed in subsections 19(6), 24(12) and 30(7) of Bill 175.

High-technology commerce will be supported by eliminating the requirement that many contracts be in writing to be enforceable. This action will eliminate much of the uncertainty about the legal status of contracts made by electronic data exchange, an increasingly common way to do business. In order to accomplish this, an amendment to the Sale of Goods Act and the Statute of Frauds Act is required and those are accomplished in sections 54 and 55 of Bill 175.

The method of approving the location of oil and gas wells under the Petroleum Resources Act will be streamlined, reducing the approval time from approximately one year to about one month, in section 132 of the bill. The oil and gas industry says that this will increase investment in Ontario's oil and gas sector and it will also better protect land owners' oil and gas rights.

The efficiency of tribunal hearings will be increased by amendments to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, sections 56 to 61 of the bill. Approximately 80 boards and tribunals may be affected by these changes. The amendments will give them more control over their own procedures. In some circumstances, they will be able to use teleconferencing and other technologies rather than hold oral hearings.

If the number of school board trustees elected is less than the number of positions available, the elected trustees under this change will be able to appoint qualified people to fill the remaining positions instead of holding another election. The cost of a special election can be as high as $100,000, and this cost is borne by the school board. In order to accomplish this change, we require an amendment to the Municipal Elections Act, and that is accomplished in subsections 11(2) to (4) of Bill 175.

Under this bill, the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal will assume the responsibilities of three other existing tribunals: the Agricultural Licensing and Registration Review Board, the Produce Arbitration Board and the Wolf Damage Assessment Board. By having the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal, we will permit one-stop shopping by people who appeal from decisions made under 13 different agricultural statutes. This, of course, will result in lower costs and more efficient service to those who are seeking service under these acts. To achieve this end, 13 statutes are amended, amendments throughout part I of Bill 175.

These are the examples that I've outlined wherein Bill 175 will make a substantial number of modest changes to Ontario's statutes, all geared to benefit the public and to improve the government's use of resources.

We believe it is very important for us to take action on these bills in order to improve the efficient management of government. We certainly hear from the people of Ontario that this is what they expect of their legislators. I recommend the bill to the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I wish to thank the Attorney General for her opening remarks. Questions or comments?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The question I have of the minister is, since she has identified and used the words "modest changes" on numerous occasions and said that the bill is non-controversial, will she commit in this House at this time to remove from the bill those sections which are identified as controversial issues where the opposition requests that they be removed from the bill so that we can see expeditious passage of what are truly the minor, non-controversial items in this bill?

Will she make that commitment at this time to the people of the province, who have just heard her identify numerous issues which are indeed minor, numerous issues which reflect the kind of outdated and innocent practices that could be and should be changed and updated? Will she, if she is true to her word? And in fact if this legislation does not contain anything controversial, if everything in here is minor adjustments and modest changes done simply in this omnibus bill because there is insufficient time on the legislative agenda, will she commit today to remove from this package those items which the opposition parties identify as controversial, requiring fuller and greater debate?

That's my question of the minister. I'd ask her please to put that on the record at this time so that we'll know how to govern ourselves, as we wish to cooperate with the government and to assist it in dealing with those matters which are non-controversial, minor and modest changes.

However, I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that if the minister refuses to give her word that she will withdraw those items which are controversial, she will find the opposition less cooperative, because in fact she'll prove that she cannot be trusted.

1650

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the Attorney General has two minutes in response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: It is quite remarkably ironic that the House leader for the opposition suggests that we should agree to remove from a bill of this sort anything that they might decide might be controversial as we go through the process. We have made every effort to consult with the opposition. We have already tabled a package of amendments that we are prepared to consider during this process, and we believe that that covers the items that have been identified through that consultation process. We are certainly prepared to consider amendments as we go along, but we are not prepared, and no government could be prepared, to make a blanket statement that anything a fractious opposition might decide to put on the table as controversial would be removed from a bill of this sort, which is particularly designed to deal with a large number of items.

So I would say to the member, in the course of our discussion, if it becomes clear that there are indeed items that we agree are controversial in the sense that they demand more public consultation, we will certainly consider that, but we have had considerable consultation to this point and have responded already to the comments that have come forward from the opposition parties and would not be prepared at this point in time to make a simple blanket statement which basically would put us in a position of having bought a pig in a poke on a very important issue.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I know you won't be surprised when I say that I'm disappointed with the minister's response, because I believe that if she would make the commitment to withdraw any items which are controversial from this bill, in fact it would be a signal of good faith, and where she refers to a fractious opposition, in my question I said to her that it was our desire, on those issues which are modest changes, those which are simply outdated minor adjustments, to be helpful and to cooperate with the government wherever possible. I was certainly not behaving in a fractious manner, nor was I being provocative. I simply asked the minister, with respect, if she would agree to withdraw those items which are identified by the opposition parties as controversial, and the fact she has said she would not give that causes pause for concern and would also suggest that we better look a little more closely at this legislation, because the history we've seen from this party and this government in the last few years has been a duplicitousness.

We have seen in omnibus bills items buried at the back of the bill where the title on the legislation did not give any indication as to the content of the bill. I tabled in this House two private members' bills to separate out of omnibus bills very controversial issues, and in fact I'm pleased to say that the government ultimately severed those bills because of the fact that I was able to bring them to light in this Legislature in a public way, asking simply for the kind of important debate that democracy demands.

