Journal des débats 1994-nov-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should change the present Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983, to grant the users of three- and four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles the same rights and privileges, combined with the duties and obligations, as listed in the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, RSO 1990.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want to say at the outset that this is an important and significant motion, particularly as it applies to northern Ontario. It is an issue that has been with us for going on 10 years, an issue that affects the way of life we have in northern Ontario, a way of life that is important and includes the use of crown lands. I think that's one of the things we must be very clear about. This resolution relates particularly to the way that northern Ontarians and Ontarians from southern Ontario, and for that matter people who are visiting our province, utilize crown land, which represents 85% to 90% of our province. That's my concern.

My concern relates directly to ATVs, the three- and four-wheeled variety. I don't think members maybe are aware, but there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100,000 of these ATVs presently being used in this province. Now, the three-wheeled variety mentioned here have not been sold new in the province since 1988. There are some issues about safety that relate more to the three-wheelers than to the four-wheelers, but I think although the resolution talks to three-wheelers, the four-wheelers are the only ones that have been sold new since 1988.

This resolution comes from my good friends at the Espanola Game and Fish Protective Association, who have been working at this issue on behalf of hunters and anglers and outdoors people across the province since about 1986.

I want to quote here a letter from the minister of the day in 1986. He says, regarding this act, "The act has now been in force for over two years and its provisions, including the use of these vehicles on certain public roads, are currently under review." Under review. Sometimes the most terrifying words we ever hear in this place are "under review." I have a letter from the Ministry of Transportation dated February 10, 1994. It indicates that, again, the program is under review. So the ministry has only been reviewing this for close to 10 years and has yet to address the problem.

The problem is a problem of access and it's a problem of safety and it's a problem of recognizing the realities in northern Ontario. The use of ATVs in northern Ontario in particular is something that has been going on for quite a while. It's a way of life for many sportsmen. It's a way to get to their favourite places for fishing, favourite places to hunt, to birdwatch and, yes, even to sightsee.

The problem is -- well, there are a couple of problems. One of the problems is definition. I'll get to that in a minute. But the problem is in the definition of "highway." Really, we think of a highway as the 401 or the 400 or Highway 27 or Highway 4. We find, if we read the definition, that the definition is not that at all, although it includes that. The definition of "highway" includes a "street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof."

"Therefore" -- this is from a letter from the ministry to the Espanola club -- "when you request the right to travel on access roads and secondary gravel roads, according to the act, these are highways."

Well, in northern Ontario, they're not highways. They're roads. Sometimes you might even classify them as paths. Particularly in the spring, when we have frost boils and all the interesting things you get in spring breakup, the only way to get to your cottage or your camp is by these ATVs, particularly if you happen to be a person of advancing years, a person who is perhaps disabled. There's only one way to get in there. No longer can you walk that 10 kilometres, no longer can you ski 10 kilometres, no longer can you get in under your own physical power. You need a machine, and this is the only machine that will work.

So it makes perfect sense for the ministry to address this issue. It makes perfect sense if we believe that Ontarians should have access to the crown land and that they should have access to the crown land regardless of their ability to walk, run etc.

These ATVs are already licensed. They already are heavily insured. They are far more visible than the snowmobiles that we talk of changing the act to reflect. They have good braking, they have superior steering to snowmobiles, and therefore, in our view, are a safer vehicle than a snowmobile. And yet the way we regulate them, they are not permitted to do the same things as snowmobiles. Certainly we don't want snowmobiles or ATVs on travelled highways. It would be dangerous for everybody. But that's not what we're asking. The snowmobile act regulates which highways you can go on, which you can't, and we think that could be extended through to this act.

I want to suggest also, as has been suggested by my friends, that this act would permit the safety concerns to be directly addressed. This law is presently probably obeyed more in the breach than actually in the way it's enforced today, because people are using these roads. They are technically using them illegally. The enforcement really can't happen. What we want is an act that will be respected and that will permit the formation of clubs, as they have with snowmobiles around this issue, and permit people then to address those various safety concerns that snowmobilers have been actively working at for the last 10 years, I suppose, in this province.

1010

The other thing the act would do, the other part of this act, is that it would give municipalities the opportunity to regulate in their own municipality how these vehicles would operate. It would allow the municipalities, for example, to say: "On this particular road, you can use these machines in a certain way, in a certain place, and you must drive this speed. It can only be used on these days. It can only be used between these hours." Because especially in my part of the world, often the crown land is directly adjoining a municipality. Often, to go the 100 yards from your house to the crown land where you're permitted to use the machine, you have to load it into the back of a half-ton, you have to drive it that 100 yards, park the half-ton truck, leave it at the side of the road where it stands a good possibility of being hit by another vehicle, and then you take it into the bush. It makes absolutely no sense.

Now, the safety concern that I think we'll hear from the government, which I realize is a very substantial safety concern, is the fact that these machines have low-pressure tires. That makes them unsuitable for driving on paved roads, for example. It's quite dangerous to use them at any kind of high speed on paved roads. We don't want that to happen. Nobody's asking for that to happen. What we're talking about is access roads, bush roads, those types of things, and what I'm attempting to do in the little bit of time I have to make this resolution is to support Miroslav Welyhorskyj in my riding, the Ontario hunters and anglers association, and all those who want to see a reasonable regulation of these vehicles, as they say, which number 100,000 now in this province and have been growing. That's a growth of about 80,000 vehicles in 10 years. So it's a growing concern in the province.

It's time the minister stopped reviewing this and got down to making reasonable regulations that can be enforceable and will work for the safety of all concerned.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): As Transportation critic for our party, I'm very pleased to join this debate and compliment my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin in bringing forward this motion. It's overdue.

As he's outlined, the Ministry of Transportation has been considering this for 10 years. In the meantime, we have had extensive use of snowmobiles with the ability to be able to cross roads at a time when we're saying that these vehicles will not be allowed to cross the roads. As he has adequately pointed out, many of the roads that we're talking about are little more than trails themselves, and yet they are municipal roads and therefore these are prohibited from use on those roads.

Clearly this is a case where we should give more responsibility to the municipalities. They know their local conditions a lot better. Many of my constituents go hunting and like to be able to use these vehicles to get in. They also go sightseeing and there are many cottages which are inaccessible in the springtime except with these vehicles because it isn't realistic to use any other vehicle at that time of the year. It certainly enhances tourism in this province. Certainly in northern Ontario it is absolutely the only vehicle that is suitable at some points in the year.

We should indeed have one set of rules which are consistent for both these all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. Snowmobiles are less visible than these vehicles and, in fact, snowmobiles have less sophisticated steering and braking systems than these vehicles. It has been pointed out that there are some concerns with the three-wheel all-terrain vehicles, but in fact they're not sold any more and they will become less and less of a factor, so it makes sense to include them in this legislation. But indeed, four-wheel ATVs are much more stable than the previous three-wheel vehicles.

The safety issue is something the government has not addressed in any serious way. They've said there's a safety issue and yet they have never come forward and told us what the difference is between these and snowmobiles. Indeed, in a brief from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which they put forward on February 26, 1991, they emphasized the importance of having a consistent set of guidelines.

Certainly I will be supporting this, both for people who live in northern Ontario and also for tourists who like to get into inaccessible places.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I, too, would like to join in the debate. I will be supporting the resolution, but I do have some concerns. First off, I think we have to have the discussion happen and then we can start to deal with some of the concerns.

As a person who has worked quite actively with the snowmobile groups, one of my chief concerns is private land. When you take a snowmobile and you put it on three feet of snow and cross a person's property, you really don't damage the property. If you take the four-wheel, all-terrain vehicles across private or public property, they create an erosion problem. One of the things I believe, whether they be on the roads -- because they're not only going to stay on them, they're going to move off the roads and into crown land and on to private property.

