Journal des débats 1994-nov-14 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): As the Lieutenant Governor was recounting the sacrifices that were made by our merchant marine, which were up to today not fully recognized, I wish to focus our attention on the sacrifices of Polish Canadians, whose contributions to the war effort against fascism and Communism were also very much unrecognized.

This week, the Polish Canadian Congress and the Polish Combatants Association are commemorating a number of important events such as the battles of Monte Cassino, Falaise, the Warsaw uprising and Arnhem. The total casualties at Monte Cassino alone were 4,290 officers and men before the mountain was taken.

Today, I know that every member in this Parliament will join me in paying tribute to a brave people and a courageous nation who kept on fighting until both Communism and fascism were defeated.

As the Polish Canadian Congress and the Polish Combatants Association are celebrating their 50th founding anniversary, we wish them Godspeed and thank them for the tremendous contribution to the building of this nation, a free and prosperous Canada.

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I rise to commend the International Plowing Match Committee of Renfrew county, made up of 32 subcommittees and over 1,200 hardworking volunteers, for a job well done. Opening day attendance was the highest recorded in 20 years, and in total, 130,000 people came through the gates. The tented city spanned an area equivalent to 42 city blocks, and the match covered 1,000 acres of farm land.

All walks of life were represented at the match, including our many ethnic groups, first nations, and the Canadian armed forces. The chairman of the match, Fred Blackstein, has received numerous calls from all over the province reporting that this was the best match ever. Exit surveys indicate that 97% of our guests would definitely come again.

As a result of the International Plowing Match, eastern Ontario is solidly on the map as a good place to visit and a good place to do business. In addition, the county now has a surplus of half a million dollars to be allocated to a charitable project in the upper Ottawa Valley.

Finally, I would thank traffic Sergeant Mike Quilty, of OPP division 10 in Perth, for his excellent coordination of traffic control at the match. I would also like to mention that Mike Quilty is the son of Leonard Quilty, who was elected MPP for Renfrew South in 1962.

JOHN CAMPBELL

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It is with sadness that I inform the members of the House today of the passing of Mr John Campbell, founding chairman of the Niagara region. He died last week at his home in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Mr Campbell was appointed by the province in 1969 to oversee the implementation of regional government in Niagara. This was a daunting task involving the realignment of almost 30 municipalities into the 12 communities which make up Niagara today.

Some called Mr Campbell a miracle man for pulling off this feat. His colleagues described him as more of a statesman than a politician. He had political savvy and resolved problems by working behind the scenes.

During his 16 years as chairman, Mr Campbell never missed a single council meeting. He made his mark on the region and, upon retiring in 1985, the regional headquarters was named in his honour.

Outside of politics, Mr Campbell was active in the Masonic Lodge and Royal Arch Masons and owned a fruit farm and dairy business. In his latter years, Mr Campbell spent his days in the town of Niagara-on-theLake. He was often seen walking the streets of the old town with his collie, greeting neighbours, friends and passers-by.

I would like to convey my personal condolences to Mr Campbell's wife, Mary, and his children, Donald, Ellwyn and Ellen.

The region of Niagara has indeed lost one of its greatest politicians.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This afternoon, the first order of the day is the continued second reading debate on Bill 175, the huge omnibus legislation which the government says is non-controversial and simply housekeeping.

During my opportunity for debate in second reading of Bill 175, I discussed the sections relating to the Advocacy Act. My caucus and I believe that these sections are controversial and we know we are not alone.

Over the weekend, Mona Winberg, columnist for the Toronto Sun, wrote a column which speaks volumes. In her article, Ms Winberg states how, "With a complete disregard for the wishes of the people involved, the new and controversial Ontario Advocacy Commission will be taking over the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office."

One area Ms Winberg writes of relates to youth, "The advocacy legislation is limited to people 16 years of age and up, but the PPAO program has a broader mandate -- it serves adolescent wards in two hospitals."

She continues, "In one incident, an advocate was alerted that an 11-year-old boy had been placed in the same ward as an adult sex offender. Because the advocate acted speedily, the situation was quickly rectified." The Advocacy Commission as it is now constituted would not be able to act in that situation.

Ms Winberg concludes, "The Ontario NDP has betrayed the trust of disabled people and seniors by the arrogant manner in which it has handled the commission."

I ask them to bring forward amendments to delete these portions from Bill 175.

HIGHWAY SIGNS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): On June 30, the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation announced a program to boost tourism which included the installation of highway signs to direct tourists to points of interest in St Jacobs, Muskoka and the BrockvilleCornwall corridor.

These signs were scheduled to be erected in July and August, and after the conclusion of this pilot project in late October, an evaluation of the project was to take place to see if the signage had been successful in attracting tourists off the main highways and into local communities.

When the minister announced this project, I was extremely pleased that St Jacobs was selected to be part of this important initiative, since I had worked with Woolwich council and other local business people in requesting such signage. Since that time, my initial enthusiasm for this project has been dampened by the fact that these signs have not yet been installed. The explanation given is that the province has experienced difficulties in locating a printer. Furthermore, the smaller trailblazing signs which were supposedly ready to be installed have also been delayed and are not there.

My question is, when will these signs be installed? They are important to the tourism industry in my community and I urge the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation to take immediate action to make sure these signs are installed.

1340

MERCHANT NAVY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I think it fitting on the day we have installed the Merchant Navy Book of Remembrance in the Ontario Legislative Building to pay tribute to Canada's wartime merchant navy, which has sometimes been overlooked.

During the First World War, merchant ships quickly became the target of enemy surface raiders, and by April 1915, 54 Allied merchant ships had been sunk. By 1917, 1,220 had been sunk. Unfortunately, there's no record of the number of merchant mariners who served on the high seas during the Great War, but it is known that 573 of them died.

In August 1939, the Royal Canadian Navy took control of all merchant ships. Merchant mariners were not compelled to sail, but an estimated 12,000 of them did. Some 1,357 Canadian merchant navy men were killed in action in the Second World War. Had the Axis powers won the Battle of the Atlantic and prevented supplies and reinforcements from being delivered to Great Britain, the world would be a very different place today.

The importance of the merchant navy is undeniable. Without them, I, like you, shudder to think at the kind of world we would all be living in today. As we have remembered the fallen on our Armistice Day service, let us take time today to remember the merchant navy members who also contributed so much that we are able to enjoy the freedom we all share in today.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Last month, members of the Legislature were horrified to read in the Toronto Star the story of a girl we shall call Elizabeth. Two years ago, Elizabeth, a 17-year-old mentally disabled girl, was sexually assaulted by three teenage boys at her high school.

Despite a confession by one of the perpetrators and the evidence of an independent eyewitness to the assault, the case dragged through the courts for more than two years, involving 50 court appearances, numerous defence motions seeking, among other things, to examine the complainant's sexual history or lack thereof, and repeated adjournments and delays.

But the case was not over when the three accused were finally convicted. Then one of the three defence lawyers filed notice of appeal. That means more court appearances and an emotional nightmare that this young girl is not equipped to handle.

We have to ask the question, is the criminal justice system out of control? Too many of us feel that Priscilla de Villiers is absolutely right when she says, "All the rights and protections are for the accused."

Elizabeth's case also demonstrates the vulnerability of young women with disabilities. Research has shown that they are at least twice as likely to be victims of sexual assault as the general population.

Justice delayed is justice denied. We cannot continue to trample on the rights of victims by subjecting them to this travesty of justice. We call on the Attorney General to ensure that what happened to Elizabeth never happens again.

FLEMINGDON HEALTH CENTRE

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The Flemingdon Health Centre in the riding of Don Mills will soon be celebrating its 20th anniversary. The centre grew out of a belief by a group of concerned people at Sunnybrook Medical Centre, in consultation with local residents and agency representatives, that there was an urgent need for comprehensive health care services in the area.

For most of its history, the Flemingdon Health Centre has operated as a health service organization, providing a wide array of medical and non-medical services all under one roof. Since its beginning, an elected board of directors from the community has governed its operations, providing a unique opportunity for community members to become involved in its own health care.

Community outreach is an integral part of the centre's philosophy, as it operates two seniors' health clinics in Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park, as well as playing a leadership role in bringing local agencies together to collectively address health issues.

In 1990, the centre converted to a community health centre, with a mandate to improve the health of its community residents by emphasizing health promotion and disease prevention.

In 1995, the Flemingdon Health Centre will celebrate 20 years of dedication and service to the community, and I know that all members will join with me in wishing the centre more decades of successful community care.

JOB CREATION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I would like to talk a little bit about job creation in the province and how our jobs and capital programs have helped to improve our economy. At the end of this fiscal year we will have created over 700,000 jobs in the infrastructure sector. The unemployment rate is now at its lowest level in three years and I think it is an incredible achievement for our government.

New jobs have not just come about by someone waving a magic wand. Many new policies and changes have had to be strategically planned so that the challenges of any particular day could be met. To save and create jobs we have had to put money into capital, infrastructure programs, training and the information highway. We have had to build partnerships sector by sector with aerospace, plastics, apparel, services and information. We have had to build a positive climate with the private sector. This has paid off. It is projected that businesses plan to increase their investment spending in Ontario by 9.6% this year alone.

The entire health care system was out of control when we took office. We have streamlined it by using our tax dollars more wisely and yet still have maintained our much-needed services. We have reduced administrative overlay and reformed programs in almost all government ministries. Forty thousand jobs were saved through the social contract. Together, these achievements have led to an enormous decline in the number of persons collecting social assistance. Last month alone, total caseloads declined by a full 1.1%.

Of course, we can't forget about northern Ontario, holding one of our most important economic resources. Eight hundred jobs were saved at Spruce Falls Inc through the employee ownership plan; 190 direct jobs and 143 other jobs at Proboard. Over 600 jobs were rescued at Provincial Papers and, most recently, St Marys Paper was saved.

VISITORS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise on a point of privilege, Mr Speaker. I want to inform the House that it's indeed a privilege for me to welcome members of my family here today, who were unable to make it in the gallery, which is why it's a point of privilege: my great-uncles and -aunts, Dr John K. Wilson of St Michael's Hospital and his wife, Patricia Wilson; Mr Patrick Wilson; Mr Tom Wilson; Sister Pauline Wilson of the Loretto sisters; and my mother and father, Mr and Mrs Jack Wilson. I would ask all members to welcome them to the Legislature.

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

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question of you, first of all, Mr Speaker. Our understanding is that the Minister of Health is here and we are ready to ask a question of the Minister of Health. Are you aware whether the Minister of Health is here?

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines will know that I would be delighted to be able to assist him if I could. I am not aware of which ministers will or will not be present. Perhaps the government House leader will be of some assistance here.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, she's on her way. She'll be here in a few moments. If we can defer her question to the second question, we could --

The Speaker: Yes. If you have a second question to place, it would be appropriate to start the clock over and the member for St Catharines can place his question.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. That's very kind of you.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Attorney General and, in the absence of the Attorney General, I will direct it to the Deputy Premier of the province.

On Thursday of last week Judge Patrick LeSage agreed to the request of the defence attorney for Paul Bernardo that there should be a change of venue for the trial; in other words, that the trial should be moved out of St Catharines. That's the trial of the accused on the murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.

That trial is going to be moved outside of the Niagara region, outside of St Catharines, to another location in the province. This decision, as the Deputy Premier will know, will have a very significant financial impact on both of those families. It'll cost them considerable money to be able to travel out of the city for accommodation and for other purposes.

Will the Deputy Premier, who is also, I suppose, the Minister of Finance and therefore may have some knowledge in this field, give an undertaking to compensate the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy for the considerable personal costs that will result from moving the trial from St Catharines?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question of the member for St Catharines. I quite frankly don't know what precedent would be set if this was done. Second, I'm not sure about the role of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in this regard and to what extent that's within its purview or whether it would be outside the normal bounds of its jurisdiction. I hope that the member for St Catharines will give me time to discuss this matter with the Attorney General and indeed with people who know more about this issue than I.

Mr Bradley: I'm certain that all members who are in this Legislature are knowledgeable of this particular case and can imagine the emotional anguish that the French family and the Mahaffy family are feeling at this time and have felt for some period of time. I know that all of us would believe that no amount of money could compensate for that emotional anguish which is being felt.

We can, however, I believe, as legislators, in some way or other find a way to help them meet the substantial financial costs that are being incurred. Some of them have already been incurred; some of them will be future costs as a result of the movement of the trial, costs for such things as transportation, accommodation and perhaps even loss of income.

Will the Deputy Premier consider compensation beyond that which is available under the somewhat strict limitations of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?