I'm going to quote from a background information sheet that was provided by the Ministry of the Attorney General. It's a comprehensive examination of the bill. It starts out with the question, "What is Bill 175?" and it makes this statement right up front: "Bill 175 makes non-controversial changes to over 100 statutes to improve the operation of government in Ontario and to improve service to the public."

If that is true, then why would the minister, who is putting forward a bill that she says and her staff says is non-controversial, in any way have any concern or hesitate at all to say that if something is seen to be controversial, it will be taken from this bill and allowed to have the full public debate that democracy demands? I think that is a reasonable request on our part.

I can tell you that there have been briefings over the course of time since this Bill 175 was tabled for first reading. One was attended by my colleague Murray Elston, and on the issue of the merging of birth records and death records he asked a very important question, and that was, in the case of parents who tragically have a child who died at childbirth, would they be faced under this new system with receiving a birth certificate? In fact, that question could not be answered, and I'm hopeful that since the time that issue was raised in the briefing that was provided by the ministry, some thought has been given to these administrative efficiencies to ensure that of course that wouldn't happen to a grieving family.

These are the sorts of things that, while not entirely controversial in the sense of the traditional controversies we have in this House -- if a piece of legislation is going to result in that kind of pain for a family, certainly we should be able to be assured that the administrative side of that policy that's been brought forward in this legislation has been considered and that those kinds of issues have been resolved.

My staff has also attended briefing sessions, and I'm going to share with the House some of the issues which have been found to be of no concern to us and which we would be quite supportive of seeing go through in omnibus legislation, provided that, if there were issues which were seen to be controversial, we could have the kind of full debate and discussion we are requesting.

The briefing note I refer to, of background information on Bill 175, had the question, "How were the proposed amendments selected?" It says: "Proposals were selected for inclusion in the bill only if they were not controversial and met at least one of the following criteria: The proposal would result in more efficient delivery of customer service; would result in more efficient use of government resources; would save money. Amendments are also proposed to clarify the law and to reflect recent judicial rulings."

When I read this, I said, "That sounds like the kind of bill that could be supportable if in fact all the pieces of that bill did what they said they were going to do." But because of the natural scepticism of this place, given the history of this government's, as I used the word before, duplicitousness, I am concerned that through the discussions, through second reading, as we highlight for people watching this debate what is contained in this bill, there may be something buried in the bill which is in fact controversial. If the government states in writing, if it states in background information which is available to any of those interested in the bill, that it is non-controversial, the point I make is that it should be non-controversial. I will be identifying a couple of areas where I believe there is sufficient controversy to warrant fuller debate and discussion.

The structure of this bill, as the minister noted, is that there are about 110 proposals from 14 ministries included in this bill. There are sponsoring ministries for the different proposals; however, the Attorney General has carriage of the overall bill. The overview of the proposals contained in the background says: "Most of the proposed amendments are modest. The majority are changes concerned with the administration of government programs and management of government resources."

It goes on to list examples, some of which the minister herself identified: advances in technology, elimination of red tape and duplication. When I read through the list, knowing some of the experiences we have had in dealing with the NDP government -- and I know the frustrations of business in dealing with the corporate $50 filing fee, just as an example -- to hear this government talk about the elimination of red tape, and on the other hand it has ministries that are looking for ways to impose new regulations and new burdens on business, reminds me of the old story that says that when government comes to cutting red tape, it does it lengthwise.

While there are some examples in this legislation of the kinds of things we'd like to see happen, I can tell you, there are concerns about many of the other proposals that have come forward from this government which in fact have increased the burden of red tape on business, and in particular small business.

The concerns raised by this piece of legislation are broad and sweeping in its proposals. We've had some identified by the minister, and I want you to know that while I think the issue of taxis for handicapped persons is an important issue to be discussed and to be debated in this Legislature, and I think the proposal is generally supported by disabled persons, to say it is wholly non-controversial is not accurate. As you can well imagine, there are taxi companies which do not support the proposal and would like an opportunity to discuss further how they're feeling about this and what the impact on their business would be.

I would say to the minister that in a democratic forum, when you have two opposing views, it is a good idea to give them the forum to come forward, even though at the end of the day this Legislature may decide that the needs of disabled people supersede the concerns of the taxi companies.

1700

When I raise this as an issue, I'm raising it to point out that not everything in this bill is simply housekeeping, minor amendment, minor change. In fact there are some businesses and individuals who have a keen interest in some of the provisions in this bill because it will have an impact on them, some of them positively, as you've stated for disabled persons, and some negatively, as in those who now have taxi companies, which are limited in their ability to cross the boundaries and feel they may be disadvantaged.

So I point out to the minister that there are some who would like some further discussion and debate on some of the features of this legislation, and it is important not to broad-brush the whole thing and say it is non-controversial.

I don't believe there is anyone who would not support the amendments to provincial and municipal elections which will inhibit the kind of corrupt electoral practices such as voting twice, abusing proxies and the like. I think everyone believes those are significant and important. It seems to me there are some who perhaps would like to hear some examples of where that's happened and why the existing laws have been unenforceable.

We know those practices are illegal today, but the government has been ineffective in its ability to enforce, so what we're really dealing with here are new enforcement provisions. I think that's the sort of thing we could highlight if we had sufficient time in the debate to discuss it.

The powers of administrative tribunals: One of the areas I'm particularly concerned about is that in this piece of legislation we have identified that there are powers given to administrative tribunals under this broad brush, and it says the efficiency of tribunal hearings will be increased by amending government legislation, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. Proposed amendments will give boards more control over their own procedures, and approximately 80 tribunals will be affected.