First off, we have to know how to shut down that property so that it's only winter use and also how we're going to protect our crown lands. We don't want to see them eroded away. I believe those things can be dealt with through discussion and maybe through some form of organization, as we have with snowmobiles, where we have the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs.

The other thing I would like to talk about is the safety aspect. I think that's why it is so vital that we move forward on this and have the discussion. There are really no rules on safety and no organization out there working towards making this sport or this type of recreation safer.

Hunters use ATVs out there. They don't wear helmets. They're bouncing over logs. They're doing a lot of different things on them. It's rather difficult to fire a rifle when you have a bell helmet on. I think we have to look at the safety aspect as well as looking at where we want to take this recreation. I think it's a discussion that we have to have.

As far as allowing ATVs to run on rural roads in the province of Ontario, I can tell you that where I live in the rural area of Muskoka, they pass my door on the roads every day and so definitely these people -- some of them are wearing helmets, other ones aren't. Some are riding two and three people on these machines with their feet dangling down beside the wheels. We have to come up with some sort of standards and some sort of rules to make the sport at least as safe as snowmobiling is for that particular winter type of off-road activity.

I will be supporting Mr Brown and his motion and, at the same time, I think all members of the House should work together for going ahead with this to look at how we're going to deal with some of the concerns that are out there in the more populated or more privately owned sections of the province where this recreation has grown at a remarkable rate.

With that, I would conclude my comments on Mr Brown's resolution.

1020

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to join with my other colleagues from York Mills and Muskoka in supporting the resolution brought by my friend the member from Algoma concerning the ATVs. I was upstairs watching the member from Algoma bring forward his resolution. He's left for the moment, but have you noticed -- none of this will make much to many of you -- Mike Brown looks like a young John Robarts. I was watching him on television and he does, he just looks like a young John Robarts and he brings the same good sense and wise counsel on matters of public policy, including the resolution today.

I was pleased to hear not just Mr Brown but the member from Muskoka -- I should be careful here not to be breaking the rules -- but the members, Mr Waters from Muskoka and the Conservative Transportation critic, Mr Turnbull, bring their words of support as well.

I represent a big slice of rural eastern Ontario, part of which includes the district of Nipissing. Mr Speaker, I very nearly touch on your wonderful summer resort up there in Papineau township which, however, does fall into the area represented by Mr Eves. But you, Mr Speaker, will know, as I'm sure many members here -- I see the member for Hamilton East and the member for Sudbury conversing over there. My friend the member for Hamilton East has a cottage in my part of the world. He's I think quite familiar with the pattern of activity in rural and northern Ontario that involves ATVs.

It's hunting season in the Ottawa Valley and much of the rest of the province. I dare say that if I were to go out this afternoon on a beautiful November day and look at the forest access roads in Renfrew county, as my friend from Montague township, the member for Lanark-Renfrew will know, I am almost certainly going to encounter more than a few ATVs, as hunters -- good people, law-abiding people -- are going about their business.

Technically, the law does not permit much of the activity that normally and naturally occurs, and I wholeheartedly agree with the resolution brought forward by my friend Mr Brown, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin because, among other things, it seeks to legitimize and regularize and legalize very normal, natural activity that occurs in rural and northern Ontario.

It's hard, I know, sometimes for members who represent urban communities, in Metropolitan Toronto, Hamilton-Wentworth and Ottawa-Carleton, to understand just exactly what the rhythm and the reality of rural life is, and I point out again, it's hunting season.

It would behoove a lot of urban members from southern Ontario to come into midnorthern and northern or southeastern and southwestern Ontario to watch just exactly how hunting season works. I myself am not a hunter, but I know that thousands of my constituents, this week and last, are engaged in one of the really important recreational pursuits of the season.

Increasingly, as technology develops, and as Mr Brown the member who's bringing forward this resolution has pointed out, as our population ages, 65- and 75- and 80-year-olds, men and women, who want to continue doing what they have done for decades, rely upon ATVs to move them and their materials about.

I don't know, Mr Speaker, you probably have had the experience that I have not had of trying to bring out a moose that has just been shot in the back of some quite inaccessible part of your hunting zone and I'll tell you, you want to be about as fit as Mr Brown and Mr Waters are to do that. I couldn't. I would certainly need the help and the support of an ATV. As the sponsor, Mr Brown, has pointed out, under the current rules, ATVs are not allowed to travel across forest access roads, bush roads and the like, and that is simply not sensible. It's not reasonable. It violates what good law-abiding people in my part of eastern Ontario know to be sensible. I recognize that there are, as the member has indicated, concerns about safety and they have to be addressed.

Snowmobiling: I see the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay who's done much good work in supporting our snowmobiling industry and he knows that a lot better than I. Certainly 25 and 30 years ago, and even today, there are still some unresolved snowmobile safety issues, but we have made progress.

Again, I think it is very much a concern to me to find out that the current rules, as they relate to ATVs, force people to behave outside of the law. I don't think we want that. I think we want to recognize that ATVs have become a very important part of rural life and, again, not just for young people but perhaps, most importantly, for older people. I get really annoyed when I hear some of my yuppie friends, some of whom are 35 and really fit, who think that the only kind of recreational experience you ought to have is one that really often involves and requires the fitness of being 30 years of age.

I think some of our park policy, for example, is quite discriminatory in an unintentional kind of way. To meet somebody who's 58, who's really been a very active, outdoors person but who's had a heart attack, is to meet somebody who's pretty frustrated with some of the barriers that are placed in front of that individual because of some of the rules and regulations that we've had.

I want to say, on behalf of the thousands of people in Renfrew county whom I'm proud to represent, along with my esteemed friend from south Renfrew and Lanark, that they would want me, as their member, to support this resolution, to say to the government and to all members of all parties here today that it is not fair to not allow legally the use of ATVs on bush roads and forest-access road, and to provide the kind of protection this resolution calls for under the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.

As my friend, Mr Brown, has indicated, what we really want to do, in bringing forward this resolution, is to regulate ATVs in the same way that we regulate snowmobiles. There are protections built into the existing statutes as they relate to what snowmobiles can do and where they can go, and we want those same kinds of protections to apply, perhaps with some adjustment and amendment, to ATVs.

I take my seat saying that I'm proud to support this, because we have a situation today which is not sensible and is not comfortable for a lot of people who recognize that ATVs are increasingly important in terms of their recreational lives. They are now being used in record numbers and my law-abiding constituents, along with tens of thousands of others, would want this Legislature to recognize that reality and to legislate in a sensible and fairminded way. That's what this resolution brought forward by my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin calls for, and that's why I'm happy and proud to support it.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise this morning and briefly comment on this resolution from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, which calls on the provincial government to "change the present Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1993, to grant the users of three- and four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles the same rights and privileges, combined with the duties and obligations as listed in the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, RSO 1990."

I will be supporting this resolution, because ATVs are growing in popularity. They're here to stay and are currently being used on gravel, farm, logging and access roads as well as on town lanes and bush trails.

It's my understanding that currently only farmers and licensed trappers are granted an exemption for travel-related work with regard to the farms. I know we have one on our farm. They want to make limited use of public roads for trips related to their livelihood, and they're allowed to do that. All others are only allowed to drive directly across the highways.

It's my hope that if this resolution is supported it will lead to the creation of ATV clubs, the development of ATV education courses and the establishment of a code of ethics and a form of self-policing that occurs with the operation of motorized snow vehicles. The ATV operators would then be responsible for duties and obligations such as yielding right of way. When they make turns they will have to signal. Everything to do with safety would all be part of what would be in this act.