Hon Mr Laughren: Certainly I will make sure that we do take a look at that entire issue. I don't want to either endorse this suggestion out of hand or reject it out of hand until I've had a chance to look at it and discuss it with others.

Mr Bradley: I mentioned in one of the original questions that the families of the victims of crime, if they wish to attend a trial, are often in a position of having to take time off work, particularly if the trial is moved to another city which is substantially farther away from what they might expect normally within a city or within a region. I know that witnesses are compensated -- not very much, but they are compensated -- for the loss of wages that they happen to incur.

Would the minister, when he is addressing this matter with the Attorney General, ask as well of the Attorney General that she give consideration to compensation not only for the transportation and accommodation and other incidental costs but also potential compensation for the loss of wages and salaries that may be incurred by those families?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member does raise matters of some considerable substance and ones that I think should be dealt with and considered by the government. I will give that undertaking to him and report back to him at the earliest possible opportunity.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, today the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, which has a membership of some 90,000 senior citizens in Ontario, held a news conference to underline the need for change to Bill 173, which is your long-term-care bill. CARP said, and I'd like to quote from its presentation:

"As currently envisaged, MSAs would represent an additional level of administration and bureaucracy. We do not believe that MSAs should be both the administrators of the system and the service providers. This will give MSAs an effective monopoly which is not in the interests of the citizens who may require services. Our concern is that an unhappy senior citizen will neither be able to change to another service provider nor effectively complain about the services rendered by an MSA. If the MSA is the only service provider, people will require a great deal of courage to complain to them about the quality of their services."

Along with the 90,000 people who belong to CARP, we want to know why this government has locked itself into a system that ensures that senior citizens will not be able to make their own decisions about who provides their care and to make changes when they themselves see fit.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I regret that some senior citizens characterize the long-term-care changes that we're making as an additional layer of bureaucracy. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The voluntary agencies which multiservice agencies are, whatever they end up being called, will be no different from many of the agencies that now deliver care in communities across this province. There are 1,200 of them.

The multiservice agencies, which are being planned by volunteers through the district health councils, will have a board of volunteers who will know the needs and the history and the culture of the communities they serve and who, by bringing together services under one agency, will in fact cut down on a great deal of bureaucracy and mean that a senior who has been getting a minimal level of care and now needs some extra care or some nursing care will not have to go through yet another assessment, another waiting period and a different agency, but will get all the service from one agency.

When the member says that this is a lack of choice, let me say to her that if a senior doesn't particularly like the board of the MSA from which they're being served, I'm sure in most communities they can go to another one. But let me also remind her that this is the product of extensive consultation, and consultation where seniors, through their alliance, Canadian Pensioners Concerned, United Senior Citizens of Canada, the Consumers' Association of Canada (Ontario), all said, "Please reorganize this system to make it more consumer focused," and that's in fact what we're doing.

Mrs Sullivan: What we've seen is a government that has misread what in fact were the results of those consultations, which called for a coordination of services and one-stop access but something quite different from what this government has put forward.

I want to go back to the Canadian Association of Retired Persons; 90,000 people belong to that organization in this province. They also pointed out, and are deeply concerned, that they believe that the family physician is "conspicuously absent," and those are the words they used, in the government's entire plan for long-term-care reform. They rightly say that there's no requirement for medical assessment, diagnosis or treatment under this government's plan and that without the appropriate clinical treatment and diagnostic services a person may end up with severe medical problems and in a more expensive long-term-care facility.

We'd like to know why this government is intent on keeping the family doctor out of the long-term-care process.

Hon Mrs Grier: This government has no intention of keeping the family physician out of long-term care. It is the family physician who refers people to hospital; it is the family physician who, when somebody is discharged from hospital, works with the discharge planners to make sure they have the appropriate placement; it is the family physician who prescribes medication, and nobody else. The family physician is a key provider of primary care in this province and will continue to remain so.

Mrs Sullivan: Despite the bafflegab with respect to the family physician, I point out to you that, as the people who are looking at this bill have identified, the family physician is not included as a provider of professional services in this bill. In fact, the family physician is excluded. The decisions with respect to the assessment make no reference to the family physician, nor to any medical or clinical diagnoses.

But the senior citizens also spoke about their worries about increased costs to the system and believe that the new model which the government is putting forward will be extremely costly because it will eliminate volunteers from organizations such as the Victorian Order of Nurses, Meals on Wheels and many others, and therefore will cost the province more. Volunteers who have made many services possible will be replaced by permanent full-time employees whose salaries must be paid by the taxpayer. CARP says that when governments make job creation efforts, they should concentrate on jobs that the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for.

1400

We are asking the minister why she is adding to taxpayer costs by eliminating volunteers, by paying severances to those who are displaced by her new scheme, by eating into money available for services that are needed instead of using taxpayer money wisely and ensuring that needed services are available, that services are paid for and not severances.

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said in my response to the first question, I'm sorry if this particular organization of seniors feels this way and views the bill in this way. I really regret that my colleague opposite, who has been through the committees, who has heard the explanations, who knows what is the intent of the policy and the legislation of this government, instead of accepting that judgement but escalating it and creating fear and worry in the minds of many people about long-term care, has not sat down and worked through with CARP that in fact without volunteers, we wouldn't have the services in hospitals, in nursing homes, in communities that we now have in this province, and that there is no intention, nor is the reality out there in communities, that volunteers are not now nor will always be part of long-term care.

I go to district health councils where there have been 200 or 300 volunteers sitting on the committees planning the way in which long-term care will be delivered in their communities. I look at organizations that have volunteers and voluntary boards that see the reorganization as providing them with a better way of providing satisfaction, diversity of opportunity and support for the volunteers that they now use.

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

Hon Mrs Grier: I see hundreds and thousands of seniors across this province writing to me and saying on the Long-Term Care Act: "We strongly support one-stop shopping, the development of multiservice agencies. Let's get on with it." That's what seniors in this province are saying to the government.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Very clearly seniors across this province are expressing outrage and an extreme high-level concern about your MSA model and about your long-term-care legislation, Bill 173.

Seniors see your MSA model as creating a monopoly. Today the Canadian Association of Retired Persons had a press conference downstairs and it endorsed our approach to long-term care, which calls for a system that is less bureaucratic and monolithic, allowing seniors and their families to obtain advice but without losing the right to choose how they wish to live and whom they wish to entrust with their care, and freedom to determine their own future. That's from CARP.

The PC federated model keeps the friends in the system. It keeps the volunteers in. It's what seniors want. It provides one-stop access without one-stop or a no-choice monopoly as envisioned in the government bill. Minister, you already voted against our federated model in committee, but today I'm asking you with all sincerity: Given the large number of people in the galleries here today who are from the VON and the Red Cross and service providers, given the press conference held by the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, will you not reverse your decision, change your mind, accept a federated model and get rid of the 80-20 rule which is so damaging to the future of long-term-care services in this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the member in his final comment perhaps got to the root of his party's opposition to what we're doing, which is that they believe that private sector, private deliverers of health care ought to be allowed to be paid by public funds for the provision of health care. We disagree. We disagree fundamentally, and that underlies many of the changes in reorganization that we're doing.

I hope he also explained to the organizations of seniors for whom he purports to speak that the federated model, as he calls it, which his party put forward in committee, had as its only mandatory service the provision of a 1-800 telephone status quo. That's the Conservative model and that's not one that we think is in the best interests of the seniors of this province.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Canadian Association of Retired Persons today confirmed what we've been saying all along, and that is that the original idea of long-term-care reform and community-based services was to have the government set up, yes, an agency, but an agency that would just provide information to seniors so they wouldn't have to dial a bunch of different telephone numbers trying to find out what services are available.

What's happened is that NDP ideology has crept into this legislation. This bill is more about one-stop unionization than it is about one-stop access to community-based services. Minister, if that isn't true, then why don't you stand up right now and tell this House that you're abandoning the 80-20 rule which creates a monopoly that puts everyone under one roof -- half of that sector now is non-unionized -- and eventually will force them all to be unionized. That's the true agenda. If you don't think that's the agenda, then get up and denounce the 80-20 rule and take it out of your legislation.

Hon Mrs Grier: Before the member accuses me and this side of the House of being driven by ideology, I think he should listen to what in fact he's saying and to the proposals that his party has put forward. Whether it be CAT scanners, MRIs or long-term care, we know that the Conservative agenda is to privatize the health care system of this province.

That is not our agenda. That may be Preston Manning's agenda -- we heard him in Toronto last week -- that may be the Alberta agenda, but it is not the Ontario agenda and it is not the agenda of one million senior citizens represented by the consumers' alliance, the CAW retirees, the Consumers' Association of Canada and Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc.

It's not their vision of health care either. It is their vision, their requirements and their design that have driven the improvements, the changes and the incredible increase in funding for long-term care that our government has put in place over the last four years.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On October 4, during committee hearings into Bill 173, Sid Ryan, the president of CUPE, had a couple of very interesting things to say to us as a committee. He expressed concern and alarm at the growing number of volunteers who were creeping into the health care sector. He said that volunteers should be restricted in their work performances and that they should be relegated to mainly recreational activities. He further went on to state before the committee that he calls for amendments to paragraph 56(1)11 to reduce the activities of volunteers.

Minister, I want to cite for you a report from the Quebec government task force report on health promotion, and I quote from the report, "The government has often been reproached for killing the volunteer movement by systematically paying people in the community to do the work they formerly did without pay." The report stated, "Charities previously providing these services in Quebec have progressively disappeared and the overall wage costs for services have increased." That's what a pro-labour Liberal government in Quebec did on long-term-care reform.

Given the fact that the major providers of volunteer services and charitably raised dollars in this province to the tune of $37 million --

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

Mr Jackson: -- are asking you today, why would you turn your back on that $37-million investment of people and money to benefit seniors, why would you push that on to the backs of taxpayers and reduce the total amount of support which seniors can expect in the province of Ontario? Listen to seniors, not Sid Ryan.

Hon Mrs Grier: He tempts me, Mr Speaker, but I won't.

Let me say to him that his characterization of what long-term-care reform and reorganization is going to do is grossly misleading and in fact fearmongering among the people whom it is designed to serve. We have not implemented a Quebec model; we have implemented a made-in-Ontario model that was the result of federation, coordination, put forward by the previous government and soundly rejected in community after community across this province.

I started my public service as a volunteer, and so did many of the people in this place. We know the value of volunteers, and we are putting in place a system where volunteers are doing the planning through district health councils, where volunteers will be managing the multiservice agencies through being on the board, and where volunteers will continue to do the work and bring the sensitivity and the extra dimension to seniors, be they lonely or be they part of a group, that they always have. Without volunteers we couldn't afford the kind of health care system that we have in this province, and people continue to need them, their vitality, their creativity and their contribution.

1410

CONTAINMENT LABORATORY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Health as well.

Madam Minister, I know that you, being from Etobicoke, realize the concerns in Etobicoke with respect to the maximum containment laboratory to investigate deadly viruses at Resources Road, at Islington and 401. You know these are the most deadly viruses, with no anti-viral drugs to combat them, and there's major concern in the community surrounding that area. There are residential communities around it, one of the largest breweries in Canada quite close, and of course it's under the flight path of Pearson International Airport.

Can you bring us up to speed, us and the people in the constituency of Etobicoke, as to where this issue stands now and what your ministry is doing with respect to advising the community about it.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm well aware of the concerns that have been expressed by people in the community around the laboratories of the Ministry of Health. It's been there, I think, for 20, 25 years. In response to those concerns, the city of Etobicoke council has asked for presentations to be made at a meeting on November 21, and we have indicated quite clearly that the lab will not open until after that meeting and until the people in the community, many of whom I think had an opportunity to tour the laboratory last week, have had their concerns addressed.

Mr Stockwell: From the calls I've been receiving, the community doesn't exactly feel that its concerns have been addressed, and there is some real concern out there with respect to this particular operation.

Minister, could you tell me whether there has been an environmental assessment hearing on this particular site, if you have investigated whether this is something that should be done now, and what the status is of the people in the city of Etobicoke who surround this area, really all the people of the city of Etobicoke, as to whether or not this will have a full environmental assessment hearing?

Hon Mrs Grier: In 1982 the government of the day, which was a Conservative one, exempted this facility from the Environmental Assessment Act. I regret that, but that act was taken at that time. I'm very pleased that our government has in fact strengthened the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr Stockwell: I don't think there's going to be much comfort in the city of Etobicoke when they ask for an environmental assessment hearing and you say, "A government back in 1982 exempted it." The technology today has far outpaced 1982 when we had environmental assessment hearings.