As I've had a look through this, I have identified that there is one new commission that in fact is not listed individually on the briefing note but that, it has come to my attention, is included in the bill and over which there is a great deal of controversy, and that is the new Advocacy Commission which the government has announced it will proclaim as of January 1. We dealt with the Advocacy Act in this Legislature; it spent time going through the legislative process. We had first reading, we had second reading, we had committee public hearings. At no time during that process did we hear from the government whether this agency was going to be a schedule 1 agency or a schedule 2 or a schedule 3. There was no opportunity to debate just how arm's length this should be from government. I know there are very differing views by numbers of people who are concerned about what kind of scheduled agency the Advocacy Commission should be.

In this legislation, the government gives all kinds of broad powers to the Advocacy Commission for hiring and the kind of normal administrative procedures. I would argue, however, that that should have been included as part of the Advocacy Act, where we then would have had the opportunity to discuss how this act would be implemented.

One of the concerns I have, and what makes this highly controversial, is that our party does not support the model that the government has chosen for its Advocacy Commission. There are many others who share our concerns. We do not believe you will be ready to proclaim in January. The fact that you do not even have in place today, October 31, any of the administrative powers for that commission to be able to govern itself and to act and respond suggests to me that it is unworkable to include those powers in this legislation and yet say you're going to proclaim in January.

I believe the establishment of the Advocacy Commission, which is included in this legislation, is deserving of a great deal of debate because in fact both opposition parties have stated that they do not support the model of the Advocacy Commission that the NDP has brought forth.

There are many who have concerns about how people have been appointed to that commission. A press conference was held just last week from the advocates and the organizations concerned with implementation of the Advocacy Act -- and their own concerns as to the ability of the government to deliver what they promised and in fact deliver an Advocacy Commission that will be able to function, that will be workable. Many are suggesting that if you attempt to proclaim in January, you will create chaos and many of those who have been helped by advocacy in the past will in fact be harmed. There are many who are saying that.

I have the question: Why was this part of the powers for the Advocacy Commission left out of the Advocacy Act? Was it done simply because of the ineptitude and mismanagement of your government or was it that you didn't want any debate about the powers you were giving to the Advocacy Commission?

Our party is clearly on the record that we would scrap the Advocacy Commission as it is presently constituted under the Advocacy Act. The cost to the taxpayers of some $30 million we believe is unconscionable, and we believe that in its present form it is unworkable, that your notion of having province-wide rights advisers is just not something that is going to be possible starting January 1. We've had that debate, we've had that discussion, we've told you how we feel about that. How can you believe that the establishment of administrative powers for the Advocacy Commission would not be considered controversial in this legislation?

There are grave concerns about what the impact would be on the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office. I have some previous experience, because the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office has always been an important component in the supports for mental health patients within the Ministry of Health. When I attended the press conference last week and I saw the concerns, the letter to the Premier about the Advocacy Commission and the Advocacy Act, the way people have been appointed and how that act is going to be implemented, I was surprised when I realized that in this non-controversial piece of legislation we have powers given to the Advocacy Commission.

1710

I would ask the minister very directly if she would be prepared to withdraw the sections of Bill 175 that deal with the Advocacy Commission and allow those to be debated in a separate piece of legislation as an amendment to the Advocacy Act and allow for the full and democratic debate we believe these issues deserve, given the passions that have been raised in the community and the concerns that have been raised about how this government is going about implementing its Advocacy Act and the Advocacy Commission.

I'd be pleased to place on the record some of the letters that I've received and the concerns that have been raised, and if the minister is prepared to withdraw those portions from this act, then I won't take the time of the House to read them into the record. I'll give her a few minutes to contemplate that, but if she's not convinced, then I will in fact proceed to share that with the House because I think this is an issue that she should be aware of, just all the concerns that are out there.

I will say that as recently as yesterday in an article in the Toronto Sun written by Mona Winberg, who has always been considered an advocate for disabled persons in the province -- the article she writes is very telling and suggests to me that this issue is controversial and should be withdrawn from this legislation to allow it to have full debate and discussion.

I'm not going to read her entire article into the record, but the bottom line is "'For me, the answer is clear: We're better off without this particular commission,' she said," and she's now referring to Spindel. I want to put this into context. She's referring to Trish Spindel, who is the former president of the nursing home reform advocacy organization Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities. She says, "Spindel feels that people should ask themselves: 'Are we better off with or without this commission?'" "'For me, the answer is clear: We're better off without this particular commission,' she said."

Then Mona goes on to say: "I agree with Spindel. Not only is it of no value to vulnerable people, but hardearned taxpayers' dollars will be wasted on what the underground newsletter the Probe and Nail describes as 'patronage commissioners.'" The bottom line is, "If we want effective advocacy, we're going to have to do it ourselves."

I would take the minister back to her very own briefing note coming from her ministry that says, "Bill 175 makes non-controversial changes to over 100 statutes to improve the operation of government in Ontario and to improve service to the public."

If Mona Winberg and Trish Spindel and others believe the Advocacy Commission is ineffective in its present form, then it is controversial enough, in my view, for the powers to be withdrawn from this legislation so that it can be fully debated and discussed in a forum where Trish Spindel and Mona Winberg and others who have concerns about the functioning of the Advocacy Commission as it is proposed by the NDP can come forward and have their say, as opposed to having that buried in a piece of legislation that affects 14 ministries and has 110 proposals from those 14 ministries.

I would like to tell you that there are some areas which we have found to be relatively innocuous, for example, those sections dealing with Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. In our consultation with a variety of marketing boards and others, we found that there was no problem with anything that was proposed by the ministry. In fact it was non-controversial and contained the kinds of changes that were generally supported and that some said were long overdue.