1030

I'm confident there will be a great coexistence between ATVs and motorized vehicles provided there are appropriate rules and regulations in place that are strictly enforced. We want to stress the fact that the safety aspect of ATVs should be number one, where we're stressing the use by licensed drivers with proper safety and road ethics training, as well as the appropriate safety equipment. Individual municipalities too could pass bylaws governing travel routes from towns, flags, speeds and times to be off or on the town roads.

This matter closely resembles my ongoing campaign to promote boater safety and education on our waterways. I realize that my proposed boater safety and education legislation cannot govern an individual's behaviour or attitude while driving a motorized vessel, but it would establish educational safeguards and set forth regulations whereby an individual could be charged and convicted if that individual's behaviour or attitude endangers public safety. I'm an avid boater and I enjoy operating ATVs. I have one.

Mr Conway mentioned about the hunters being in the bush and on the rural back roads. I never thought I would see the day that we needed tough regulations to impose on operators, but the carelessness and what goes on I think causes that to change. In part, the responsibility of this Legislature I think is to make sure that safety is the number one promotion.

The number of motorized snow machines in the last years have increased drastically. Sales are up. Controls are in place. Snowmobile clubs across this province are making great use of the trails that are being established. Not only that, there are many people who are joining these clubs to make it a more viable and safer sport. The same thing should apply to the ATVs, because there are going to be more of them used all the time. There are more of them being sold. They tell me there are about 80,000 all-terrain vehicles registered in Ontario, and that's expected to increase dramatically.

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters some time ago saw the need and they were the ones who initiated this. The original resolution came from members in the Espanola area. So they are well aware. If you travel the north and you see the vast lands that we have, they are being used more all the time. It's a wonder it took so long for them to get these in the first place, because these machines are great.

I believe in safety. I believe in the helmets that you have to wear when you're operating them, because that is the number one priority. To be debating it here today is something that is long overdue because of the safety features and the need for protection in the north, and not only in the north but in all parts of the province.

The Ministry of Transportation argues that ATVs are not stable enough for roads and highways. They are concerned that they would be a danger in mixed traffic as well. Well, isn't that what this debate is all about, to try to bring these aspects out in the open so that they will have some input from the members in different parts of this province, so that there can be some rules and education put in place for the safety measures that we need?

I compliment Mr Brown from Algoma-Manitoulin on bringing this resolution forward, because there are many hunters in the area where I hunt. I know they have to use the roads in some cases and we want to have them insured. We want the safety features to be part of it. When we look at some 100,000 of these vehicles scattered across the province, we know there is a need.

The book in my machine tells me that they are not to be operated on a paved road, and there is a difference when you're operating them on a paved road and when you're operating them on a gravel road. A lot of people don't realize that. They think the paved road would be the best, but the gravel road is the best because of the large tires. They only hold three and a half to four pounds, each one of them; that's what you're supposed to put in them. So it is a low pressure tire.

But the aspect of the ATVs is great. If you have the occasion to shoot a moose back in the bush a mile or two, the ATVs are certainly an asset to getting it out. As Mr Conway indicated, you have to be in pretty good shape to take a moose out of the bush, but the ATVs can certainly help you do that.

So I compliment the member for bringing this resolution forward and I look at the safety aspect that the ministry will be looking into for people in Ontario who are operating these, because it is important that their education and safety be number one.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'm pleased to rise today in support of the member for Algoma-Manitoulin's resolution. I think it's about time governments starting working together. I'm glad he brought this forward because it seems we have a myriad of rules and regulations. Some cover cars, some cover motorcycles, some agricultural vehicles, some snowmobiles, and I think what we're all trying to do now is to get some consistency out there so that we all know exactly what rules and regulations we're following.

I come from the north. I was raised up in Larder Lake, which is a bit farther north than Manitoulin, and I also have a sister-in-law who lives on Manitoulin Island. I understand there's a large difference between the way people in southern Ontario think and the reality in the north. I think the member for Renfrew North explained it very well, that there is a real difference out there. Basically what you're doing is finding that a lot of people are breaking the law because they really don't know the rules and regulations that they have to abide by.

One of the things I'd like to address here is the Slow-Moving Vehicle sign. I know when the member for Essex-Kent brought this issue up and I spoke on it, what we're trying to do is find some consistency so that when you're out on the highways you know exactly what a slow-moving vehicle is. Basically what they want to do is have it so that everybody in southern Ontario, when they go into the north or when they go into a rural area, knows exactly what they're following when they see a slow-moving vehicle. So perhaps we can get some consistency.

I know Ontario Drive and Gear, the makers of the Argo all-terrain vehicles in New Hamburg, which is in my riding, had a problem a couple of years ago where there was something going on in the government and they didn't really know whether it was going to come to fruition. There was talk that they were going to outlaw these. Well, the fact is, a lot of people who aren't in very good shape but still are active hunters need a way to get into the bush to get their game out. So there was great concern there.

We need some consistency where we know exactly what rules we are following. I think the member for Algoma-Manitoulin is looking at this, trying to get some consistency so the people know exactly what rules they're following, so they aren't out there breaking the law every day and they know what rules and regulations they have to follow.

I think the safety features have to be built in. As with anything, somebody eventually makes it into a sport, and if it's just recreational and you get a sport -- I know I've been doing a lot of things on motorcycles and now they're trying to get a sport where they're trying to get off-road tracks basically for recreation out in the woods so they can ride through. As long as it's organized, then you don't have the problem with crossing private property. We've got to get these rules together.

The same with these. There was a concern that people might be crossing private lands. If you look at what the snowmobilers have done across this province, they've gotten very well organized. They've made arrangements with certain property owners and they've set up some trails and now they have a real recreational thing that brings in lots of dollars for this province in tourism because they're travelling around. They're very well organized and they do a lot of charity work. I think the same thing here. This is probably what it will evolve into.

1040

Obviously, they've said the government's been studying this for about 10 years. I think that's what happens; the government does study a lot of things to death. But it seems like each one is operating in a vacuum and I think it's about time they started having some consistency across ministries. If we're going to talk about any off-road vehicle, such as the snowmobile, the three-wheel vehicle or the four-wheel vehicle, let's try and do it in some sort of sense of cohesion so that we get a rule and regulation that applies to them all, that they all know exactly what they're living under.

I'm very pleased to support the member. I wish him well in this resolution and I hope the government reacts positively on this and we get some rules and regulations that we all know what we're going to be following and we don't make the honest citizens be out there breaking the laws. They'll know exactly what rules they have to follow.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It gives me great pleasure as well, as a northerner, to rise in support of Mr Brown's resolution. As you noted, the previous speaker from Kitchener-Wilmot just indicated that he was from the north way back. I must say that as a member of this Legislature for the past seven years, as I travel across the province I only meet two types of people. Those, of course, are those people who are from the north and those people who wish they were from the north. I just wanted to let him know that.

The previous speaker also talked a lot about consistency. In bringing this resolution forward, Mr Brown has indicated that yes, of course, we need consistency in terms of the Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983. I must say, representing the second-largest riding in the province, that being the northern riding of Kenora, this is a very important resolution to not only my constituents but to a good number of people who visit the area.

As the Speaker will know, I have actually been involved in this sport and have been the owner of three-wheelers in the past and have come to know exactly what they can do and the use that they can be of to us as residents there. But again, I go back to the visitors who come to northwestern Ontario. I often think of Jones, Ontario, which is located north of Kenora, and a function that is run out of there, a hunting camp, Rocky Lake Camp. I note the number of people who come up from the northern states to the south of us and partake in the hunt which goes on on a regular basis every year. As well, there's a good number of folk who use these vehicles in that area for both sightseeing and to get into their favourite fishing lakes; so a great amount of activity and great amount of importance to see this come forth, particularly in my area.