You know full well that when we were building the LRT on Spadina, there was a full environmental assessment hearing on whether the curb should be four inches high or six inches high. That is worthy of a full-blown environmental assessment hearing, but a containment laboratory that is going to be built in the city of Etobicoke, handling the most deadly viruses today known to mankind, doesn't need an environmental assessment hearing. That's what the citizens are hearing from your government.

I put it to you directly. A long time has passed and technology has moved on from 1982. You have the power, the power in your government, to order a full environmental assessment hearing. I don't know of any issue that cries for an environmental assessment hearing more so than this. Constituents in Etobicoke will not be satisfied with tours of the laboratory. They want an environmental assessment hearing, and they are looking to your government, specifically, Madam Minister, to you and your socialist sort, to give them that comfort.

I ask you directly. The citizens want an environmental assessment hearing. It's next to the biggest brewery in Canada, residents are within hundreds of yards of this, and it's under the flight path of Pearson International Airport. Madam Minister, are you saying to these citizens: "No, this government will not give you that. We do not think this is worthy"?

Hon Mrs Grier: It wasn't our government that issued an exemption under the Environmental Assessment Act, it was his government, so I find this a little hard to take.

Let me remind the member, who I'm sure is well aware as an Etobicoke representative, that the reason this lab was approved by the Conservatives in 1982 was not that they intended to bring in viruses from around the world; it was that somebody got off a plane at Pearson International Airport and was suspected of having Lassa fever. They were hospitalized at Etobicoke General Hospital, and the hospital was subsequently closed down for eight days in order to deal with the fact that there had been no containment area where this virus could have been done.

This has not changed since then. In fact, it was a government of the Liberal Party that approved the actual construction five years ago. The deputy medical officer of health from the city of Etobicoke has been sitting on an implementation committee for five years to watch the laboratory being built. The laboratory is a laboratory within a laboratory within a laboratory. It isn't even a new structure or an addition to the existing laboratory.

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

Hon Mrs Grier: The health situation for people in this province who suspect that they have been affected abroad by any of these diseases now is that they wait eight days for lab tests to be done in Atlanta, at a lab that is in the middle of the city of Atlanta.

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Grier: In the interests of the health of travellers to Ontario, it is important that we have a capacity here in Ontario to look at those viruses. In view of the concern of the residents of the area, it will not open until they have had an opportunity to have their fears addressed.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Solicitor General. It follows up on an issue that was raised in the Legislature a week ago regarding a citizen who lodged a complaint against the minister with regard to the use of private information by one of your staff.

The question is really quite fundamental. It's about abuse of power, perhaps one of the great fears society has, that government and its ministers use private and confidential information to attack citizens who may disagree with the government. We've seen three or four or five examples of that: The release of a Sudbury doctor's information; there was a private citizen in the mining business whose private information was released; a person who was a victim at Grandview whose private information was released by the Premier's office to discredit her; and then this most recent charge.

These are extremely serious and a very important matter, where the government apparently is using private, confidential citizens' information to discredit citizens.

My question to the Solicitor General is this: Has the government issued specific written instructions to the ministers and political staff outlining the guidelines for the use of private and personal information, and will the minister undertake today to release those written instructions so that the public may be aware of what guidance the ministers and their staff are working under?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): First, with regard to the issue the member raised on which to build his question, as I mentioned last week, in fairness to all involved, and I would certainly caution the member too, I think we ought to allow the police in this instance to do the job they've been asked to do before we draw any conclusions at all.

Secondly, yes, it was the practice, certainly when I went into cabinet, that there were meetings with freedom of information officers and officials within the ministry clearly outlining what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. I would expect that the same has been done in the offices of my colleagues.

Mr Phillips: That's not really the answer to my question. It's an absolutely fundamental issue, because we've now seen several examples. I might also add for the Legislature that twice there were leaks that arrived in the hands of the official opposition and twice the government called in the police -- very serious matters where the state uses the police to attempt to silence people who are attempting to raise legitimate issues.

1420

I go back to the question I asked before: Will the minister assure the House that there are written instructions to members of the political staff dealing with these private, confidential informations, will you table those written instructions, and furthermore, will you assure the House that the government has actually interviewed the political staff to ensure that there have been no violations of these instructions over the past few years, and will you undertake to report to the Legislature the specific directions you've followed in ensuring that has taken place and you can assure the House today that there haven't been violations of private and confidential informations by political staff of the various ministers?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I disagree with the member. I believe I did answer his question. I stated very clearly that when I became a minister there was a full and proper session with my staff, a very detailed discussion about what is appropriate and not appropriate with regard to freedom of information and protection of privacy of information. That is an important issue to us, as it is to everyone.

If he wants to know from other members of cabinet, he would have to ask them. I would assume they have done the same; I can't answer to that directly. But again to answer him very directly, yes, those types of discussions took place with my staff at the time I went into cabinet, and we do from time to time acknowledge the importance. In fact, in my ministry it's an issue we deal with quite frequently, given the nature of the business we do. I would say to him that yes, my staff are very much aware of the issues and they are reminded of the importance of the legislation that exists and the rights citizens have.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Tomorrow you will have on your desk the results of the referendum in the city of Toronto on the future of Metro government. Can we expect an announcement from you in this House tomorrow?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No.

Mr Stockwell: Municipalities all across Ontario are getting to vote on a lot of different issues in their local municipalities, some on snow removal, some on liquor sales, public utilities, to name a few, and of course, at the city of Toronto, whether or not to abolish the metropolitan level of government.

Just last month -- and I think this is very indicative of the minister's attitude -- when told the Toronto residents would be able to vote on how they want to be governed, you said, "Well, so what?" Minister, can we assume from your comment that you have no intention of listening to what the voters have to say? Do you and your government reject the idea of referendums in municipalities across Ontario? I think it's a rather important issue. It's people getting an opportunity to comment on how they want to see their local municipalities run. When a minister comes forward and says, "So, what?" you leave the impression that you simply don't care. Is that what we are to assume from this?

Hon Mr Philip: It's too bad the member didn't read the rest of the story, in which I clearly indicated that the referendum was part of a lot of ways in which we are collecting information; that in fact the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto has, in cooperation with the lower-tier mayors and my ministry, been conducting a study on the future of Metropolitan Toronto; that we are looking at a number of different issues, including the economic issues, because we do not want the city of Toronto or Metropolitan Toronto to go the way of American cities under Republican leadership, which I'm sure he would have approved of, of being the hole in the middle of the doughnut.

All these pieces will be put together, and it's part of our considerations. Perhaps he should read a couple of articles in which I have been quoted accurately.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): My question is for the Minister of Finance and also the minister in charge of financial institutions. As you know, the member from Lakehead and myself sponsored a rally in the spring protesting the unjust treatment of motorcycle enthusiasts and snowmobilers across the province. Over the past six months we've been presenting petitions in the Legislature, and we have about 15,000 names of people who feel they've been unjustly treated by insurance companies in the province of Ontario.

Minister, could you tell me where in the process we are, in the negotiations to find better treatment for our motorcycle enthusiasts and snowmobilers in the province of Ontario?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): What a setup. That should be a statement.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, but I --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I wished a ruling, Mr Speaker, but I thought members of the government had an opportunity to ask questions in the Legislature, as well as opposition members. Certainly, when we were in opposition, we didn't object to government members asking questions, and I'm surprised that the official opposition would do so now.

The member asks a question that a lot of people in the province have asked me, particularly motorcyclists. I would simply say to the member, who has been a very articulate spokesperson on behalf of motorcyclists in the province -- if I didn't know better, I'd think he was one himself.

While there are problems any time you get a market that is as small, relatively speaking, as the motorcycle market, because any changes in accident claims can have quite a substantial bearing on overall rates in that particular sector, if you look overall at the increases that affect motorcyclists, if you take it over the last four or five years -- because there was a catching up that needed to be done; there were no increases for a while -- you will see that the increases for motorcyclists have not been out of line with those experienced by automobile drivers as well.

I want to assure the member that access to insurance is not a problem for motorcyclists. They will always have access through the Facility if it's not available through a company. The Facility does not just underwrite last-resort insurance; it does other things as well.

I want to assure the member that the Ontario Insurance Commission continues to work with the industry to make sure nothing untoward is happening to that sector that's not reflected in the accident claims.

Mr Cooper: Right now most motorcyclists have put their motorcycles away, but now we have the snowmobiles coming out. I think most people realize that motorcyclists and snowmobilers do contribute a lot of money to tourism in the province of Ontario. Contrary to what the opposition is saying -- they're talking about doom and gloom out here in the province -- I think most people are now becoming optimistic that this province is better.

Basically, what I want to know is, with the work that's being done with the insurance commission, should motorcyclists and snowmobilers feel a little more optimistic going into 1995?

Hon Mr Laughren: I learned a long time ago not to overstate something, but we are hoping that as the insurance commission works with that particular sector, they will be able to come up with some solutions, because I recognize there's a problem. For one thing, the insurance commission is talking to some of the insurers in the industry about getting into the market to give motorcyclists a bigger choice than they presently have. I think that, at the end of the day, is the best solution in the interests of the motorcyclists, so we'll continue.

The member is quite correct when he says it's really close to the end of the season for most motorcyclists and that there is some time to try and sort things out, because I do believe that there should be more choice in the industry for motorcyclists.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Health. My question is on the issue of sexual predators. You will know that two weeks ago my colleagues Mr Chiarelli and Mr Murphy asked a question of the Attorney General on this same issue.

The current law does not sufficiently protect the general public from persons likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence. I will be introducing a bill today which amends the Mental Health Act. I have shared that bill with you. This bill has as its purpose a mechanism by which the public can be protected against dangerous sexual offenders who are about to be released to the community. My question is, will you support this legislation?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I appreciate the member having sent me a copy of his legislation. He will understand, having sent it to me a couple of minutes ago, that I haven't had a chance to review it, nor am I in a position to say whether I support it. But I certainly take the issue he raises very seriously, and I'm happy to tell him that my colleagues the Attorney General, the Minister of Correctional Services, the Solicitor General and I have been examining this issue with our federal colleagues. I think more work needs to be done, and I'll be happy to review his private member's bill.

1430

Mr Offer: This is a very short session of the Legislature. There is an immediate and urgent need to act, and it can be done. The principle is straightforward: removing sexual predators from the street. My question is, do you agree in principle with the removal of sexual predators off the street, and will you commit to ensuring that legislation is passed this session which has that result?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the member knows full well that I'm not in a position to commit the government to passing legislation this session, but I am in a position to say to him that we take the protection of the public very seriously and that we think public protection requires better coordination both between provincial ministries, the ones I mentioned, and with the federal-provincial-territorial levels of government, and in discussions with the federal Attorney General, the federal Minister of Health, there are a number of task forces working on how we can in fact --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for St George-St David is out of order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- protect the public both in terms of changes to legislation and in terms of enforcement and better coordination of public policies. I think that's necessary. I think we've made a start on beginning to do that and I certainly am committed to continuing that work.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. In August 1993, our caucus launched a task force on rural economic development. I have the end product right here. Today we are releasing the results of these consultations and correspondence with rural Ontarians. The message is clear. Rural Ontarians are frustrated with made-in-Toronto solutions to rural problems such as the Sewell report etc.

Our report is a comprehensive study on rural Ontario by rural Ontarians for rural Ontarians. Minister, do you have such a report for rural Ontario?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I believe it's important to consult with the people of rural Ontario and we do that on a regular basis. A number of our members communicate directly and frequently with rural Ontario, as I do. We spend our time implementing and responding, and we believe in action, not just in writing reports.

Mr Villeneuve: I gather there is no report, from what I just heard, because the OFA has submitted very deep concerns regarding Bill 163 and no one is listening.

This summer we asked Ontario farmers about the agricultural labour legislation, Bill 91, and 97% of the respondents said they wanted Bill 91 to be repealed. As it says in our report that we will repeal Bill 91, are you prepared to act according to the wishes of Ontario farmers and repeal Bill 91?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm not exactly sure who the member consulted with when they wrote the report. I, by the way, would be more than pleased to have a copy to see what their consultation showed, but I have to tell the member that I have not received one single letter or one single request from any farmer asking to have Bill 91 repealed.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Minister of Finance. The property assessment division of the Ministry of Finance has a great number of problems at the present time. In my riding, for example, assessments for new subdivisions, new residences, commercial and industrial property are behind about six or eight months. In addition to that, municipalities are being charged for supplementary assessments.