The assessment review board proposals: The Canadian Property Tax Association noted that there was a technical mistake regarding appeals, and I understand that this will be amended in committee of the whole and that amendments have been tabled to do that. I wanted to point that out in case anyone from the Canadian Property Tax Association is watching the proceedings.

On the Statutory Powers Procedure Act proposal which I mentioned a few moments ago, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association feels that the availability of pre-hearings and interim orders will result in delays. They're concerned about that.

The Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators feels that the pre-hearings will speed up the procedures. The ministry has decided to agree with SOAR, the Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators. This particular system that is being proposed is presently used in the Ontario courts. The Ministry of the Attorney General feels that it is working well.

However, I would point out to the minister that there are some, like the Ontario public school boards, who feel that it will cause delay. I hope that the minister has met with them and satisfied their concerns and showed them where the system is working well in the courts, although I know there are many who feel that our courts are not working as well as they could. But I did want to point that out, that on the statutory powers and procedures proposal there were some who had some concerns as to whether or not the proposal would in fact do what it is purported to do.

The Citizenship component, the Human Rights Code amendment: There were a number of groups that didn't want to see the power to dismiss a complaint and referral to the board of inquiry or the power to reconsider and to have reconsideration delegated to employees of the commission. I am pleased to note that the government has tabled an amendment which would amend this out of the legislation. It's in that spirit of the fact that they have done this on the Human Rights Code, the fact that they've done it for that, that I'm asking if they would do it as well for the Advocacy Commission and any of those which we identify as we go through this legislation and through this debate, that others identify and say: "Hey, wait a minute. That's not housekeeping. That's not a minor amendment. That's not something that we think should go through without full debate."

What the government is saying is, "We don't want this to go to committee. There should be a protocol for non-controversial items, where we can just have the debate in the House, go directly to committee of the whole." If that's what you want, then it's important for you to be cooperative and to remove those items which are controversial. The Human Rights Code amendment has been removed from the legislation, or will be removed, because of the amendments that have been tabled.

On the Consumer and Commercial Relations amendments, the company law directors' liability, the Canadian Bankers' Association highlighted a technical problem. They felt the provisions could be read the wrong way, although they agreed with the intent of the provisions. The ministry agreed again to amend, and I've noted that they are in the package of amendments. So I want to make that point in case anyone from the Canadian Bankers' Association is watching. Your amendments have been tabled and they will be dealt with.

In the Education and Training sections of this bill, the proposals to allow school boards to pay premiums on employee pensions when they take early retirement: Presently this is under the Municipal Act and the responsibility falls to the municipalities. The Ontario Public School Boards' Association has said that they don't want this power. The ministry seems to want to give them the power, whether they want the power or not. So one of the questions that I would have for the minister is: Why are you insisting on giving the Ontario Public School Boards' Association the power to do this when they say they don't want the power?

I think that's an issue that should be clarified on the record, so that they'll know why you're insisting on doing this. I understand this has been a decision of the ministry. I would just ask that you clarify it so that I and others can understand why you've decided to overlook the concerns of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association on that one.

Under the Ministry of Labour components, I know that the ministry has received a number of technical questions on how the amendments will work and I am hopeful that during the debate and discussion you'll be able to clarify for us that you have in fact answered all of the concerns of those who would be affected by those amendments.

On Municipal Affairs, I mentioned the taxis a few minutes earlier and I'd like to repeat it again in a different context. The taxis for handicapped people crossing municipal boundaries, that is generally supported by disabled persons, and for good reason. The way it works today is that they can only go as far as the municipal boundary and then they have to change taxis and go in another taxi, and while many use Wheel-Trans and so forth, on many occasions they just prefer to hire their own taxi and are frustrated when they have to change taxis at a municipal boundary.

1720

I know you have received some letters regarding the company that has some concerns it has raised, and the company says it would like to see the legislation restricted to wheelchair cabs only. Now, I don't know if it's your intention to do that or how you've responded, but their request would then apply to people with mobility problems.

To be honest, my heart is with the disabled individuals, regardless of what their disability is, to make it easier for them to travel across the municipality. But I am interested. As a member of the opposition, it is my role to place the concerns of those who say, "We have a concern about this," so I put it forward and wonder what, if any, discussions you had.

What I found particularly interesting about this was that Metropolitan Toronto apparently contacted your ministry and said it would prefer that you not include this in the legislation at all, that its preference would be to allow it to find its own solution for dealing with this issue. Although, as I say, I'm aware that there are numbers of points of view as to how to proceed, it seems to me that a request from the Metropolitan Toronto council that it be able to identify and develop local solutions is one which the provincial government should listen to.

Rather than just the rhetoric that says, "We decided to go in support of one particular group," I'm wondering why you dismissed the request of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, which said, "We think we can find a solution to this." In fact, it's the municipalities who run Wheel-Trans. They have great experience in finding local solutions to problems where you have different interest groups, and I was quite surprised that with a request from the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, you wouldn't have considered its request to let it find a solution.

As I say, I think it's an issue that must be addressed. I don't believe that disabled individuals should be restricted and in any way have their lives made more difficult, but I think it's not necessarily the provincial government that has to be prescriptive on all things. If you have a local council that says, "We have some ideas; we think we can resolve that issue," my inclination is always to empower the local municipality to find the solution that's going to work in its municipality, rather than doing something which is made at Queen's Park and imposed on municipalities across the province. So I raise those points for your consideration.