The figures have been tossed around as to the number that are registered in Ontario. I believe it's growing to somewhere around 100,000 of these actual ATVs registered in Ontario, but I must say that does not include the many that are brought into the province as well, as I indicated, by the tourist sector that comes in to my area of the province. After 1988, we know that these have been changed. There has been a safety regulation added to ATVs where the three-wheelers are no longer manufactured. As a previous owner, I can certainly testify as to why that would be and know that we are going to have to have some sort of regulation come in to actually identify what we are talking about here, and some safety regulations to go along with it.

The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay talked about helmets earlier on. It is my understanding that at the present time helmets are mandatory in terms of riding these vehicles, as they are in terms of riding snow machines.

I go back to the people who particularly need this type of transportation in order to carry on maybe their hunting activity or fishing activity into their later years. I quite often come across a good number of people, whether they be disabled or elderly, throughout the riding who are making good use of these.

We've heard about the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters as well. They too have a very distinct interest in this resolution that we are putting forward today. They have indicated a good amount of support for that.

We come from municipalities that have had regulations in terms of where snowmobiles can travel, the times they can travel, the speeds they can travel within their municipalities. I can see that they too would have a very distinct interest in the resolution.

We talked about the definition of highways and we indicated earlier that the definition included access roads and secondary gravel roads throughout the province. I must say that if you took a look at my riding you would find that well over 50% of the travelled portion would include both of these, so that's another reason why we must include this portion of users of these ATVs in the act.

When we go back to the actual history of what has happened in terms of inclusion of the ATV in the act, we take a look at the history going back almost 10 years to find out that yes, there has been a review, and again, as some of the members have indicated, when you hear that word "review" you sort of shudder. I must say that finding something like this under review would fly in the face of what people in, as I indicated earlier, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the municipalities and the tourist operators are trying to do to bring organization to this industry and to the use of these.

I look forward to the support that I can give this resolution on behalf of my constituents and, as I indicated earlier, representing the second-largest riding in the province of Ontario that really depends on the folks who are using the activities brought forth to us by tourism, by hunting and by sightseeing. We depend a lot on not only the snowmobile industry, but what Mr Brown has also asked to include, the four-wheelers.

I talked about anglers and hunters earlier on. There is also another helpful aspect to this resolution to many cottage owners who are now moving on to crown land, whether it be a crown land lease through the Ministry of Natural Resources or actually owned property, a remote cottage lot, and they too have come to depend a great amount on the ATVs that we are talking about, just another group within my constituency that will be looking forward to the consistency that this resolution will offer them.

In concluding, I would just like to thank Mr Brown, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, for bringing forth this resolution. I too will have no problem, on behalf of my constituents in the Kenora riding, in supporting the resolution that Mr Brown has brought forward today.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I am pleased this morning to also support the resolution of the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. I would just like to draw the people's attention, however, to the fact brought forward by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay regarding their use on private property.

I know in Renfrew county we have acres of pasture land that cattle are grazing on from early May to late October. During the summer months, when these machines are of great use to the cattle owner in that he can go to the pasture and go among the cattle slowly and check them out for pink-eye, hoof rot or disease or whatever, or to just measure the general gain, it's going to be a real service to him.

But to the person who is just out trespassing, and I know you say, "Well, that's illegal, to be trespassing," I can tell you from experience that just putting up a per hansardictionary's For Sale sign/lbNo Trespassing sign does not stop these vehicles from coming in on your property. Once they spook the cattle by speeding among them and see them run, then they tend to take that up as a form of sport to see how far they carry it on. This has happened in some instances to the point where, on a hot day, the cattle run out of breath and certainly sickness sets in and sometimes even death.

We say, "Well, there are regulations for that." But I'm concerned, who is going to do the policing? Who is going to be the one who keeps these machines where they are meant to be and being used for the real purpose?

I just feel that what we're doing here in this resolution is legalizing what's already taking place. People are using these on the roads and for hunting. If my friend the member for Simcoe East ever invites you to go fishing, don't turn him down, because he gets you across the ice on one of these machines and he makes sure he has the necessary medicine with him for cold days and you can have a very enjoyable day with him. So I wouldn't want to say that to use them off-road would be wrong; the municipalities, I know, are the ones that should have the legislation to control them, but it's going to be difficult.

1050

I would like to have some control that they would have to form clubs or something like the Ski-Doo clubs have done, because some of the Ski-Doo clubs don't like these machines on their trails either, for some reason. I'm not that familiar with why. As they came through, I know in one instance the snowmobilers had been crossing the property and they returned very faithfully, put all the fences back up in the spring, put on a dinner for the property owners and everybody has good relationships.

But then, two weeks or a month later, along comes one of these other machines and they are following the trail, so they take down the fence and they come through, following this trail. The farmer or whoever is using the land doesn't realize it. He had checked it once and everything was back in place, so he put cattle in. The next thing, there's a problem in that they're out on the road or they're in the neighbour's. So I can see a big responsibility coming down on the municipalities to try and control this in such a way that it's useful to everyone as a sport and as a means of transportation.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'd just like to say that I'm pleased the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has brought forth this resolution. There's no doubt that over the last number of years things have changed, technology has changed, where you see more and more three-wheelers and four-wheelers out there. The resolution is basically saying to change the present Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983, and give the same privileges and rights combined with the duties and obligations listed in the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1990.

Representing a northern riding, and some of the areas are remote, going up the Hudson Bay coast and James Bay coast, I know the way that snowmobiles and three-wheelers and four-wheelers are used. In a lot of cases they're used to replace, in the urban and country areas, where we would see a pickup truck used, because they're able to use the four-wheelers to put a sleigh behind and haul the firewood for the seniors in the community, because there are a lot of them who still have wood stoves for cooking and for heating the building.

There's no doubt that there's going to have to be a dialogue and some discussion and negotiation as to how we can make changes, whether we allow municipalities to make their own bylaws and regulations to bring the three-wheelers and four-wheelers under the regulations of the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act. I'm sure this dialogue probably should have taken place before now, but I'm pleased and sure that it's going to take place with a resolution of this kind.

All the speakers today have come out supporting and realizing that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has had a lot of dialogue with the hunt and fish clubs and with the various municipalities and townships and county members out there, and as a result he's brought this forward to the Legislature, asking that the Minister of Transportation take a look at this and see if we can have these regulated so that they will be safe for everybody out there. We take into consideration that some of the previous speakers have said that if there's going to be damage done to private property or if there are animals being run by it, that we make sure we have the regulations in place so that we can protect property owners but at the same time make sure that for the people who need them, whether it be industry, sawmills, pulp and paper mills, whatever, these vehicles are out there in large numbers and are being used.

I'd just like to conclude by saying that I will be supporting this resolution and looking forward to some dialogue and negotiations with MTO to make sure that the changes take place.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm pleased also to join in this debate this morning. I'm going to support the member across the way there for a number of reasons. The member of the official opposition has already spoken on some of the things that I was going to say about this bill. It's always one of the tragedies -- no, that's too strong a word. It's one of the upsetting problems that when you speak after somebody, they've said many of the things you want.

I want to talk about how this reflects on senior citizens in the province of Ontario, being as I am one of that kind myself, and I always like to stand up for their rights. Senior citizens, as the honourable member said, still enjoy their pastimes, or "they're"/lbtheir hunting, their fishing. I'm not going to suggest you're in that category, Mr Speaker, but as we get older, we find it more and more difficult to walk across the hills and dales to pursue some of those places that we hitherto before had enjoyed. I know that no matter how we get older, how much we try to keep fit, it's very, very difficult because it's an aging process that seems to catch up with all of us. No matter what our diet is or how we try to remain spry, somehow nature won't allow this.