This serious backlog is costing municipalities tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenue, as well as boards of education and counties, and I think is hampering economic development. What are you doing to eliminate this serious backlog?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question from the member. There is no doubt that what the member says is partially true, that there is a backlog. At a time when we are attempting to provide a consistent level of service with fewer resources, I believe that's to be expected. We have made a determination that we are continuing to reduce the size of the Ontario public service, not without some pain and not without some problems.

I can tell the member, that's the kind of thing that happens. When you reduce budgets all across government, these kinds of things do happen from time to time. The assessment branch is working assiduously, as best it can, to get that backlog down, because we recognize that it does cause problems.

Mr Crozier: I wouldn't say that it's just partially correct, sir; it's totally correct that they are behind. I appreciate the fact that you're trying to reduce the public service and yet at the same time maintain the level of service. Therefore, I would assume that the minister might be open to some suggestions; for example, that the information that building officials have, which is very complete, could then be used by the property assessment division, thus reducing the time, effort and costs that they have to spend on these assessments, and that then these building officials could help you decrease that backlog.

Hon Mr Laughren: Sorry, I really did miss the last part of the member's question. Would you allow that to be repeated?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Yes. Could the member repeat the last portion.

Mr Crozier: What I'm suggesting is that there is a great deal of information that building officials in the municipalities have that has been offered to the assessment department in order to reduce the time it would take them to complete these assessments. This has been rejected. I wonder if the minister might pursue, along with ourselves perhaps, looking into this. That would streamline the system more and would help decrease the backlog.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate that suggestion from the member. The member will, I'm sure, recall that this government tried very hard to put in place something called a disentanglement process with the municipal sector. Unfortunately, that fell apart when the municipal sector walked away from the table. I regret that very much.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Why? Why did they walk away from the table?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not attaching blame to anyone. I'm just saying that there was an opportunity to have the entire assessment process done by a separate corporation and that the municipalities would have had major input into the way that would happen, and I regret it didn't occur.

However, I take these suggestions from the member seriously and I will look into those suggestions that did come from the municipal sector, from the assessors at the municipal level.

Mr Eddy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Finance has failed to advise the House that he charges for this service.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question as well is to the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the proceeds of crime.

Minister, in 1993 the federal government passed Bill C-123, the Seized Property Management Act, which allows the government to claim the proceeds of crime, property investments and bank accounts of convicted criminals. This January, regulations will come into effect allowing the federal government to share the proceeds of those seizures with provinces whose police forces played a significant role in the investigation and prosecution.

Minister, can you indicate to the House today what the government's plans are in respect of those revenues, how they are going to be directed, or are they going to be dedicated?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Pardon me for being a little slow. I'm trying to remember, as a matter of fact. I seem to recall that this is a process whereby the revenues are dedicated. I want to go back and do some thorough checking before I'm too categorical in my response, but that's my recollection.

1440

Mr Runciman: We'd like the minister to be very categorical today. The federal regulations for Bill C-123, as printed in the Canada Gazette of August 20, state that the province is to receive either 10%, 50% or 90% of the value of the forfeited property, depending on the degree to which a province's police force participated in the investigation. However, the federal government specifically prohibits individual municipalities, and by extension their police forces, from directly sharing in these moneys and recouping the costs of very expensive investigations.

Minister, today we would like a categorical response, your word that any participating police forces in Ontario, be they municipal forces or the OPP, be reimbursed for the cost of their investigations so they may continue to carry out very good work. Will you assure us that any leftover funds will be put into crime and drug prevention programs?

Hon Mr Laughren: The provincial government is, as I speak, looking at the various options in this regard. Just a word of caution on the whole issue, and other governments have faced this as well, other governments in this assembly: The whole question of dedicating revenues can be a bit of a mug's game, which is appropriate in this case, I think, in that what's applied in a dedicated way by governments very often simply is reduced out of the consolidated revenue fund, so that at the end of the day, unless there's a real vigilance, if I can use that term, concerned with keeping an eye on the amount of money that goes into a program prior to the dedication of funds compared with after the dedication of funds -- so we are looking at the options that are available to us, but as I recall, no final decision has yet been made.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, I know our government is the first provincial government to develop a comprehensive long-term strategy that is going to serve the changing needs of Ontario's seniors, the frail elderly and the chronically ill.

There are many agencies in my riding of Guelph that currently deliver some of these services and programs that seniors need, such as the VON and the Red Cross, and they've asked me how long-term-care reform is going to affect them.

I know the minister is aware that the community agencies have a long history of caring for people in our communities. I'm just wondering if the minister could respond to their concerns.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have the opportunity to repeat my acknowledgement, support and appreciation of what Red Cross, VON, home support services, all of the voluntary agencies that have provided magnificent care around this province, have been doing for very many years, in fact decades. On the other hand, I make no apology for trying to reorganize the way in which those services are provided in order to increase the benefits to seniors, because what this is all about is making sure that the elderly and the disabled, no matter where they live, no matter what their income level, receive a consistent level of care and a consistent continuum of care all across this province.

The 1,200 agencies that now provide care, excellent though many of them are, are a patchwork. In recognizing the degree and the expertise and the professional way in which they've provided service, we are in no way criticizing them as we change it. We are saying that what they have provided to their clients, everyone in the province who needs it deserves to get, and that only by reorganizing it and providing it in a way that is consumer-focused can we build on the excellence of what exists and make it better. That's the challenge.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. During estimates committee we examined rather closely the conversion project on child care, and we examined again that this particular program of this government does not add one new space to child care. We know that the waiting lists go to the tens of thousands in this province. We have spent over $15 million on the conversion project and what we were told by the minister at that time is that we get more of the same. In fact, it's going to be escalated as we approach the election, if indeed a new mandate is ever provided.

My question is, how can the minister justify spending millions of dollars, non-producing dollars, dollars that produce not one new space for not one new child in this province, going to evaluators and to lawyers and not to children of this province?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the member for the question, but I think what she forgets to add to her premise and her question is the fact that by the conversion initiative, we are not only responding to a need that people in the child care community have identified for years as being a problem to be rectified, and we are rectifying that, but we are adding significantly to the number of non-profit child care spaces that are in the system.

That is happening particularly in communities that have historically had a very low percentage of non-profit child care spaces, and there we are turning the situation around, resulting in a much better balance between the number of for-profit child care centres and spaces and, most importantly, the number of not-for-profit child care spaces.

I can tell the member that as of September 30 of this year, over 4,600 spaces have been converted. That means there are 4,600 more spaces in the not-for-profit sector, which I thought was a sector that the Liberal Party in fact supported and that we certainly support on this side of the House as being in effect this system that we need to support across this province.

Mrs O'Neill: Times are changing and certainly we do find that the minister has not added to the licensed spaces. There is no addition to the services for children in this province and that's the bottom line.

My second question also deals with the same issue, but it deals with the issue of $44 million being allocated to capital on child care in this province. When I asked the question again in estimates, I was given the answer that there are hopes that maybe something will be forthcoming, that we'll be able to fill these spaces, that we'll be able to allocate more money to child care in this province, but in the meantime we have all kinds of empty spaces across this province that are not being filled simply because of this government's ideology of having very --

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

Mrs O'Neill: -- narrow criteria for the subsidization plan that is generally unaccepted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs O'Neill: I ask the minister, how can he justify $44 million in capital, indeed the largest capital in this budget of MCSS, going for spaces that are unquestionably really not needed when we have empty spaces in this province?

Hon Mr Silipo: It's really interesting to hear the Liberal Party's position of the day because that's really what this is becoming. Every time another member of the Liberal Party stands up on an issue like this, we get a different position on the issue. We on this side have been very consistent in our support for not-for-profit child care. I thought that's where the Liberal Party was as well; I guess I'm mistaken.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Silipo: We have continued to support in a number of ways, including yes, on the capital side, the fact that there continue to be, on the one hand, many child care centres that are in need of major renovations, and that's what a lot of the capital will be going into.

I'm also happy to remind the member opposite that there will be additional spaces this year. There will be an additional at least 4,000 spaces to get us up to the 14,000 spaces that we were indicating under Jobs Ontario, which we are going to be reaching by the end of this fiscal year. Those are additional spaces, more spaces by the end of this fiscal year than there were at the end of the last fiscal year and that requires, in some instances, some new capital dollars for that to come about.

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

Hon Mr Silipo: That is something we're quite proud of, something that we know is needed in the system and something that we will continue on this side of the House to be consistent in our support for.

1450

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Volume 2 of the public accounts states that the sole shareholder of the Interim Waste Authority is the minister responsible for that specific authority.

As the sole shareholder, will you be prepared to file with this House today the economic forecast of the Interim Waste Authority and the specific details as to how the three dumps expect to be operated and the economic impact on the community?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member knows very well that the Minister of Environment and Energy is indeed the sole shareholder.

He also knows that the Interim Waste Authority has undergone a very strenuous and arduous study to locate sites and is about to embark on a full environmental assessment of those sites.

As he knows, the environmental assessment process deals with questions related to economics, social factors, as well as what might be considered by those not fully aware of the process environmental factors. Those kinds of issues are matters that will be dealt with fully prior to the approval of any site by the Environmental Assessment Board.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that Mr Wiseman and Mr Waters exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

PETITIONS

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas we believe that the Solicitor General should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years;

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

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

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

I affix my signature to those of many others from my constituency.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Seniors' Tenants Association for Metro Toronto non-profit housing. It reads as follows:

"We, as tenants of the above address and as members of the Seniors' Tenants Association, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to temporarily suspend any further enforcement of the Ministry of Housing's policy for seniors' non-profit housing.

"It is our collective opinion that this policy will have a major negative impact on the lifestyle of all tenants in seniors' housing. Therefore, we respectfully request a review and a study of the impact that said policy will have on our seniors' community."

There are over 2,000 names in this petition, and I'm happy to lend my support and my signature to this petition on behalf of the senior tenants.

RECOVERY FROM ABUSE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas a person's right in an abusive situation to resume the role as a parent on a full-time basis following recovery has been seriously compromised by the legal system; and

"Whereby the children remain or continue to visit with the unrecovered parent and the legal system now seriously minimizes the abuse situations that many people find themselves in, which makes escape from abuse a difficult process, thereby reinforcing the abuse cycle; and

"Whereas a person who finds recovery from abuse and later attempts to reunite with their children discovers they are negatively penalized by the system -- this creates a situation where the victim and the children are revictimized by the legal system as it exists today; and

"Whereas this assessment process done by any government official at any level tends to favour the status quo and overlook the time, work, effort and positive effects of recovery; and

"That the present system now encourages the repetition of violence by having no criteria specifically creating the ground rules to make both parties accountable when abuse occurs; and

"Where crisis intervention becomes imminent, criteria to facilitate recovery will lower the costs and risks involved in the cycle of violence, where both parents are in the recovery,

"Be it further resolved that the children are also protected by a program facilitating the reduction in costs to the individuals involved in the community; and

"Therefore, be it also resolved that at the present time, the government of Ontario initiate programs to facilitate recovery and that the right of a parent to return to parenting must be protected, that government officials are specifically trained in this area of physical, mental, psychological, sexual or chemical abuse, that these officials must have current criteria to follow which are laid out by law and that this will speed up the process, thereby reducing the costs of abuse."

I have this with 330 signatures and I affix my name.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and is signed by several constituents and constituents of neighbouring ridings.

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced its intention to reduce emergency coverage for out-of-province health care on June 30, 1994;

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are entitled to health coverage no matter where they are, with payment made on the basis of the amount that would be paid for a similar service in the province;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act entitles all Canadians to health care on an equal basis;

"Whereas this decision by the Minister of Health is in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure the Minister of Health follows the provisions of the Canada Health Act to prevent further erosion of our health care system in Ontario."

I too affix my signature.

SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have a petition with regard to the Tobacco Control Act, 1993.

"Whereas this bill will prohibit the sale of tobacco products in veteran hospitals, such as Sunnybrook K Wing, other veteran hospitals and veteran homes;

"Whereas the residents of the hospitals and homes may be in their last and final home, and many of these veterans, who have served Canada in the armed forces during the First and Second World War and Korea, are now either wheelchair patients or confined to the hospital or home areas;

"Whereas many have been on non-smoking programs at Sunnybrook Hospital, but 20% of the 570 residents are long-term smokers who find that their only enjoyment and social activity is smoking and going to the marketplace in K Wing to purchase their tobacco products;

"Whereas the sale of tobacco products is strictly controlled by sales staff and the nearest outlet is more than three kilometres away, a trip that is impossible for the veterans;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, wish to petition the decision of Bill 119 and ask that the sale of tobacco products be allowed to continue in veteran hospitals and homes, providing the sale is under the strict control and sale is only to residents of the said hospital or long-term home."