Natural Resources: You raised the trapping wild fur industry and the federation of anglers and hunters, which has asked in your support of fish farming -- by the way, trapping for wild industries and support of fish farming are not major issues in the riding of Oriole. We don't have a lot of wild animals except for a few raccoons and lots of squirrels that are running loose and we don't have any fish farms in the riding of Oriole. However, notwithstanding that, there are a lot of people who are concerned about fish farms and they are concerned about the trapping of wild fur and that industry.

It's my understanding that the minister and the ministries, particularly the Ministry of Natural Resources, have agreed that when it comes to making regulations, they would consult with the organizations that are involved with those industries. As I said, even though they're not big industries in the riding of Oriole, I share the concerns of those who wanted that commitment from the government.

On the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, in its consultations with us on Bill 175, also flagged a technical omission. The proposal is to allow the coroner to decide when to investigate a death in a nursing home, and as a former Minister of Health, I know how important that is; however, a number of homes for the aged are covered under the Charitable Institutions Act. I understand there will be an amendment and I'm assuming it is in the package. The minister nods her head, so that amendment for the Ontario non-profit homes association has been tabled and will be dealt with at the appropriate time, and its concern has been addressed.

There are a couple of other things I would like to address as we look at Bill 175. I find it interesting that the argument has been made by the government that there's not enough time on the legislative agenda to deal with the issues that are contained, primarily because they're seen as non-priority issues for government. As I said, I have some sympathy for the notion of an omnibus housekeeping bill that would deal with non-controversial, minor changes that are agreed upon by most of those who are affected by the legislation.

I have some sympathy for that, but when I hear ministers from the NDP government talking about the fact that they don't have any time on the legislative agenda, I can't help but get frustrated and aggravated because what we've seen this government do is throw out the legislative calendar and shorten the sittings of the Legislature: This fall we're scheduled to sit 20 days. If we had come back when the calendar said we should have come back, and we pointed that out at the time the House adjourned, we would have had additional time on the legislative agenda to deal with many of those things that the government says we don't have time to deal with. Well, of course you don't have time to deal with it, because you chose for the House not to be here.

I think the public will not be fooled. They know, when the government states it doesn't have time, that it could have had more time by simply making sure we were here in the House doing the public's business.

Now, I can tell you there are some constituents of mine who were quite pleased when the NDP said it was not going to be in the House for the full legislative time frame. They said they were happy the House wasn't going to be here because that shortened the amount of time in which the NDP could do damage and bring in pieces of legislation that would further damage the economic recovery of the province.

One of the points I'd like to make is that here we are on day one, back in this House after a summer recess. Committees were in session, work was being done, but here we are on day one. We know there is a slow, sluggish economic recovery taking place in Ontario compared to the rest of Canada. We are concerned about instilling confidence in that recovery because that recovery is very important to the people of this province. For the first item of business --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): You haven't been listening to the newscasts. You'd better state factual information.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member for Chatham-Kent, come to order.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): You've gone down in the polls. You've had six months to play around and give out cheques, and you've gone down.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Will the member take her seat, please.

Interjection.

Mr Harnick: Read the plan, Gilles, if you can. You've had your Premier running around giving out cheques.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Willowdale, come to order. The member for Oriole has the floor. I would like to continue to listen to her.

Interjection.

Mr Harnick: I'm here more than you are. I'll take my attendance against yours any day of the week, my friend.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Willowdale, come to order.

1730

Mrs Caplan: Madam Speaker, thank you very much. What I'm attempting to do is to point out to people who are watching this debate that what Ontario needs at this time is a government that places the economy and job creation number one on its agenda, and what we have today is a piece of legislation brought before this House which the minister herself says is a housekeeping piece of legislation.

Mr Hope: Just like the Liberal record, eh, Elinor? You Liberals in Ottawa have been waffling so much on ethanol --

The Acting Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent, come to order.

Mrs Caplan: While there is a time and a need for the government to deal with housekeeping legislation, it seems to me that legislative time at the beginning of a session could be better used to identify those kinds of active pieces of legislation that are going to send out signals of confidence, that are going to say to business, "Come and invest in Ontario," that are going to create a climate where we will see jobs created in the private sector, not simply in the public sector, as a result of this government's policy.

On this first day back in the Legislature, I would have preferred to see other legislation, and then I looked at the legislative agenda. The legislative agenda for these 20 days in the House contains legislation, none of which I think a reasonable person would look at and say is designed in any way to bring the kind of confidence to the province of Ontario, to the private sector, to say: "Come. Ontario is open for business. We want you to invest in Ontario."

As I address Bill 175, which is a piece of omnibus legislation, there are some things that are generally troubling about the kinds of omnibus legislation this government has brought forward, and I would like to highlight them. The minister has suggested they are a little suspicious of a fractious opposition which is putting forward concerns perhaps to cause them grief and heartache, and I want to say that nothing could be farther from the truth.

On Bill 175, what I am attempting to do is to let them know why -- I want them to know why -- we are suspicious of omnibus legislation and why I have asked for the word of the minister that they will withdraw anything we identify as controversial. Bill 175 is an example of the kind of NDP legislation which they declare as omnibus, and we've had numerous pieces of legislation which, upon closer and further examination, in fact had hidden in them little issues which were troubling and extremely controversial, and they were lumped together. I want to give you some examples.

We had legislation that lumped basement apartments together with measures to regulate care homes, two completely unrelated issues, both deserving full debate. The issue tended to focus on the legalizing of basement apartments, and it's my concern that the important issue of regulating care homes got short shrift because of that omnibus legislation.