So I encourage this bill. I think that it would enable the older citizens to still pursue and take part in many of those activities they have enjoyed for so many years, and I know I speak for many, many seniors in my riding who still enjoy hunting, fishing and the likes that this type of vehicle will allow them to pursue. My congratulations to the honourable member. I think it's good legislation and I will stand in my place later this morning and be supportive of that. Thank you for this time.

Mr Brown: I appreciate very much the contributions that have been made by the members for York Mills, Muskoka-Georgian Bay, Renfrew North, Simcoe East, Kitchener-Wilmot, Kenora, Cochrane North and Durham East. I didn't hear anybody objecting to what we are trying to do here.

What we are attempting to do, and I'm hopeful we'll have a unanimous vote later on this morning, is to get some regulations that can be obeyed, enforced and that will make life safer and also permit people to do what they should be able to do in Ontario's outdoors.

I think I should, in speaking, relate that there is some difficulty. I heard some members talk about the private lands issue, and that of course is an enforcement issue. It's an issue that really isn't addressed in this resolution, but it's one that needs to be addressed. It is now not legal to do that. It shouldn't be legal to do the things the member for Lanark-Renfrew and Mr Waters, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, were talking about. We don't want those things to happen.

But I think right now I want to pay tribute to those good folks in the Espanola Game and Fish Protective Association, and particularly Miroslav Welyhorskyj, who has doggedly, since 1986 at least, pursued this issue and tried to get the government to move. The government I hope will pay attention to what the members are saying this morning and bring forward the appropriate changes in a reasonable time frame so that we can move on with this issue so that people, the sportsmen in this province, have an opportunity to continue to take advantage of Ontario's great outdoors and all the benefits that brings to them and that it be done legally, sensibly and safely.

The Deputy Speaker: Time for the first ballot item has expired.

1100

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

Mr Wiseman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 174, An Act to revise the Endangered Species Act and to protect Threatened and Vulnerable Species / Projet de loi 174, Loi révisant la Loi sur les espèces en voie de disparition et visant à protéger les espèces vulnérables et les espèces menacées.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I'd just like to begin by saying that a form of this bill was originally introduced in 1992 and didn't make it through the proroguing of the Parliament that year, but I've brought this back in a rewritten form having received countless suggestions from a large number of people who have an interest in this topic.

They made the bill stronger so that the version that is before this House now is a reworked version of the earlier one. It has gone through a long history of evolution. In fact, my honourable colleague Bud Wildman originally introduced a bill similar to this back in the 1980s and it's been some time since we've been moving forward.

The need for a bill like this has been outlined prior to this, and the government of Canada has given a commitment to the people of the world, at the Rio de Janeiro conference of 1992, that endangered species legislation would be passed in this country. As yet, that has not happened, but I believe that Ontario, which has shown the way in many other areas, should show the way on this.

The bill itself, in terms of my own education, has come about through a large number of people in my own riding who have educated me and helped me understand the issues. I'd just like to name a few of those and hope I don't miss anybody.

Originally, the move towards a private member bill began in Catherine Murray's kitchen. Catherine Murray has worked very diligently to save the Altona forest and is a member of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists. I've worked with Dale Hoy, who lives in the Ajax portion of my riding and has been very involved in species protection locally and has contributed a great deal. Also, Steve Marshall and Glenn De Baeremaeker of Save the Rouge. I've met with John Lounds of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and I've also had the honour and privilege of meeting with World Wildlife Fund.

We've come to this point where we have this bill. So why do we need a bill like this? This is a very long topic, but I'm going to try and summarize it in a very few phrases. I'd like to read just a little bit from the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and its comments on my bill, the bill that is being presented today. "Ontario endangered species legislation has not been revised in 14 years." In fact, Ontario does have an endangered species legislation now. This bill goes one step further and talks about threatened and vulnerable species so that we can intervene earlier to prevent them from getting to the point where they are endangered.

This is from the World Wildlife Fund: "If enacted the bill would represent a major step forward for the protection of the many species of wildlife which are now at risk in Ontario." That's from Stewart Elgie of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. It says, "Most importantly, the legislation includes protection, not only for endangered species but for threatened and vulnerable species and for their habitats as well. This would help ensure that species are protected before they reach the brink of extinction." Currently, there are approximately 258 species that are endangered in Canada today.

This is from the Canadian Nature Federation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club of Canada, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the Union québécois pour la conservation de la nature and the World Wildlife Fund. It's the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition. They say why we need a bill like this: "Most people are shocked to learn that Canada has no federal legislation to protect species at risk." They go on to say, "Without a immediate legal protection, we'll be faced with expensive critical care measures as the only option to save many of our ecosystems." The coalition is calling on the federal government to live up to its commitments under article 8 of the Rio convention. If one remembers, that convention also called upon the provinces to pass legislation to protect endangered and threatened and vulnerable species. They say, "Canada will lose its leadership position on the international scene if it doesn't start implementing the convention which it signed over two years ago." That is, again, from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund.

What will my bill do? What will this bill do once it becomes the bill of Ontario and becomes the form of protection? It will enable the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations around the protection of species. It will allow them to declare any species or any animal or plant to be endangered if on the basis of biological assessment and research the species is determined to be at risk of extinction by reason of the following: destruction of its habitat, overexploitation, disease, the trading in animal parts or the deterioration of its habitat.

It was raised just a few moments ago by one of my colleagues -- in fact, it was the member for Muskoka, who so kindly let me have this time period to bring forth this bill -- that we have a problem in that we have external species threatening the environment and habitats of our indigenous species; for example, zebra mussels and purple loosestrife. It should be noted that the Canadian defence group has held a press conference this morning in Ottawa. While I don't have the exact details of everything they said, it would probably, in my assumption, be that they would be calling upon the federal government to do what article 8(k) of the Rio de Janeiro act has asked them to do. I'm looking forward to finding out exactly what they have to say.

Also, this bill would give the minister the right to create recovery plans, to set out ways of rehabilitating areas for the species and would move very quickly to prohibit the buying and the selling of parts and the trading of parts, but would continue to license those domestic suppliers that are raising plants and animals for commercial use. It wouldn't be an ending to the commercialization of the use of animals, but it would certainly protect the animals at risk.

We hear so much today. I think the World Wildlife Fund of Canada has hit a nerve here by publishing a book called The Economic Benefits of Conserving Canada's Endangered Spaces. They want to increase the amount of parkland area available in Canada, but the species that are in those areas are absolutely crucial because of the role that they play in the entire ecosystem. They talk about the economics in this publication and the contribution that is made in tourism; in animals and plants being part of the food chain, our food chain; the snowmobiling; the amount of money being spent on wildlife photography. They really raise a good argument, an economic argument, that not only protecting the environment is good for us as human beings within an ecosystem, which is an argument that is important in itself, but that within the context of our economy it's absolutely crucial that we continue to defend and protect our environment.

There is also another reason that I think is important: We have seen that within the ecosystem we receive a lot of our drugs and medicines from the natural environment. For example, I first became acquainted with this through the periwinkle from Madagascar and how some of that plant has been instrumental in curing a very rare form of leukaemia or cancer. If we continue to destroy these species without knowing what they contribute to us in this regard, then we lose a huge potential in the future.

I ask all members of this House to support this bill, to give it speedy passage and put Ontario and Canada back in the forefront of endangered species protection and legislation, and protect the environment and the ecosystem within which all of us live, work and enjoy our lives and standard of living.

1110

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I am pleased to rise this morning and indicate -- and I always think an opposition member should do this right off the top so that the government member who proposes this legislation is not held in any kind of suspense -- that we are supportive of the principle of this bill. We too are very concerned about the endangered species and we realize that the present act is inadequate.