This petition is signed by hundreds of veterans associated with branches 10, 11, 1, 73, many different branches in this area, and I affix my signature.

1500

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): "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 of 'supersport' bikes; and

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

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

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

I add 515 names to the already 15,000 that Mr Cooper had mentioned earlier in question period and I affix my signature.

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas serial killer trading cards are being imported into and distributed throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada;

"Whereas these trading cards feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters;

"Whereas we abhor crimes of violence against persons and believe that serial killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate, but rather contribute to the tolerance and desensitization of violence; and

"Whereas we, as a society, agree that the protection of our children is paramount,

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

"That the Ontario government enact legislation to ensure that there is no sale of these serial killer trading cards and that substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on retailers who sell serial killer trading cards to minors."

This petition is signed by Carol Dunn, the president of the Council of Women of Ottawa and Area, on behalf of the council, and I'm pleased to affix my signature since I concur with that opinion.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

This is signed by several hundred constituents within my riding.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and certainly contains many signatures from the Ottawa-Carleton area.

"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 the local communities in Ontario and acknowledge the role of volunteers in the delivery of care."

I too will affix my signature.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition here from my constituents. It was forwarded to the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council and then forwarded to myself.

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

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

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of individuals who are concerned about Bill 173.

It's to the Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario, and the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of Health, the province 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."

This is signed by a number of people in my constituency. I affix my signature as I agree with this petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition generated by Liberal MPP Frank Miclash in regard to gas prices in northern Ontario. It's signed by a number of people in the north, and I would like to table that petition.

CLOSURE OF B'NAI BRITH COTTAGE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"The permanent closure of B'nai Brith Cottage was announced by Chedoke McMaster Hospitals. For 18 years B'nai Brith Cottage has helped adolescents from Halton, Hamilton-Wentworth, Niagara and Kitchener-Waterloo. This facility for many teens has been their last hope for the help they need to deal with emotional, psychiatric and/or behavioural problems or an abusive home life.

"We, the undersigned, believe that B'nai Brith should continue to stay open to help troubled teens. If your life or the life of your family had been touched by the care and compassion received by the staff at B'nai Brith Cottage or would like to see this facility kept open for the many teens who are desperately looking for help, some with no other place to turn, please sign this petition."

This petition contains hundreds of signatures, and I will be adding mine.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

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

"Whereas the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board is in a state of financial crisis; and

"Whereas the future benefits of injured workers are at certain risk; and

"Whereas the Premier ignored the advice from his own business advisers on his labour and management advisory committee to eliminate the unfunded liability and to ensure that the WCB does not negatively impact the competitiveness of Ontario business; and

"Whereas Bill 165 increases benefits at a time when the Workers' Compensation Board is experiencing negative cash flow;

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

"That the government of Ontario withdraw Bill 165 and accept the responsible business recommendations provided to the Premier to ensure the sustainability of the workers' compensation system."

I have four signatures on this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

Mr Offer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 188, An Act to amend the Mental Health Act / Projet de loi 188, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la santé mentale.

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

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): The purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism by which the public can be protected against dangerous sexual offenders who are about to be released into the community. The Attorney General will be informed three months in advance of the anticipated release of such persons and may initiate steps leading to the person's confinement in a psychiatric facility.

OSHAWA DEAF CENTRE INC. ACT, 1994

Mr Mills moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr154, An Act to revive Oshawa Deaf Centre Inc.

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

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe that last time, Mr Daigeler had the floor. Mr Daigeler is not here, so we'll go in rotation.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The member for Mississauga South had intended to speak at this time on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. However, she has been led to believe by the government House leader that the sections dealing with the Advocacy Commission were going to be withdrawn from this specific part of the bill, so she therefore has declined to speak. However, I am continuing to speak in her place, Mr Speaker.

As we have been told by the Attorney General, this bill makes changes to over 100 statutes that fall under the jurisdiction of 14 separate ministries. They involve changes to everything from automating the land registry offices, to allowing alcoholic beverages to be sold in provincial parks, to harmonizing federal and provincial food-grading systems, to allowing individuals to pay for drivers' licences, permits and plates by credit card, to banning the use of leg traps in the wild fur industry, and a whole slew of other matters which some members before me have already spoken to.

Although tempted to refer to other sections, I will be restricting my comments, as the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, to those sections of the bill that deal with environmental sections, specifically part VIII. There are about four amendments to a number of pieces of legislation. One is the Consolidated Hearings Act, the others are the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act.

If you look at this piece of legislation -- the Attorney General has assured us that it's simply "housekeeping" matters, I think was the terminology she used, that it's simply crossing the t's and dotting the i's. But any members who have taken the time to look up all the pieces of legislation this bill is amending and the effect it has -- many of them are fine, but it is a very difficult piece of legislation to understand, simply because it's very time-consuming to absorb it all. In the time I'm allotted, I will be dealing specifically with sections I have taken the time to try and study exactly what the amendments are with respect to the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

The first section, section 114, talks about amendments to the Consolidated Hearings Act. This is a piece of legislation which many of us, including myself, don't know much about, although it's becoming very, very popular now, with the three hearings going on, the joint hearings with the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Municipal Board being held in Durham, Peel and York for the three superdumps.

I have the honour of having one of those dumps. Of course, I call it an honour with tongue in cheek, because it's not an honour at all.

One of the superdumps is in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, specifically the town of Caledon, so many of my constituents have come to attempt to understand the Consolidated Hearings Act.

As I understand the Consolidated Hearings Act, it currently says that "the establishing authority may change the composition of a joint board that has not" --

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): A point of order, Mr Speaker: My apologies for interrupting the member, but the House leaders were just having some discussion about the possibility of Bill 175 being finished this afternoon and the House perhaps adjourning a little early, and how to deal with the committees that are going to be sitting this afternoon. I believe we have the consent of the House to allow the committees to continue to sit until 6 o'clock should the House adjourn early; not to force them to sit till 6 but to allow them to sit till 6 if the committees so choose.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I'm trying to talk about the amendments to the Consolidated Hearings Act. The act, as I understand it, currently states that "the establishing authority may change the composition of a joint board that has not commenced to hold a hearing." The amendment says, "The establishing authority may change the composition of a joint board at any time before the joint board begins to hear oral evidence on a matter that is neither procedural nor preliminary."

Now, that all sounds very innocent, and there may be good reasons which could be explained to me. But I guess we're starting to observe what is going on in our province dealing with one of the most major environmental issues this province has ever seen, that is, the creation of three superdumps in the three regions, which has an awful lot of people very, very upset across this province.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): What's the difference between a dump and a superdump?

Mr Tilson: The member is chatting over there about something.

I can tell you that this concern about the process and where we're going on this matter has many of the constituents most alarmed. Specifically, the consolidated hearing process has started already for the three superdumps. One has started in Durham region, on October 27 and 28, so they have had their preliminary hearings. And they're very complicated hearings. Someone has given me some notes about what went on, as I wasn't able to attend, and, with due respect to the hearing officers, because I'm sure they're trying to make the best of a very difficult situation, there is much confusion as to what is going on.

The other issue is that the other hearings are being held in my riding, in Dufferin-Peel, in the Peel region, at the Albion and Bolton Community Centre on November 24 and 25, and then finally at the York Metro site on November 29 and 30, so the preliminary hearings will be over by the end of this month. But the confusion and the issues being dealt with are giving many people much concern: issues as to whether people can be heard, whether they're getting any proper funding, a whole slew of other issues.

This section seems to say that as long as oral evidence hasn't commenced, the composition of the joint board can be changed. I would like to know, and I hope someone from the government will be able to explain to me, why that is taking place. I was always of the impression that once someone in the judicial process, a judge or someone like that, starts to hear a matter, a trial matter, whether it be in criminal or in civil, unless for the death of a judge or some other reason, that judge hears the case from beginning to end.

Yet it appears from this section, an example that just happened to happen -- or maybe it didn't happen to happen; maybe the government's trying to put this through before these hearings are under way completely. But it seems that as long as oral testimony hasn't been given, the composition of this board can be changed. I always thought that, to be fair, when judges start to hear matters, they're seized of those matters; that they should quite properly hear trials and other matters to the very end, to the conclusion of the case. But not with this, and I don't know why.

There's a whole slew of preliminary matters. In fact, as I understand it, the three members of the consolidated board are going to meet in some downtown hotel sometime in December just to hear preliminary matters; it could go on for days, just to hear preliminary matters, objections in terms of the process. And then, as I understand it, with section 114 of Bill 175, the establishing authority can change the composition of the board.

As it stands now, the panel is going to be three people, and they're going to hear all three of the consolidated board hearings, in all three of the regions, notwithstanding that I suppose it's possible they could give conflicting decisions in each one, or why would anyone bother making preliminary objections at a later date when they may have already given a decision in Durham or Peel or York?

So it's a very confusing process, and then, tied with this section, the whole composition could change.

1520

And there's already been a preliminary hearing where some staff from the consolidated board got together to hear and try to explain to the public all the different aspects of the process; in other words, who's going to be a party, who's going to be a participant, in all the different categories. All of that was very admirable, except I would have thought the board should do that.

The purpose of the preliminary hearings these three hearing officers are going to hear, notwithstanding the fact that at a later date, as I understand it from this bill, they could be changed: They are to hear submissions from potential full- and part-time parties, from potential participants; they are to discuss the issues identified at a preliminary meeting held by their staff; they are to plan the process up to the main hearing of the various sites; information; document exchange; meeting of parties; legal and technical representatives; scoping of issues; resolution of conditions on approval; planning and scheduling of the main hearing; they're to discuss the intervenor funding process and deal with any other preliminary matters.

I understand that. It's complicated, and I understand that as well. What I don't understand is, once these three hearing officers are going to be hearing all these things, they can be changed. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what it appears this section says. I can tell you, from the notes that were given to me about what went on in Durham, it was just mad chaos. There were motions galore which were dealt with by these hearing officers, and they're going to hear more and more. Why wouldn't they hear it all the way through? Why is it possible that you're going to have three more hearing officers, or one more hearing officer, who would come in after they've heard all these very important matters? I hope I'm wrong in the interpretation, but as I read it, on the face of it that appears to be what it says.

I question the fairness of the process. With all the political wrangling that's going on from the government side, the IWA, the ratepayers, the opposition parties, the consolidated hearing board is the only independent group to hear this process, yet it appears that partway through, the composition could be changed. I must confess, I don't understand the rationale for that. Either the same hearing officers hear this stuff from beginning to end, or they don't.

As I indicated, somewhere along the line they're going to have a hearing in some hotel where they're going to hear from everybody. In other words, all the participants from the different regions, all the parties from the different regions, are going to meet together in a hotel and they're going to have one big free-for-all. I don't know. Notwithstanding the criticism of the process, of how this thing has been going, which has been chaotic from the outset, notwithstanding that, I would have thought the same hearing officers would hear it.

That's what the first of the three or four amendments with respect to environment is going to do. That's the Consolidated Hearings Act. To be fair, it may well be that someone can explain to me that that's not the interpretation, but that's my interpretation. I guess that's one of the risks of putting through a bill of this magnitude, a crossing the t's and dotting the i's type of bill, because there's never adequate time for the government to explain properly what is being said in these bills. I'm sure other members, with other critic responsibilities, could find scads of other examples they're concerned about. I had a note from the Ontario school board association, which was critical of some sections of Bill 175.

Mr Perruzza: Which one? Public or separate?

Mr Tilson: Maybe the member who's speaking now would speak with respect to education when his time comes, about the concerns of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. But there doesn't seem to be time being set aside to deal with other issues. Unfortunately, as I say, I restrict my comments to dealing only with those about the environment.

The second amendment has to do with an amendment to the Environmental Assessment Act, and it simply adds a section. It says, "The board" -- the Environmental Assessment Board -- "may sit jointly either within or outside Ontario with any tribunal established under the law of another jurisdiction."

I'm not too sure about the impact of that either. I understand there could be jurisdictions involving the federal government, but I understand there is a political issue with respect to Manitoba, and one gets worried about surrendering jurisdiction to other jurisdictions. I don't know the effect of all that, and I hope that before this is all out -- I would just caution the government about getting into that without fully studying the impact of surrendering the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario by getting into other matters.