Now we have Bill 175, which is, as I said, outlining changes to more than 100 statutes in 14 different ministries. Omnibus legislation is a dangerous precedent that has been established in this House, and I want to put on the record my concern. My view is that it's very possible that a few months from now members from the other side will be standing complaining about omnibus legislation, but the precedent has been set and it has been established. I believe you will rue the day that you have brought in the kind of omnibus legislation which contains controversial pieces of legislation which are deserving of fuller debate. I'm just suggesting that omnibus legislation is the stuff about which you will at some point in the future say, "Maybe that wasn't such a good idea."

I have no problem with omnibus legislation which is housekeeping being brought into this House in an open manner. I think protocols can be established to do that. My concern is that when you have combined controversial issues in one piece of legislation so that the debate focuses on only one part of that legislation and the other is not given the kind of full debate it should be, you have established a precedent which will create headaches for you in the future.

The government's news release on this bill talked about cutting of red tape, and I've already given some examples of how the NDP cut that tape lengthwise, but that's just an old, bad joke that I remember hearing way back in my days at municipal council. Mel Lastman used to make it on a regular basis and I remember how true it was. Having served on North York council with Mel Lastman for six and a half years, I grew to have enormous respect for someone who could set his mind to cut red tape and I saw how it could be done. I want to point out to the government that in fact it has not done what it said it would do in the area of cutting red tape.

When they talk about the allocation of scarce resources, the reason that we are so sceptical is that they have a very bad record. One of the things we know is that by the end of this year the NDP will have spent $73 million on an Interim Waste Authority, which we believe is a deeply flawed approach to dealing with waste in the greater Toronto area.

I made a speech at length on Bill 143 when it was before the House, and when I hear the government talking about scarce government resources in Bill 175, I say to them, if you were really interested in better allocation of scarce resources, I'm going to give you some examples of the sorts of things -- and perhaps if you had included scrapping the Interim Waste Authority in Bill 175, that would also have been seen as non-controversial by all of those who hate the Interim Waste Authority and believe that it's just a big waste of money. I challenge you: Include the scrapping of the Interim Waste Authority in Bill 175. You'll have support from this party.

In 1993, for an example, the NDP government spent $1.2 million on cellular phones, and yet in Bill 175 there is nothing about government use of cellular phones. The huge cost as you're allocating resources -- we know, for example, that your bill today is 10 times higher than what it was in your first year in office. There's nothing about that in Bill 175. Why not? If you're interested in better allocation of scarce government resources, how about some rules for your own use of mobile telephones? This is something which I know the now Attorney General is very aware of, and I think it's an example of a poor allocation --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon, come to order.

Mrs Caplan: -- a very bad allocation of scarce government resources.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We cannot continue until we have order. Please continue.

Mrs Caplan: I think that because Bill 175 is about the better allocation of scarce government resources, and we know that's in the briefing notes and in the remarks we've heard from the government, it's very appropriate for me to give them some examples of things where they could be allocating the resources in a different way and in a way which I think would be in the public interest.

For example, the NDP has spent almost $26 million in the converting of private child care centres to not-for-profit child care centres: $26 million, and not one additional space has been created for a needy child.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member please relate this to Bill 175.

Mrs Caplan: Well, Madam Speaker, I believe that if Bill 175 had contained a reversal of that policy, you could have had a much better allocation of those resources. We believe the $26 million has been wasted. Bad public policy.

I'll give you another example. There's nothing in Bill 175 about the Jobs Ontario training plan. However, we know that $1.5 million has been spent on advertising. I've seen the ads, both in print in the newspapers and on television, and I'll you, people have come up to me on the street, my own constituents, and said, "Those ads are a disgrace." I think Bill 175 could have contained a ban on those ads. You could have $1.5 million available if you would stop spending money on those ads.

I'm going to give you another couple of examples of efficiency in government. This Bill 175 is about efficiency in government, and therefore I feel it is legitimate and it is a good opportunity for me to identify for the government places where it could be more efficient.

1740

I'm going to give you another example. During your first few years in office -- you've been there four years now; you're into the fifth year of your mandate -- you spent more than $8 million on over 200 public opinion polls. By the way, that's an average of one poll a week. If Bill 175 had taken the moneys from the ministries on the basis that they're scarce resources and we don't want you spending them on public opinion polls, you could have found an additional $8 million.

Another example of places where you could be more efficient and that Bill 175 does not address is your plan of sale and leaseback of computers. They paid $4 million to a consulting company to count the computers; not evaluate them, not see what they were worth, just count them: $4 million to have somebody come in and count them.

I would suggest if you wanted them counted, you could have had your own audit branches do it. Every ministry in the government of Ontario has an audit branch. They could have done an audit by counting. Most of them have hand-held calculators. It wouldn't have been difficult. You didn't need to waste $4 million to count the number of computers. Bill 175 does nothing to see that this is a more efficient use of government resources.

One of the ones that not only makes me crazy -- I drive by it every day -- but is also an example of wasteful, unnecessary expenditure is the asphalt park: $1 million to pave over the site of the former ballet-opera house.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: My point is that at some point you're going to have to make a ruling about what we debate, whether it's matters that are contained in the bill or the gazillion other things that are not in the bill. I think at some point you're going to have to put your foot down and make a ruling on that, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Downsview, please take your seat. I certainly will. The member can continue with her debate.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm going to read the title of Bill 175 into the record at this time. Bill 175 is An Act to amend the Statutes of Ontario with respect to the provision of services to the public, the administration of government programs and the management of government resources.