Having said that -- and that's usually the way opposition speeches go -- I want to quote to the members a copy of letter to Mr Wiseman from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. It says:

"Dear Mr Wiseman:

"We are writing to congratulate you on the introduction of Bill 174, which contains a number of important and long-overdue reforms to Ontario's endangered species legislation.

"Given the urgency of reforming the existing Endangered Species Act, we are somewhat surprised that Bill 174 is proceeding as a private member's bill rather than as a government bill. Nevertheless, we request that the government and opposition parties work towards the expeditious passage of Bill 174.

"While we support Bill 174, there are minor amendments that we would suggest to improve the effectiveness of the bill. Accordingly, we would suggest that Bill 174 be referred to committee following second reading of the bill."

That is our attitude. They make two good points here. The first point is that this should be a government bill. While we applaud Mr Wiseman for raising it in the House this morning, you will recognize that we have but one hour this morning to debate this on second reading. A bill of this magnitude potentially means to Ontarians a great step forward. But also, as with anything, there is sometimes the law of unintended consequences. It needs a full debate in the Legislature. This morning, in the space of one hour, we are supposed to be, on a major piece of legislation presented by a private member, giving it full debate. I don't think that's possible.

I think it's necessary that we have a committee hearing so that we can determine what the possible downsides of this bill are, if any, where improvements could be made to this bill, if any. We have the Canadian Environmental Law Association suggesting that there are improvements that need to be made and that they should be made. I am just indicating here that while we are supportive, we want this bill to go to committee, we want people to be heard on this bill, so that we don't have some of the ramifications that are happening around this province as we speak.

As Mr Wiseman pointed out in presenting this bill, it follows on the steps of something like Bill 232. Bill 232 was introduced by the member for Algoma, Mr Wildman, in June 1990. As we know, Parliament did not sit much after that date. There was an election and, lo and behold, Mr Wildman became the Minister of Natural Resources, the minister responsible for the Endangered Species Act. What happened? Nothing; zero; nada. Out of that regime, out of the time that Mr Wildman was the Minister of Natural Resources, he presented but one bill to this House under the name of the Minister of Natural Resources and it was this one. It was Bill 162, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Do you know what happened to this bill? It did not even receive second reading. There was nothing happening with this bill. Some members say, "Thank goodness," and that may be true, but some of the things that Mr Wiseman was talking about -- for example, in this bill we talked about the selling of animal parts illegally; there needed to be some control. This bill addressed that particular situation. But the Legislature did not address this bill. There was never a debate. There were never public hearings. So the only bill that the government had presented to do with natural resources, following upon Mr Wildman's Bill 232, did not occur, did not happen; it was a total wipe-out.

Then in November 1992 we had Mr Wiseman presenting a very similar bill to the House to the one he's presenting today. Apparently Mr Wiseman lost that bill because he didn't get on the order of precedence, as we know around here, and he had to replace the bill, after the Legislature prorogued, with Bill 174. That's why we're here today.

I'm very surprised that Mr Wiseman has to take these initiatives and the government won't. The problem is that a bill of this magnitude proceeding as a private member's bill does not have the same opportunities and the same input that it would if the government were sponsoring it. I can see some problems with this bill. I just know.

There's something in this province called the wetlands policy. The wetlands policy is a good idea conceptually. Where the rubber hits the road, it is not necessarily a great idea. I have met, as many of my colleagues have met, with people throughout Ontario who were amazed to find just recently that they got rebate cheques in the mail on their property taxes. Why did they get those? They didn't know. Then they discovered that they were the proud owners of wetlands and, because someone in MNR had decided they had wetlands, that their property value had gone down. They didn't even know and they're not even sure they have a wetland.

The mapping in these cases has been not very good. Wetlands have not been properly identified, and land owners are now getting a rebate because the price of their property went down. But that will have cost people in Ontario millions upon millions of dollars in property value, and there's no way to appeal this. If the district biologist says it is a wetland, how do you fight that? I'm not sure.

Now that we're steamrolling Bill 163 through here, an act that amends the Planning Act, among other things, the wetlands policy becomes even more onerous on individuals. We have a policy that makes perfect sense: We've got to protect Ontario's wetlands. Nobody disagrees with that. But where the rubber hits the road, where people are dealing with this on an individual basis, we have a situation where millions upon millions of dollars are being lost to individuals without compensation of any kind and you are having to deal with a Natural Resources bureaucracy where you have to argue with a biologist about whether you have a wetland.

My colleague from Cornwall was telling me the other day that he himself was out walking a field that had been designated a wetland. Well, that field was a field. It was a productive agricultural field, and had been for many years. It had been taken out of production for a short period of time. It had grown up with things that perhaps farmers don't want, but it was as hard as my desk. It was not a wetland by anybody's definition, but it could no longer be farmed; it had been decided that it was a wetland.

We've got a good idea here in terms of wetland policy, but as it comes down to deal with individuals, there are mistakes of huge magnitude about identification of wetlands and there are huge costs to individual property taxpayers and owners who are not being reimbursed in any way by the public.

I saw a study the other day, and I forget the numbers, but I think it's about $10 million that this wetlands policy is going to cost private individuals. I don't think we as legislators wanted that to happen. Certainly I didn't. Certainly anybody involved here, I don't think, wanted it to happen, but that's what happening out there.

1120

That's my concern with this bill. If we go through this bill in committee and ask for proper public hearings, we can ensure that those kinds of mistakes in big government and big bureaucracies, which conceivably could surround what is a very good idea put forward by Mr Wiseman, I think could be avoided and we could proceed.

I'm sure that if the government would like to take over this bill, it could proceed in a way that we would find more satisfactory from our point of view, and I'm certain other members would, because it puts the resources of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Environment and Energy and any other ministry that we need directly behind the proponent and gives you all the resources of the bureaucracy to identify concerns, to identify what problems might happen and to suggest ways of improving the legislation with the full power or ability of the province of Ontario to look after that.

As I look at this bill, I see a bill with a title that sounds terrific. I don't know how anybody could oppose a bill that is going to protect endangered species. I'm standing here as the critic for Natural Resources for the Liberal Party when actually at this very second I should be downstairs in one of the committee rooms going through clause by clause on Bill 171.

The bill has a great title. How could you be opposed to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act? Forest sustainability. That's got to be perfect; you've got to be in favour of that. But do we have an act that does that? We don't. The act doesn't define what sustainability is. We don't know. It doesn't set goals. It's worse, in the opinion of most people. People from the environmental community, people from the industry, people from virtually anything to do with the forests of Ontario, are opposed because it doesn't contribute to sustainability.

For people in the north, the bill calls for a huge transfer -- $100 million to $200 million -- from northern Ontario to the south. There will actually be less money spent in the forests of Ontario once it's passed, and yet the government calls this sustainability. I mean, how could you not do that?

I guess I'm just suggesting today that the principle of this bill sounds fine, but then we look at other government actions, especially those in the Ministry of Natural Resources over the time of this government, and say to ourselves: "Whoa, you really haven't done what you said you were going to do. The legislation has huge flaws in it, costs many people a great deal of money and accomplishes often the exact opposite of what you're intending to do." That's happened in a number of instances already. I've outlined them with the wetlands policy. I've outlined them with the forest sustainability act. Good ideas, but the legislation accomplishes exactly the opposite at tremendous cost to the people of Ontario.

I would suggest to Mr Wiseman, since Mr Hampton only sits four or five seats down, you should talk to Mr Hampton and have him put the weight of the Ministry of Natural Resources behind this bill so we can get the expertise of the bureaucracy fully behind it and so members of the opposition will be able to question those members of the bureaucracy when it gets to the committee stage.