The Environmental Protection Act is also amended by adding the following section -- to be fair to the Attorney General, it probably falls into the category of those sections she spoke of, housekeeping entries; I understand that, but I'm going to read it -- "A document to be signed on behalf of the board may be signed by a member of the board or by a person authorized to sign the document under the board's rules of practice and procedure."

It sounds simple enough, I guess. Why not have staff sign things? The difficulty I have with that is that more and more, whether in federal government, provincial government, municipal government, or all the other agencies we have across this land, we as politicians seem to be assigning more and more of our jurisdiction to bureaucrats, to sign things, to do things. Maybe our life has become so complicated with the regulations we have put on top of ourselves that if we don't do that, it won't work.

I am one of those who get alarmed at delegating too much to bureaucrats. I believe that someone's got to be accountable in this system, so I worry about that type of system. More and more matters are being delegated to people outside the system. This is a prime example. It deals with the appeal board and it may be simple enough, but it's just one more thing in which those people on the appeal board are delegating their authority to bureaucrats, a simple matter of signing things, and I for one have concerns about that.

The third amendment has to do with the Ontario Water Resources Act. This is a piece of legislation that has not been substantially reviewed in over 30 years, to my understanding. Mr Elston, the former member for Bruce, put forward a private member's bill last spring, I believe it was, which we debated in this House. The issue of water was discussed at some length during that debate. Specifically, his bill was concerned mainly with the issue of water being taken from specific areas and transported to other jurisdictions. The concern, the issue that was raised, was as to who should regulate this.

There are other issues that get involved with respect to water. More and more golf courses are springing up around our province. All of you who play golf may say that's great, but it takes a pile of water to keep the greens green. I can tell you, in my own riding there have been complaints of the watering of greens which in turn affect the ponds and the wells surrounding these golf courses.

1530

We are now worried about dumps, the whole issue of dumps. Whether you're a member for or against, I would hope that you'd be against these superdumps that are being created by the Interim Waste Authority, and hence the government, and the effect on our water. There are other areas in this province where there's the creation of dumps and the effect on our water.

It used to be, of course, that we were proud of our water, that this province had the greatest amount of water and the best water in North America. It's strange that in the last number of years we see a profusion of water companies; people buy water, they have water coolers in their offices, in their homes. So the whole issue of water --

Mr Perruzza: It's not fair. It's the Conservative septic tank policy that did that.

Mr Tilson: Listen, I'm talking about something. You people have been in government for four years and this is all you can do. This is all you can do with respect to water: a small amendment to the Ontario Water Resources Act. Do you know what you're going to do?

The sole matter that you're going to do is -- this is your amendment -- you're going to strike out the following words in the Ontario Water Resources Act, "Notice of hearing under subsection (2) shall state that the applicant, permittee or licensee is entitled to and...." That's it. That's all you're doing.

Yet for 30 years there has been no substantial review. I think specifically in the last decade -- and don't start talking about George Drew or Bill Davis or David Peterson. The fact of the matter is that you people have been in power for four years and you have done absolutely nothing with respect to one of the most important commodities we have in this province, and that is water.

In fact you're doing exactly the opposite. You're building three superdumps on aquifers that are going to affect the drinking water and the health of this province, and the best that you can do is in Bill 175 simply adding to sections. There are facts that are being put forward that all three sites of these superdumps are being created on underground aquifers. All of those areas are dependent on the water that comes from those aquifers, and you are going to put a dump on top of these aquifers.

It's fine to say that you have all this wonderful new technology. You've got, I don't know, double liners, triple liners, quadruple liners, whatever, and they're going to last forever. But meanwhile, I can tell you, the people of this province have a lot of concern about the effect of dumps on water, and that's all you can do, a simple little amendment, a housekeeping entry that the Attorney General has made.

I can tell you that I express great disappointment with the Minister of Environment specifically, because I assume he had something to do with the preparation of Bill 175, and that's the most that he can come up with with respect to the Ontario Water Resources Act: simply striking out a few words of subsection 47(5) of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Why not review the whole system? Why not? We known that for the last decade something has been happening with the water system. I don't know, if we had a show of hands by the people in this room, how many people drink water out of coolers. How many people do? My guess is, that whole industry. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but I think it's incumbent upon us to at least look at it and see what's going on.

Where's the water coming from? What's the effect on the area where that water's coming from? How is it affecting the underground streams and the aquifers where vast amounts of water are being taken out of those areas and transported to other provinces and the United States? There's even talk of taking water from Georgian Bay through a pipeline down to southern Ontario. There's a great concern about water in this province, and all you can do --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): We don't need that.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'm just telling you what is being discussed, that there's a concern about the water resource that we have and which we've all been very proud of, yet we continue to allow this to happen. It's getting worse. There are complaints that have come to my office -- mind you, maybe they come more to my office because I'm critic for the environment -- of people who are concerned with well drilling, the drilling for water, and the effect that's having on the surroundings. It seems to be that all you need to do is get a permit. The whole subject needs to be reviewed, the whole topic needs to be reviewed.

This isn't something new, what I'm saying. British Columbia has put forward a wonderful booklet which I would recommend that all of you get a copy of. This was sent to me actually by the minister of the environment in British Columbia, the Honourable Moe Sihota, a study that the province of British Columbia has undertaken called The Stewardship of Water. It's quite a detailed study. There are about half a dozen different booklets dealing with a whole slew of areas: water conservation, water quality management, water allocation --

Mr Perruzza: It's a New Democratic government.

Mr Tilson: Yes, it's a New Democratic government. Why don't you people wake up? You've been sitting here for four years and have done nothing. We're not talking whether the New Democratic government has done something or whether the Conservative government has done something, or the Liberal government. I'm simply saying that the Ontario Water Resources Act --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Please make your remarks through the Chair.

Mr Tilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Ontario Water Resources Act has not been reviewed in 30 years, and here's a government, British Columbia, that has at least started to look at it: water allocation, water management planning, managing activities in and about streams, water pricing, groundwater management, all of those topics.

I've looked at some of the booklets, the studies, that the province of British Columbia has spent on, and I would hope this province -- I don't know whether you've got time to look at it, because you're only going to be there a short period of time, but you do have some time. Maybe you'll have an election in the spring. One of the favourite questions I have is: "When is the election going to be called? Is it going to be next spring? Is it going to be next fall?" But you still have time to look at this stuff, you still have time to commission a study to be looked at with respect to the stewardship of water.

Don't just do a housekeeping entry with respect to Bill 175 which simply takes a section out of the act. The whole act needs to be reviewed. The whole subject of water needs to be reviewed. The whole issue of water policy, whether on dumps, whether on golf courses, whether on the transportation of water from one area to another, the whole issue of well drilling, the whole issue of drinking water, all of these things need to be studied, because a lot has happened in the last number of years. A lot has happened in the last four years specifically.

I guess I'm expressing my frustration and disappointment which started during the debate on Mr Elston's bill, where at least he raised the subject. I didn't happen to agree with his philosophy because he had some law student review the legal ramifications; in other words, who owns the water? If you have a well in your backyard, do you own that water or does the state own that water? All of these matters need to be pursued.

As I say, Mr Elston's bill mainly dealt with the transportation of water and I think he felt that it should be controlled locally. I opposed that because I quite frankly think that specifically when you're hauling water, when you're taking water from the ground, it could come from an underground stream, it could come from an underground aquifer which goes outside the boundaries of the local municipality and could involve a number of municipalities. The other tragic thing of course is that something could happen up the way. The placing of a dump could have an effect on the water.

1540

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Questions or comments?

Mr David Winninger (London South): I know that the member for Dufferin-Peel has tried quite valiantly to find areas of controversy in this omnibus legislation which essentially now, I would submit, is quite non-controversial. The member for Dufferin-Peel highlights a section which would allow the Environmental Assessment Board to hold joint hearings with tribunals established under the laws of another jurisdiction.

Quite frankly, I would say to the member for Dufferin-Peel through you, Mr Speaker: This is not a case of surrendering jurisdiction to another province or state. In fact it permits evidence to be given once for the purpose of several hearings because the boards are sitting simultaneously. I would think that a Conservative of the member for Dufferin-Peel's ilk would find that quite appealing, that you'd be eliminating duplication in tribunal proceedings and that to deal with certain issues simultaneously before several tribunals in a unitary way, I would submit, would make a lot of sense, and should make a lot of sense, not only to the member for Dufferin-Peel but also to the public at large.

We hear again and again from the third party that we need to streamline government processes, we need to save money, we need to become more efficient. I would think this is exactly the direction the Conservative Party would support.

In regard to the member's comments as to how the last 30 or 40 years have passed without positive action in connection with water quality, I would submit that this government's achievements in the area of clean air, clean water and maintenance on a sustainable basis of our lands and resources has been second to none. It took until this government's tenure to even introduce an Environmental Bill of Rights, which certainly empowers the citizenry of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments?

Mr Perruzza: I just want a short opportunity to talk about some of the comments that the member made specifically having to do with the issue of water. I think I, as well as every other member in this Legislature, would probably agree that clean water is an objective which we all want to deal with and in fact be able to deliver on.

Later in this session, I suspect we will be dealing with a very broad piece of legislation that speaks to the issue of septic tanks. As you will know, Mr Speaker, and as the member will know -- and I'm not going to point a finger on who allowed the current situation to happen. Obviously we've only been around for four years. There were other governments in power before us and the whole septic tank issue dates back many, many years.

As you know, there are about a million septic tanks in the province of Ontario, and I believe that Sewell, in his report, spoke to that issue and indicated that somewhere between 70% and 80% of those septic tanks are faulty and are leaking and contaminating our rivers, lakes and streams. I would venture to say, having sat on the committee that undertook those hearings, that most septic tanks, if not all of them, are leaking, just simply in the way they are constructed. They're about as deep as the frost level. The frost acts on them and cracks them, and then they leak and contaminate our rivers, lakes and streams.

I would encourage the honourable member, as well as every other member in this House, that when we deal with that issue we deal with a very substantial issue and deliver on a bill that will go a long way to cleaning our water.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments?

Mr Tilson: I appreciate the comments from the member for Downsview, although I guess my comments are the same as they were with respect to water. The only piece of legislation this government has brought forward -- I think Mr Johnson, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, brought forward a private member's bill on septics and he wanted all vendors in real estate transactions to certify that the septic systems were in good working order. I can tell you, anyone who lives out in the country, member for Downsview, knows that when the ground is frozen for six months of the year, that's literally impossible to do. In fact, in many cases the only way you can do that is to dig up the entire system.

As far as dealing with the septic systems, he is right: There are problems with septic systems in this province. But that seems to be the only area that this government has come forward in, and, to be fair, that was a private member's bill, but that seems to be the only area that this government in its mandate has done.

With respect to clean water, I have sat here for four years and I haven't seen any legislation with respect to clean water. I haven't seen anything, a study of the magnitude that British Columbia has undertaken with respect to studying all of the issues that I raised in my remarks. You people have sat on your fannies and done nothing for four years on this topic of stewardship of the water. I mean, don't mislead the public and say that you've done something. I have sat here, and nothing has taken place.

With respect to the Environmental Bill of Rights, well, I just remind the member of a statement that I read in the House, I think it was two weeks ago, on the issue of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which you brought forward with great fanfare. I wrote a letter to the Environmental Commissioner asking her to study the Flying Toad co-op on the Toronto Islands. You know when she said she's going to get to look at it? In 1998.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. Any further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 175 and to say I guess at the outset that I think this is a useful process. The members are all aware that what this is, to use our jargon, is an omnibus bill that is designed to handle a whole bunch of housekeeping and avoid the Legislature having to open 30 or 40 different bills and to debate each of those bills. I think in a rapidly changing environment where technology, among other things, is changing as quickly as it is, this is a useful process and one that we can be supportive of.

As members may recall, the bill was introduced in the spring, and I didn't think there was enough time in the limited time in the spring for all of us to get input from interested parties, so it was delayed until the fall. I think that was a useful process and I think we can support an omnibus bill like this, one that speeds up the process, one that deals with, as the preamble says, non-controversial matters, and one that can save the public money. They're all good ideas. So I have no difficulty with the process, and in future years this government or a new government will probably want to employ a similar technique to be as efficient as we can in keeping the legislative bills in the province up to date. So the process is fine.

I think the specific major issue that we have with this bill -- I gather the government has indicated it's prepared to withdraw the Advocacy Commission portion of the bill, which we welcome. We did feel that was a controversial matter. It was changing the original intent of the Advocacy Commission to make it what's called in our jargon a different scheduled agency, but that has a fairly significant impact on the authority the Legislature has over it and the authority to deal with it.