I believe an omnibus bill of this nature, which amends over 100 statutes in 14 ministries, is an important opportunity for me to be able to point out to the government ways that it could better allocate scarce resources. This bill is supposedly about efficiency in government, and I don't want anybody who's watching this debate to be deceived by thinking that the NDP understands how to be efficient in government.

Many of these amendments are long overdue, minor housekeeping changes that in fact are worthwhile to support. Some of them I believe need further debate and discussion. What certainly needs fuller debate and discussion is advice to the government on how to do things more efficiently. Since this act is about efficiency, I'm giving them some examples of wasteful expenditures of scarce public dollars.

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: Madam Speaker, with your patience and a little attention from members opposite, I would like to continue. I can understand that they are upset that I would mention $1 million spent to pave over the opera-ballet site, clearly wasted money. They're obviously embarrassed by it. My constituents say to me, "What a waste of money."

This government did absolutely nothing to halt the construction of an unnecessary new downtown office building for the Workers' Compensation Board. They did nothing to stop it. They are the government of the day. The Workers' Compensation Board is accountable to the Minister of Labour. We know the cost of that building is $180 million. That's at a time of high vacancy rate in downtown Toronto -- total and complete waste of money. If you want to have a discussion about efficiency in government, $180 million for an unnecessary building for the Workers' Compensation Board is a very good example.

We also raised a few other issues over the course of time. I never understood how the government could permit someone who had left Ontario, was living in Denmark, to remain on the government payroll. I'm glad that when we raised it, it was cancelled, but I have to tell them --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): What about Bob Nixon living in England?

Mrs Caplan: Well, it's interesting that the member opposite, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, talks about the trade offices, because Robin Sears, friend, confidant, campaign worker of the Premier, was still living in Tokyo at the same --

Hon Mr Pouliot: You appointed him.

Mr Hope: Who put him in his spot? Come on, Elinor.

Mrs Caplan: The point that the members are making is a very interesting one. You closed all --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Will the member take her seat.

Mr Hope: Elinor, you had more people around the trough than anybody.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You don't appreciate good news. You must stop watching the National every night.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We will wait until the member for Chatham-Kent, the member for Halton North and the member for Nipissing are coming to order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: May I kindly remind you, with respect, that I am not, absolutely not, the member for Nipissing.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Mr Harnick: When she sits down, then you can stand up.

The Acting Speaker: We would like to continue. The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: I understand that my comments are provoking the members opposite, and I can understand why. They're very embarrassed, and should be.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): A point of order, Madam Speaker: In this House, after we have been recessed for four and a half months, you would think the government members could show some courtesy to a Liberal member who is speaking on behalf of her viewpoint, without interjections.

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

Mrs Marland: Interjections are out of order.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We would like to resume the discussion. The member for Oriole has the floor.

Mrs Caplan: I'm not surprised that the members opposite are provoked. I've deliberately chosen examples that I know would embarrass them, and it is important in a democracy for these issues to be raised in this House. And when we're talking about an omnibus bill which is entitled to be efficiency in government, then I can understand that this government would be embarrassed by the items that I am raising.

I would like to spend a couple of minutes on streamlining and the cutting of red tape, because as I mentioned a little earlier, they've been adding barriers to business and creating new bureaucracies. I'm going to give a few examples, and I expect some hoots and hollers from across the way. But in fact it is a further burden to small business.

It is more red tape, your new corporate filing fee. You've made it mandatory for every corporation in the province to pay the fee every year. Even though the corporations' information hasn't changed, you are insisting that the corporations send in a filing fee.

Let me tell you what happened. What you said was that if they didn't pay the fee, you would dissolve the company, and then you were faced with hundreds and thousands of companies that were being dissolved. They were being told by their lawyers that it was going to cost them hundreds of dollars to reinstate their companies, and then you realized, whoops, you'd better do something about that, so you declared a further opportunity for them to reinstate themselves.

Let me tell you something. At a time when the economy is just beginning to recover, at a time when small business wants to make its first priority economic activity, job creation, economic recovery, they are faced with yet another demand from the provincial government (1) for money, (2) for paperwork, and it's making them frustrated in the extreme, it is making them angry, and it is creating a kind of climate where they just want to throw their hands in the air and say, "We can't take it any more."

That's the wrong attitude. At a time when Ontario is coming out of the recession, the provincial government should be doing everything in its power to make it easier for businesses to be established, easier for businesses to thrive and flourish.

1750

Mr Perruzza: How would you know how --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would the member for Downsview come to order.

Mrs Caplan: In fact, when you look at this corporate filing fee and you say, "How has this helped business?" -- it hasn't. Under Bill 178, the NDP government has used the expression "clearing the path." I say to them, if you were so concerned about clearing the path, why did you introduce Bill 178, the Unclaimed Intangible Property Amendment Act, which many have recognized is just a hidden revenue grab by the government that's going to heap additional compliance on Ontario's businesses?

This was -- I know that it was ultimately withdrawn when this was raised -- seen by many as just a revenue grab. What the Unclaimed Intangible Property Amendment Act was going to do was say that all of the revenues and all of the resources in unclaimed property were going to revert to the government coffers.

The clearing the path that Bill 178 is supposed to do would suggest that there are many things the government could be doing that would clear the path.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mrs Caplan: The members are shouting, "We're fixing, we're changing, we're adjusting." I want to tell them that they did change something that was in place, and while it may have needed some amendment -- and I tell people that the only things that are ever carved in stone in this place are the names of the members in the wall. Every piece of legislation evolves and changes over time as you see how it's working and you see what kinds of amendments are needed to streamline it, and I am the first one to understand and acknowledge that.