Mr Wiseman should perhaps also understand that if he does that and has his government adopt the only piece of environmental legislation it has had anything to do with, he may be able to go out in the next election and actually campaign as an environmentalist instead of with a bag over his head, as most New Democrats should have to do in terms of their record on environmental concerns.

While we support the principle, we've got a lot of problems in understanding the various parts of this bill. We think Mr Wiseman could do a good thing and talk to his own minister, who just sits a short way away, have him adopt the bill, let it go through the process in a reasonable sort of fashion and then maybe we'll have a good piece of legislation that is long overdue.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I rise today to express some concerns with Bill 174, serious concerns that I would like to put on the record.

I personally will not be supporting this legislation, firstly because the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs does not appear to have had any input whatever. This government did extend the official title of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to include Rural Affairs, and this has very much to do with rural affairs.

Interestingly the NDP, particularly when in opposition, have always tried to wrap themselves in the environmental flag and claimed a monopoly on environmental sensitivity. Of course, no one has a monopoly on this. I think we're all very concerned. The gist of the legislation, to protect endangered species, is a very motherhood issue. Of course, we all want to protect endangered and vulnerable species -- no doubt about that -- however, at what cost?

There is existing legislation in place now, and I just wonder if Bill 174 will strengthen what's already in place, or does it simply provide some window dressing to show the concerns of the government of the day regarding endangered and vulnerable species?

I certainly can understand my colleague from Durham West bringing it forth a bill such as 174. He's involved with many environmental groups, a lot of them urban-based. However, the problem goes way beyond the urban fringe in that it's something that does and will occur almost entirely in those areas that are not urbanized at all.

Bill 163, for which I notice from the order paper today closure is being brought in, encroaches very dramatically on the rights of property owners. My concern is that Bill 174 would probably be in a position of basically doing the same.

I had the opportunity of sitting in on some of the hearings of the justice committee on Bill 163, and I have here a presentation to that committee from the Ontario Woodlot and Sawmill Operators Association. They are based across Ontario; however, they are quite predominant in eastern Ontario. Their concerns with Bill 163 would be exactly the same as they would be with Bill 174.

I realize that in agriculture, herbicides and pesticides particularly are used, and we have the travesties that were caused by DDT. I know we have some falcons, some cranes and a number of reptiles that are endangered. However, going from there to encroaching on the rights of property owners -- yes, we must protect these species as best we can; big fines will be in place -- the challenge is to pinpoint the culprits and bring them to justice, which is a story in itself.

We have to agree with the purpose of the bill, but to a certain extent we're already doing what this bill calls for under the current Endangered Species Act. Yes, this will reinforce and bring it up to date, but will it really do what it's supposed to? That's our concern and my personal concern. Under the agricultural and natural resources policy, which methods will be used and how do we identify the species that we will be managing and attempting to support and to render less vulnerable or less endangered? That is not very well spelled out.

A status report shall be prepared on proposed species prior to final declaration. How many species will be covered in total? Who will decide what is an endangered, a vulnerable or a threatened species and what remedial action will be taken, remedial action within the environment, and then the encroachment on this remedial action as it will affect property land owners?

1130

It's interesting that in the wilds of Ontario, the managed woodlot tax rebate was all of a sudden cancelled by this same government --

Interjection.

Mr Villeneuve: We're not sure under what pretext. It never did come to this Legislature.

As the previous participant in the debate was speaking of, lo and behold wetlands show up particularly throughout eastern Ontario; large tracts of land which all of a sudden wind up designated as wetlands where the use of the property is very limited and the value of this property, according to some of the people who made presentations, not only was reduced but cut in half in many instances, and in some instances there's really no effective market value because no one wants to purchase this land.

In Bill 163 we have a sort of predecessor to Bill 174, and in 174 we have to agree that yes, we must protect these endangered species. However, at what cost? That is the concern I have. Within what limits would an order-to-cease activity occur?

What if the beavers all of a sudden wind up being declared a endangered species? We all know what a beaver dam in backing up water can do to a woodlot. It absolutely destroys it completely. If some of the wildlife people decide that beavers must be protected, for whatever reason they've become endangered, we have a major problem, because we have beavers in eastern Ontario and indeed throughout Ontario, but particularly in eastern Ontario, that are called nuisance beavers. Municipalities at this point are having some difficulty just keeping up with the destruction of some of the dams that have been created where entire large acreages of woodlots would be destroyed and would be destroyed very quickly, once they come under water.

The designation of wetlands has been a travesty, because many people were not even aware that their land had been designated a wetland. In the rural economic development report that our party has recently put out, we've addressed the provincial wetlands policy, and I will quote just a bit here, because we had very concerned land owners in rural Ontario that made presentations to our task force, indeed telling us the travesty and the very real suffering that these people have had financially because of the designation of lands.

"In July of 1992 this government released a new provincial wetlands policy. Opposition to this policy has been intense, particularly in" the area you and I, Mr Speaker, come from, "eastern Ontario.

"Under the new policy, wetlands classified as class 1, 2 or 3 are categorized as 'provincially significant.' Classification of wetlands is determined by the Ministry of Natural Resources evaluation system. In the Ottawa-Carleton region, approximately 3,000 private land owners are affected" directly by wetlands or the buffer area adjoining them.

"A class 1, 2 or 3 wetland designation on private property virtually freezes that property for future development purposes. Along with the classification of the actual wetland itself, the Ministry of Natural Resources established a 120-metre (400 feet) buffer zone," which is treated exactly as if it were wetlands.

The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party would have a very serious look, and this is our policy.

"The wetland policy is the product of an unbalanced political process -- it has recognized the benefit of wetlands but failed to recognize the staggering economic loss that wetland owners are forced to endure." That is from the Association of Rural Property Owners.

Our commitment to the review and restructuring of the provincial wetlands policy will be a priority if the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario forms the next government. We have it down in black and white.

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): Shame.

Mr Villeneuve: It's not a shame, property rights of people. I am not ashamed to tell you that I protect the property rights of people. I have no hesitation. I also want to protect some of the endangered species, but I have no problem protecting the property rights of the taxpayers of Ontario.

I could go on considerably but, in its present form, I personally will not be able to support Bill 174.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I really welcome Bill 174 and I congratulate the member for Durham West for bringing it forward. I think I shall take rather more of an overview than we've had in this debate so far.

This is an issue which pits individual and special interests against the common good. Certainly the member for S-D-G & East Grenville has underlined this in his defence of property rights, but I would like to bring forward something which has been called the tragedy of the commons. This was explained as being, for example, if you have grazing land on which different people graze their cattle, if one person increases his herd because he personally is going to profit from that, he will indeed profit but at the expense of leading to the collapse of the whole setup so that there will be no future grazing for anybody, and this is the kind of thing we could be looking at here.

Human beings are damaging the wildlife around us in three principal ways, which of course sometimes do overlap, but I'd just like to point out what those are.

Some species are at risk because they're valuable and therefore they get exploited for private gain. For example, as technology progressed, the once plentiful northern cod which first brought Europeans to Canada couldn't keep up with the efficiency with which they were being exploited. Nearer home, species after species of Great Lakes fish were fished out, and those who profited left very little for those who came later. Buffalo became buffalo robes and piles of bones and a memory.

Secondly, of course, pollution is deadly to wildlife. Rachel Carson blew the whistle on toxic chemicals in her seminal book, Silent Spring, in the 1960s. Since then, DDT and other toxic substances have been controlled, but inadequately tested chemicals or even chemicals known to be toxic continue to be released into air, soil and water and to become part of the food chain. Rising cancer rates and reproductive problems in wildlife and in the human population are the result, and we have a new and intractable disease which is a sensitivity to chemicals in the environment, which means some people have to withdraw to a controlled environment in order to survive.