If that is the case, I appreciate it and I think that eliminates one of our major concerns in the bill. It is in line with the intent of a bill like this, which is to not try under the umbrella of an omnibus piece of legislation to slide something through that should and does deserve some intense debate. So I gather that is the intent, and I'll proceed with my comments on that assumption.

The second concern we have on the bill, and our concern would not be great enough to want to hold the bill up but just to express a concern, has to do with the whole issue of privacy. Throughout this bill, there are many examples of areas where we are moving to use electronic recording, electronic filing, electronic entering to speed up the process. Who, in the broad sense, can argue with that? We are into a new era. Surely, if we want to be an efficient servant of the public, we have to embrace technology and changing technology, so we very much, obviously, would support that. Theoretically, it should result in better service to the public, a more efficient use of the taxpayers' dollar and a speeding up of the process.

1550

Having said that, I want to indicate my own concern with the privacy aspects of this. There is no doubt that this is a growing and important issue. I applauded our privacy commissioner for his 1993 report in which he raises a very significant flag for us, quoting a Supreme Court decision from one of the justices:

"Our modern information society, where intimate details of one's life may be available through computerized information accessible to many more persons than those initially entrusted with the knowledge, the security that this information will be kept in privacy may be even more significant than one could have historically imagined. Yet, despite the sense of urgency, those who see privacy as a fundamental human value are constantly on the defensive, fighting a rearguard action to recoup the privacy losses inflicted in the name of progress."

This is the information commissioner speaking: "We are witnessing the steady erosion of privacy through the creep of technology. Innovation such as photo-radar and [telephone] call management services are being adopted, apparently for good reasons such as traffic safety or consumer convenience, and government service cards are under development for the laudable aims of customer service and possible fraud reduction. But as surveillance increases on a piecemeal basis, privacy is also sacrificed bit by bit. One day soon, we could wake up and find ourselves in 1984" -- of course talking about the famed novel. "To avoid this, we need a new privacy paradigm. Our society should insist that existing privacy rights be taken as inviolate. Those who propose to alter existing privacy levels should be required to demonstrate that the benefits to be gained outweigh the privacy to be lost."

I would just say that this bill, in many different areas, as the Legislature appreciates, calls for a dramatic increase in electronic filing.

Under the Land Registration Reform Act, it says regulations may be made under the new part of this act; they may regulate remote searches of the electronic land registration database and regulate the security of the electronic land registration system.

Under the Ministry of Health, I believe -- certainly it is the act that permits the registrar general and the Ministry of Health to implement a single process for birth registration and enrolment in the Ontario health insurance plan. That's a good idea in the sense that surely we all agree that when someone passes away, they must be removed from the OHIP rolls, absolutely, and there should be a coordinated approach when someone is born. But we now have, maybe for the first time, cross-referencing between the registrar general and the Ministry of Health, so health records are beginning to be more broadly accessible.

Similarly, I think -- I don't think, I know -- in this legislation there are amendments to six company law statutes, all designed to help businesses' information be submitted, stored, maintained and retrieved in electronic format. I raise again this emerging issue of privacy protection. It was only earlier today in question period that I raised this matter with the government. We now have seen at least four examples where citizens' private information has been used publicly to discredit private citizens.

We saw it with the case of a doctor whose private information on billings was used to discredit the doctor. We saw it with an individual who was in the mining business, where his private business information, that should not have been made public, was made public inappropriately, perhaps illegally made public. We saw it in the case of a victim of the Grandview situation. For those of the public who may not be aware of it, it's a home in the Guelph-Kitchener area, and many years ago, victims were mistreated there. But the personal, private information of one of the victims was released publicly -- released, I might say, by the Premier's office.

So we see what I regard as some of the most serious cases where private citizens' private, confidential information somehow or other is being accessed and released publicly to discredit them. If the Legislature doesn't view that as one of the most serious, if not the most serious, charges against it, then we are out of touch, if we don't realize that one of the most feared things by the public is that the state begins to use its private information to attack them.

In the cases I cited, all those were individuals who were having a dispute with the government and the government was angry with them. The Rae government was angry that they were speaking out against it. So what happened? Surprisingly, somehow or other, private confidential information was accessed and released to discredit those individuals. I think the members will understand that I view that as serious.

Mr Perruzza: How can you say that with a straight face?

Mr Phillips: To the member across, now I appreciate that the true colours are coming out. Can you believe there's anything more serious than the government political staff accessing that data and then using that data to attack individual citizens?

I'll also use the example that twice there have been brown envelopes sent to the opposition. One, by the way, was very innocuous, a mistake. Someone simply put a government backbench briefing note in an envelope that happened to end up on the desk of one of our opposition members. But as soon as that happened, the police were called to investigate how that happened. It's very serious when the state uses its police force to investigate information that comes into the hands of duly elected official opposition members. It's dangerous. In my opinion, the police should never have been called in on a matter like that. It is clearly an attempt to intimidate. We shouldn't be using our police force in that manner. It puts them in an impossible, intolerable position. But that happened twice. For me it was fundamental: It should not happen.

Now we've seen four examples where the government has used personal, private, confidential information to attempt to silence four members of the public. I think the privacy commissioner is on to something. In this bill, we can see examples where we are continuing to expand the opportunity for the misuse of information.

I'll give you another example in here. There are amendments being proposed for the Ministry of Transportation. One of them is designed, it says here, to ensure that all licence plates have to be clearly visible and there can be no obstructions of them. One of the reasons for that, of course, is photo-radar, so that the photo-radar can snap them. As the commissioner points out, that is an intrusion of privacy. I saw the photograph that went out with the press release, and it was clear that the photograph of the car was more than the licence plate; it included the occupants in the car.

As we head to toll roads -- and the first toll road in the province, as we all know, will be something called Highway 407, just north of Metropolitan Toronto -- let me tell you how that works. You're going to buy a chit, and you put it in your car and each time you go through the electronic surveillance you get measured for it. But if you don't have a chit, there's a camera that snaps a picture of your car. Well, that's another step. We've got photo-radar. Now we've got a camera photographing legitimate people. They're not speeding. They're simply entering the toll road, but they're going to be photographed and a record will be kept of it.

1600

When I place calls within the government, as soon as the phone rings, they pick it up and say, "Oh, hello, Mr Phillips," because they know it's my number phoning. Similarly, for all of us here in the Legislature, every call that comes into our office or goes out of our office is recorded. Someone knows who's phoning us. Someone knows who we're phoning. In opposition you're always talking to various people to find out their advice, their counsel on things, and it may be they would prefer that it not be broadly known publicly, but the phone call we make to them and the phone call they make to us is recorded. We are, without doubt, heading down a road that already, in my opinion, we've seen significant abuse of.

So the legislation that again I say is important to update our laws and regulations -- there's nothing in here about protection of the information; it's all about expanding the information. There are at least four areas here, on the land registration, on the Ministry of Health, on the Ministry of Transportation, and on what's called consumer and corporate affairs, the Business Corporations Act, all where we are moving quickly to a much broader use of electronics, which of course is the contemporary thing to do, but we are opening ourselves to additional abuse.

I'll give you another example that illustrates where we're heading. I think now there is a program for low-risk prisoners who can be released with a leg bracelet on, and they are monitored to make sure they are within sound of their home. It's not a bad idea to save money, rather than incarcerate these people, but where does it end? Where do you end it? Alzheimer's patients maybe already are using them, I don't know.

We are heading down a road that this bill accelerates, there's no doubt of that, and it accelerates it in what's called an omnibus fashion. We're not going to debate that part of the bill. We're not going to debate the whole area of security and secrecy around corporate records, personal health records, around the use of photographs of your car.

The privacy commissioner pointed out that now all along the 401 cameras are monitoring traffic all the time, doing, actually, some worthwhile things. They've spotted more than one robbery taking place and have been able to intervene in those circumstances. I'm sure they've been useful in reconstructing how accidents have occurred.

But have no doubt, we are heading down a road very rapidly, and I take my hat off to the privacy commissioner for tabling that issue with us and urging the Legislature to begin dealing with it. I gather in at least one other province they have at least debated it quite significantly. Whether they've got the solutions or not is another matter.

The other challenge in the bill is what we had hoped to see in the bill that isn't in the bill. While this bill was designed to speed things up, to help the public, to make things more efficient, to help ensure that the public understood government better, I would have hoped the government might have done some things around the issue of better reporting, now that they've got the information electronically available. The Provincial Auditor tomorrow may have some things to say about that, but this was a chance in this omnibus bill to bring our reporting of the finances in line with the true finances.

I think members of the Legislature know that the Provincial Auditor has said, "Listen, the way the NDP government is reporting the finances is in a way that the public simply doesn't have the numbers to allow them to assess the financial state of the province." The auditor was able to force the government last year to change the way it reports. The only reason he was able to force them to do that was that he wouldn't sign the books, he would not sign the books, so the government was forced to change its books and report a deficit $1.6 billion higher than it had been saying before it changed the books.

But surprise, surprise, the budget we now have, the quarterly reports that are now coming out, don't reflect the auditor's comments at all. They're done on the old basis. The auditor will not sign these books. You can take that one to the bank. The auditor will not sign the books of the province unless they change them dramatically.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): We did.

Mr Phillips: The member said, "We did." You didn't. The books of this province, the budget we are dealing with right now, the auditor will never, ever sign.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): He signed the public accounts.

Mr Phillips: The member said he's signed the public accounts. Exactly my point. The reason he signed the public accounts, and the public should be aware of this, was because the government was forced, in what's called the public accounts, which are the audited statements that the auditor will comment on, to change the numbers and increase the deficit by $1.6 billion. The auditor would not have signed the books otherwise.

But what's happened? The government continues to report the books in the old way for this year, and I am frightened that the government may actually attempt to present another budget using the old accounting technique.

I'll just give you a few examples of the flim-flam involved in it. Does everybody know that the government has sold the Frost building, the Macdonald building, all these government buildings around here? For the public who may not be familiar with them, if you go to the Legislature, the Legislature is surrounded by big government buildings. They've all been sold -- not really. They have been sold to the government's own crown corporation and then immediately leased back. Well, the auditor won't permit that. That's a scam.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. We will have time for questions or comments later.

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that.

The second thing they did -- and of course it isn't me saying it shouldn't be done, this is the auditor. The government members don't like it. They can yell at me, but it's the Provincial Auditor who says: "That's unacceptable. That's not a sale. You've just transferred it from one hand to the other, gone out and borrowed $500 million and shown it as revenue."

Mr Winninger: It's a matter of interpretation.

Mr Phillips: A matter of interpretation, yes. I take the Provincial Auditor's interpretation. You may take Mr Rae's interpretation; I take the Provincial Auditor's interpretation.

I'll tell you another thing they did. People may have seen the GO trains running around. They were all paid off. What happened? The government went to a Bermuda company and said: "Will you buy these trains from us? We will repurchase them, we'll buy them back from you instantly. You buy them and two minutes later we'll buy them back. You give us $425 million and then we will commit to buy them back from you and repay you over 30 years."

What did it cost the taxpayers for that one little flip? It took about five minutes. The Bermuda company bought $431 million worth of trains and then immediately, according to the government's books, it bought them back -- instantly. It cost $4.2 million. That was the fee we had to pay that company to do that little flip in 10 minutes. "Buy $431 million worth of trains from us and then we will buy them back instantly." And that's what happened. Why? So the government could artificially show $425 million worth of revenue.

The auditor also pointed out -- and I was surprised that in the omnibus bill this wasn't outlawed -- that the government went into the teachers' pension fund and actually took $150 million of cash out of the teachers' pension fund. Unbelievable. I can remember when Premier Rae thought Conrad Black was ripping off the pension holders of the Dominion Stores because he attempted to go in --

1610

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Phillips: Now what's happening?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor.

Mr Phillips: Yes, I appreciate that. They are barking. But what happened? The government actually passed legislation. You couldn't have legally done what you did without passing legislation. There is only one way to legally do it, because the teachers' pension has about an $8-billion unfunded liability. How could you get $150 million out of it? By passing legislation.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): What are you going to do, balance the budget in four years? Come clean.

Mr Phillips: There's the former Minister of Transportation, who was in charge of the GO train flip, the Bermuda flip. There he is, right there. There's the one. I don't know whether you were in Bermuda when we went over there. Whoever went over there sold the GO train --

Hon Mr Pouliot: It's none of your business.

Mr Phillips: Well, he says it's none of our business. I appreciate that. The Minister of Transportation says it's none of the public's business. Did you hear him say that? None of the public's business that they went over --

Hon Mr Pouliot: No, no, whether I was in Bermuda.