However, you had the family support plan that had been introduced. It was working, and it needed some fine-tuning. Instead of just fine-tuning it, what you did in 1992 was bring in automatic payroll deduction. But you didn't do it just for those who were in arrears or delinquent. You added 25% to the caseload of government by including those where there were no compliance problems. I want to point out to the members opposite that that's not streamlining; that's not cutting red tape. That is adding administrative and bureaucratic burden where there is no need.

I personally believe that it was done to make your compliance numbers look better within the support plan itself, because the numbers were not very good. But adding 25% where there were no problems at all did not fix the problems that were there. It added an administrative burden to many individuals where there was no problem to begin with.

We have heard the stories of the municipal discussions around disentanglement. I was one who was a proponent for disentanglement discussions. When you're talking about clearing the path, eliminating duplication, that was a missed opportunity. It was a missed opportunity because the NDP government would not, in the discussions on disentanglement, give the security that nobody would benefit, that it was not a grab by the provincial treasury and that it was not downloading on to the municipalities, and that's why disentanglement fell apart.

In my own view, there is a need for disentanglement; there is a need to end the duplication between layers of government, whether it is federal or provincial or municipal. There are many areas where you see the kind of duplication of activity between levels of government. At the municipal level, not only do you have the local municipalities, you also have regions frequently doing the same thing that the province is doing or that the federal government is doing. Disentanglement is about sorting all of that out.

I would say to the government I was very disappointed when the first efforts at disentanglement fell apart. In the last four years you have done nothing in the area of disentanglement to streamline, to cut red tape, to clear the path and to eliminate clearly the kind of duplication that is costing taxpayers far more than anyone realizes. When the government brings forward a bill on efficiency of government that doesn't contain anything about disentanglement or streamlining of services between layers of government, it is deficient.

We know the municipalities have requested further discussions on disentanglement. Most municipalities understand the need and are more than willing to come to the table. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario wants as a premise, as a basic starting point for those discussions, a guarantee from the province that there will not be downloading of responsibility, and therefore financial responsibility, to the municipalities. I think that is a very reasonable request from the municipalities.

I was surprised that when they asked for this kind of municipal charter that would enshrine municipalities as legitimate elected governments and prohibit the kind of unilateral provincial decisions that would infringe on municipal matters without consultation -- I'll admit today that we were guilty of some of those same attitudes, and in hindsight I've learned a lot from the past, but it's unfortunate that the NDP didn't learn that it is possible today to have a relationship with the municipalities which is based on mutual respect and mutual understanding.

I think the kind of municipal charter the municipalities have requested is reasonable, and I was surprised that Bob Rae said he would refuse to even consider it before there were any discussions about streamlining and disentanglement between the levels of government. I didn't understand why he would take that position unless their worst fears about further downloading were valid.

I would note as well that the municipalities understand what Harris is proposing, what the PCs are proposing in the Conservative document. What they are proposing is a massive downloading of financial responsibility to the municipalities as part of their cuts.

Mr Harnick: Untrue. You'd better read it.

Mrs Caplan: Madam Speaker, I'm telling you the way the municipalities have seen it, and I see I've provoked the Conservative caucus.

Mr Harnick: The biggest downloaders on municipalities were David Peterson, Lyn McLeod, Elinor Caplan. Remember all that Liberal downloading at the same time as tax increases, spending increases?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Willowdale, come to order.

Mrs Caplan: In the few minutes remaining, I would like to point out that in the matter of streamlining there are many areas within provincial jurisdiction alone where I think the province could be doing a much better job. None of that is included in Bill 175, but there is an opportunity for me to point that out.

Bill 175, while it talks about efficiency, will not end the problem of people receiving welfare cheques that they are not entitled to or the fact that welfare cheques go out in the amount of $2.50. Those are the kinds of things. We know it costs the provincial government about $35 for every cheque it issues, and yet we see the provincial government sending out cheques for minor amounts of money. That is a problem that I think technology can solve, and I haven't seen the government --

Mr Hope: Why didn't you fix all that?

Mrs Caplan: It's interesting that the member opposite is asking why I didn't fix all of this. I want to point out to him that it was the NDP government that cancelled the computers at the Ministry of Health. Because those computers were cancelled, we saw issues of health fraud continue simply because the government cancelled the computers that would have helped to deal with that problem. I am a little sensitive when the member opposite talks about technology, because the NDP government has not proceeded.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Each member in this House will have a chance to comment on this member's speech at the end of the speech, and I hope you will take that opportunity. Please continue.

Mrs Caplan: To close this debate this evening, I would like to once again ask the minister if she will remove the amendments to the Advocacy Act from this legislation. They are controversial, they are not housekeeping. We do not support the model the government has chosen. There is enough controversy around this that it does not qualify for the omnibus bill as defined by the government, and I would ask her if she is going to be true to her word that everything contained in this bill is non-controversial, that everything in this bill is minor amendments, long-overdue housekeeping type of amendments. I would like to know whether the minister will agree to remove all those amendments which empower the Advocacy Commission from this legislation.

I will be continuing my remarks when the House is next in session to consider Bill 175, and whether or not I pursue the matter further will depend upon whether the minister has answered my question about the amendments to the Advocacy Act as contained in Bill 175.

The Acting Speaker: Debate on second reading of Bill 175 will resume later. It being 6 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30, Tuesday, November 1. I hope everyone has a pleasant Hallowe'en.

The House adjourned at 1802.

31 octobre 1994