The Acting Speaker: Order. This is not exactly conducive to good parliamentary business. Please. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor. The government, or whoever, has the opportunity to question and comment pursuant to his remarks. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: The former Minister of Transportation says it's none of my business. It is the public's business. What happened? In 10 minutes the government went over to Bermuda, sold $431 million worth of GO trains to a Bermuda company and then, according to the government's audit, immediately repurchased them, immediately bought them back. And what did the public, what did you people out there, pay? Some $4.2 million.

Then the former Minister of Transportation says it's none of my business. It's all of our business that you would spend $4.2 million to flip the GO trains in 10 minutes, all for the same price. Disgraceful.

I was on the teachers' pension fund. You could not have taken $150 million worth of money, cash, out of the teachers' pension without legislation. It was illegal to do it. But what did we do a year ago? Right around this time, legislation was forced through the Legislature that permitted you to take $150 million out of the teachers' pension fund. Luckily the Provincial Auditor said. "No, no, no, no, you can't do that." The Provincial Auditor forced you to back that up. Thank heavens for the Provincial Auditor.

The former Minister of Transportation did another little thing that the auditor said, "No, no, you can't do that." We have moved now to five-year drivers' licences. You all pay a five-year driver's licence now. Surprise, surprise: I wonder why that happened. The five-year driver's licence started in 1993, then 1994, then 1995. Surprise, surprise: Five-year driver's licence revenue will all be recorded in three years. Well, surprise, surprise: In 1996, in 1997, when there's a new government, there will be no driver's licence revenue. That's a big surprise. Why would they do that? The auditor pointed out you can't do that. The auditor said, "You can't do that." I would have thought that in this omnibus bill the government would have moved to correct that.

Oh, by the way, the auditor also pointed out that on the capital, there's a very unusual thing that's gone on with school and hospital and college and university capital. The provincial government used to provide grants of roughly $600 million a year. That's about the province's cost for refurbishing the school and the hospital and the college capital. But what they did this time is they said: "No, we're going to do it a little bit differently. We're going to move to what we'll call loan-based financing. We'll get the school board to go and borrow that money, but tell the school board not to worry. You go borrow the money but you tell whoever you borrowed it from that we will repay 100% of the principal and interest on that." The auditor says: "You can't do that. That's just like having your debt on someone else's books." So he blew the whistle, fortunately.

Those are a few examples of where the auditor blew the whistle. Actually, there was a total of $2.3 billion of funny numbers in the budget that the auditor forced him to change. The government got it down substantially because they have increased their revenue estimates by about $700 million and that kept the difference down to $1.6 billion.

But I had hoped that when we were dealing with an omnibus piece of legislation with respect to the provision of services to the public, the administration of government and the management of government resources, almost the first thing we might have looked at in a bill was to get our books reported properly.

The auditor last year, for the first time in the history of the province, refused to give an unqualified opinion on the books, the first time it's ever happened. For those who don't follow all this stuff, he gave a qualified opinion and said, "Listen, the books don't properly reflect it, and furthermore, you're going to have to make a substantial change in them," and forced the government to make a substantial change in last year's books.

But surprise, surprise, the government isn't doing it right now, isn't reporting the 1994-95 finances properly, and believe me, the auditor will not sign these books. My fear is that they actually are going to try and present a 1995-96 budget on the old basis, not using the auditor's recommendations.

Bill 175 is deficient in those areas, and I hoped that we could have seen those areas covered when we're looking to improve the efficiency of government.

The Acting Speaker: Now comes the time for questions or comments.

Mr Winninger: I listened very attentively to what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt had to say about the bill itself. Quite frankly, he had very little to say about the bill itself, and that's because I believe that his party now treats most of the substantive elements of this bill as not ones of controversy.

He spoke a great deal about budgetary matters because he is the critic for Finance, of course. I think that he's probably dead wrong when he points the finger of blame at this government because, as the people of Ontario well know, when the Liberals called their early election in 1990, they knew that the cupboard was bare. They ran on a platform that said they were able to balance the budget, they were the great money managers, but when we got into government we found that the cupboard was not only bare; there was a deficit growing by the day, starting at, if I recall correctly, $350 million, which rapidly grew. So I don't think the member should set up his party as being the brilliant money managers. They were the party that got this province into debt, despite the fact that they were in government during the most prosperous five years, probably, that this province has ever seen.

One of the other points that the member raised was in regard to photo-radar. He suggested that it was our photo-radar legislation that made it an offence to obstruct a licence plate. Well, quite frankly, under subsection 139(7), it was previously an offence to have a dirty or obstructed licence plate. Our legislation didn't change it. But what our legislation did do was to make the roads a lot safer for the motorists of Ontario and decrease the expense both in human and economic terms: That's $9 billion a year, 90,000 injuries, over 1,300 deaths on the highway. Photo-radar and graduated licensing --

The Acting Speaker: Your time has elapsed. Thank you.

Mr Winninger: -- will bring this down.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd like to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I have a document here which is interesting. It's Treasury Watch. I understand that the Treasurer of the province actually reads this with some regularity. It's put out by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, our Finance critic, and usually is more accurate, actually, interestingly enough, than even the government documents.

I would remind the member opposite, who tries to perpetuate the fraud upon the people of the province of Ontario, that there was something about the cupboards being bare. I remember at the first press conference, when a reporter said, "Mr Laughren, did the Liberals lie?" Mr Laughren said, "No, nobody lied."

The fact of the matter is that a $2-billion deficit was created by this government, not all of it, I will admit, through your own fault. There was a $700-million loss of revenue due to sales tax not coming in as a result of the recession. There was a $400-million loss of revenue from land transfer tax, because the real estate market fell off the table.

1620

Then the government decided unilaterally to pre-pay and pay down a mortgage debt that was not due called the Urban Transportation Development Corp in Thunder Bay, another $400 million that you conveniently put on the books and tried to pretend it was our fault.

Then you sold for the first time SkyDome of course and paid it off. Then in subsequent budgets and financial statements, you did it twice more. You've sold the SkyDome three times and declared it as revenue in your phony treasury documents.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Don't talk to me about keeping different sets of books. That's what you people do. Laughren has his own set of books which the auditor refuses to sign. That's absolute precedent-setting, showing the mismanagement of this government.

Mr Perruzza: Just in response very quickly to some of the comments that the member made, I can't help but respond to some of those comments. My honourable colleague who addressed some of those arguments a short while ago in fact raised many of the points which I wish to speak to as well, simply the fact that prior to our government getting elected, the former Liberal government governed in very, very good times. They had all kinds of revenue coming in. They taxed just about everything they could get their hands on.

I remember very vividly the commercial concentration tax, something which we had to essentially rescind or get rid of. It was a tax that was suffocating business. It was a $1-per-square-foot tax on every commercial enterprise within the city limits and the surrounding area. We had to get rid of that tax. So they taxed a lot.

They told us there was going to be a surplus in the budget of $39 million, or something to that effect. In fact, there was a $2.5-billion or slightly over $2.5-billion deficit. That's what the auditor confirmed and that's what the auditor attested to.

They got us involved in all kinds of deals. I can recall the Dome deal. They said it was going to cost about $150 million. That came in at a cost of well over $500 million. Imagine that: telling the public of Ontario that you're going to do something for $150 million and then it comes in at $550 million and change, giving all of the benefits to everyone else and leaving Ontarians holding the mortgage. That's a shame.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the opportunity to put on the record something that has to do with surpluses and deficits, because it seems we're into that issue.

The Provincial Auditor -- and this is the individual who I think most of us have confidence in -- here's what the Provincial Auditor said about deficits and what the NDP inherited. This is from his report in 1991. He says: "Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years." That was the year ending March 31, 1990. That was about five months before the NDP took power. Only one surplus in 20 years.

I always say to my Conservative friends, it surprises me they went 15 straight years and never balanced the budget, in good times and bad times; but only one surplus in 20 years.

Then the auditor goes on to say, "We realized that there was going to be a second straight surplus," and that's what happened. Heading into the election, there was going to be a second straight surplus. The auditor then says, "I went into detail to find out why it went from a planned surplus to a $3-billion deficit," because that's what happened. Only one surplus now in the last 25 years, the year ending March 31, 1990. The government of the day said, "Yes, there will be a second surplus."

The auditor explains that there were three reasons why it went from a surplus -- which the auditor says at the time the budget was presented was reasonable; the auditor says it was reasonable to expect a surplus. Revenues, the auditor says, dropped by $1.1 billion because of the extent of the recession, unforeseen when the budget was prepared; social assistance costs went up $900 million; and the government chose to write three things off that weren't due. The auditor explains in detail how you had just inherited a surplus five months before you came to office and now we've had four straight years with $10-billion, and more, deficits.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the second reading of Bill 175?

Mr Winninger: As this debate draws to a close, I'm pleased to remind the members and also the public of the words of the Attorney General in introducing this bill on first reading and what are the primary objectives of Bill 175. First of all, as times change, so must our laws. We have to keep step with demographic changes, economic changes, changes in technology, standards of conduct. That's what Bill 175 is all about.

Our legislative calendar, moreover, is frequently crowded with matters of a weighty or urgent nature, and necessary and important legislative changes, perhaps more mundane changes, frequently have to take a back seat. Other provinces on a regular basis introduce omnibus bills like Bill 175 to update their laws, and it seems fitting that Ontario adopt a similar course. I look forward to other omnibus bills similar to Bill 175 that will update the many and varied laws that are needing change.

What Bill 175 does in essence is improve government efficiency, improve the use of government resources, reduce costs, and it strengthens the way government works, all of which will enure to the benefit of the public.

Over 100 statutes will be amended, affecting approximately 17 different ministries. Our rules and procedures will be modernized to keep pace with advancing technology. We all well know the advent of the electronic highway, and it's important that the government in its own operations is able to take advantage of advancing technology.

At the same time, this legislation cuts red tape and duplication. It's good for business. It allows business to circumvent a number of different filings they had to do in the past, and do it in a more electronic and modern way.

We also respond in this legislation to recent court decisions calling upon the government to change its laws to modernize them and respect people's civil rights.

We will now have a provision for electronic filing of data.

The registrar general will better coordinate its data collection with the Ministry of Health to prevent health card fraud.

People with disabilities will be able to book return taxi fares where municipal bylaws may presently prevent them from doing so.

Electronic contracts are now recognized. In the past there had been some doubt as to the validity of agreements entered into by electronic transmission.

Food-grading standards, provincial and federal, will be harmonized. I know that's a matter of some importance to the Speaker, who comes from a rural riding.

As well, the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal will assume the appellate jurisdiction of three other tribunals, which will allow one-stop shopping, if you will, will lower costs and make service more efficient when people are appealing from decisions under 13 different agricultural statutes.

As well, people who are appealing to the Assessment Review Board, for example, will no longer have to file and refile an appeal each year until a decision is made. The filing of one appeal will suffice under this legislation.

No longer will the coroner have to investigate every single death in a nursing home. The coroner will have discretion as to which deaths should be investigated.

Statutory tribunals will be able to operate more efficiently. Their ability to teleconference instead of having oral hearings is recognized in this compendious legislation.

There are a number of innovations in this legislation which the public will find very appealing indeed. For example, a lawyer will be able to conduct a search of title using a modem and a computer rather than going to the registry office.

These are all changes that are, if you will, mandated by changing technology, and this government has shown its commitment to keep up with changes in technology.

Despite the occasional objection or reservation voiced by the critics for the parties in opposition, on the whole, it appeared to me -- and I sat through their remarks -- that the member for Oriole, the member for Willowdale and today the member for Scarborough-Agincourt support in principle an omnibus bill such as 175.

While there are certain minor amendments of a technical nature that will be introduced at committee, it is my hope that this legislation will proceed on an uncontested basis, particularly since the government has responded to the concern voiced by the member for Oriole in regard to the form and structure of the Advocacy Commission under the Advocacy Act.

Ultimately, Mr Speaker, you and the people of Ontario can rest assured that this particular bill, Bill 175, will indeed make government operations more efficient, will save costs and result in a better use of government resources.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Further debate on second reading of Bill 175?

The Attorney General, Mrs Boyd, has moved second reading of Bill 175. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

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

Shall the bill go for third reading?

Hon Mr Charlton: Committee of the whole House.

The Acting Speaker: Committee of the whole House. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move the adjournment of the House.

The Acting Speaker: The government House leader has moved adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, November 15, at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1634.

14 novembre 1994