The third and perhaps the most important way in which we damage wildlife is sheer takeover and destruction of habitat. Displaced plants and animals can't just pick up and go somewhere else. That isn't how it works.

All of these three things will continue to happen on an increasing scale if nothing is done. Some restrictions are in place but we need more. Humanity has almost succeeded in conquering and taming the world and its flora and fauna, including, funnily enough, other human beings. Territory occupied by aboriginal peoples worldwide has been drastically eroded and their lifestyles threatened or destroyed. Grizzly bears are at risk because they have to be kept separate from people.

1140

Does all of this matter? Well, of course it does. Modern civilization is less obviously dependent on the wildlife of this earth than past societies have been, but the dependency is still there and some of the ways in which it is so are only beginning to be understood. Psychologically, spiritually, as well as physically, we're an integral part of the totality of life that has evolved on this earth, which has been called Gaia, notably by Dr James Lovelock. Gaia is a complex self-sustaining feedback mechanism. We don't now and never will understand Gaia completely and how it works. If we damage the equilibrium of this wonderful and complex system we could set off uncontrollable, vicious spirals of change. We may even have done that already.

What has all this to do with the loss of whooping cranes or frogs or beluga whales? Well, firstly, I would say we need them all as part of our shared world, but secondly, we should remember the miner's canary. If the canary keeled over dead, the miner knew he had to take action to save himself. Whatever is affecting amphibians like frogs, for example, worldwide affects us too.

This bill extends the range of the Endangered Species Act and provides for preventive and corrective action and for fines and imprisonment for non-compliance. It is necessary and timely. This is, as I said, a clear issue where the good of all has to transcend the selfish acts by individuals and groups. There can be golden eggs for all if no one kills that golden goose.

Certainly we need biological diversity to maintain and improve the quality of our lives, and the loss of wild species of the few main crops of the world that the world depends on, such as wheat and corn and rice, has already put our food supplies in jeopardy. The more complex these matters become the more we depend on them, for example, hybrid varieties, the more at risk we are for diseases that could wipe out a crop worldwide. We must have that genetic diversity there to guarantee our own survival.

But I see the destruction of life around us also as a kind of blasphemy. Our culture and traditions, whether it's stories or literature, songs, visual arts, the toys we give our children, and even the structure of our language, or a total environment in which we can get away from buying and selling and recreate ourselves, all depend on the living things around us.

Canada already lacks biodiversity because of its harsh conditions and very harsh climate. This makes for a fragile ecology where loss of one species can trigger serious consequences. We do have legislation, but as pressures increase it must be updated. It is not adequate to the needs of the present.

I should point out that, although Canada has a relatively small population in a very large area, we have developed extravagant lifestyles that means we put demands on, for example, the water supply, which has meant that we are looking at problems even in this huge country which has more fresh water, I believe, than any other country in the world.

Now, we do not have to sacrifice quality of life. There are many ways in which we can maintain that quality and yet reduce the pressure that we're putting on the world around us.

I particularly commend this bill in that it provides for an advisory committee that ensures broad public input. Where we have public participation we are going to get better results than if this is just something that is left to government and bureaucrats. Eighty three per cent of Canadians believe that we should protect endangered wildlife. I had hoped that everybody in this House would support it. Unfortunately, I understand that the third party is putting the narrow, short-term interests of private property ahead of this much larger issue that we have here.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Once again the NDP is being highly judgemental before they listen to all of the arguments, which is fairly typical.

I intend to vote in favour of this bill because I'm certainly very concerned about the biodiversity that we have not just here in Ontario, but indeed throughout the world. I can't help remarking that perhaps the most endangered species is sitting across the benches from me today, but that would be partisan and I'll leave this.

It's absolutely essential that we have laws which ensure that all of the species we now have are protected. We know there are many species that have been lost this century which probably held the key to some breakthroughs in medicine, and we must halt this erosion. We've got to stop the wanton destruction of wetlands, and in fact of any habitat of fauna and species, animals and fishes, which make up our biodiversity.

But I am concerned about the severity of the penalties which are contemplated in this bill, and I'd like to just read from the section which deals with those. It says: "Any person other than a corporation who contravenes this act or the regulations, or the terms and conditions of an authorization, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $100,000 for each day on which the offence occurs or continues, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both."

You have to wonder what this government is doing. Over and over again they have brought forward important pieces of legislation in the guise of a private member's bill. The minister responsible for this, in opposition, was always talking about the bills he would bring forward, and he has done nothing. Instead, he relies on a private member's bill which gets minuscule study.

I want to juxtapose those fines with something from the report Environmental Convictions in Ontario, 1992. I note that St Andrew Goldfields Ltd, on October 30, 1992, was ordered to pay a fine of $16,000 for spilling mine tailings contaminated with cyanide into the North Driftwood River. Some 55 million litres of untreated mine tailings escaped, and during the three days following the spill, cyanide levels were 10 times higher than provincial water quality guidelines. The judge in the case noted that the company's mine manager was largely responsible for the spill because he failed to keep senior management informed of the problem at the site, and he was fined $1,000 for his role in the offence. So $16,000 to the company for a spill which lasted three days where the cyanide levels were 10 times the acceptable level, the manager fined $1,000, and yet here we've got a bill which contemplates fines of up to $100,000 per day for the individual and $200,000 a day for the corporation.

If the government wants to set a whole new direction in protecting the environment, let them spell it out in a government-sponsored bill. I too am concerned about protecting the environment, but I'm also concerned about protecting private property rights, and there can be no doubt that the NDP and indeed the Liberals over the years have consistently eroded private property rights.

1150

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It is indeed an honour and a pleasure to rise in my place this morning to speak to my colleague's bill, Bill 174, An Act to revise the Endangered Species Act and to protect Threatened and Vulnerable Species. I've encouraged my colleague to pursue this to the utmost -- not that he needed much encouragement, because his stance as an environmentalist and an activist is very well known throughout his riding. Nevertheless, I've tended to encourage him to pursue this.

I was interested and I find it rather saddening when politics is introduced in a debate about this. I heard my colleague across the way from the third party talking about standing in his place protecting the rights of property owners etc, almost like the wetlands were encroaching on property owners and somehow doing them a disfavour. I think it's absolutely scary that today, 460 acres -- and I prefer to call them acres because I'm from yesteryear when we hadn't got into the hectare business -- every minute of every day of every year are being paved over. That in itself is a threat to the survival of so many of our endangered species.

Everybody goes around and they wonderfully wear the panda in their lapel to signify their concern about endangered species. Everybody says, "Oh, yes, we've got to protect this little animal." It's wonderful how people seem to respond to the cuddly creatures of the world. They get it in their hearts, "Oh, these lovely cuddly creatures, we've got to protect." But unfortunately, when it gets away from those cuddly creatures who have got some empathy from the population, when you get out to the other types of mammals, creatures, amphibians --

Ms Gigantes: The beavers.

Mr Mills: -- and the beaver, as my colleague from Ottawa said, this becomes a bit of a problem.

I think the preservation of biological diversity in this province must be maintained as a fundamental cornerstone to the quality of our environment and indeed the quality of our life in general. As a key signatory to the world convention on biodiversity, this country, and specifically this province, must take active steps to confront the depletion of species and habitats across our lands. The current statistics have indicated that 19 mammals, birds, plants and fish were added this year to the list of Canadian species at risk, bringing the total to 255 species. Of the 19 additions, 11 can be found in Ontario.

It has long been recognized that the endangered species legislation is inadequate and relatively toothless. It has not been revised for 14 years, which makes all the more reason why I should commend my colleague the member for Durham West. It is out of touch with the realities of the modern world. This legislation offers concrete solutions for the rehabilitation and reintroduction of species and the overall health of these creatures in this province.

The proposed legislation takes a very proactive approach to the designation and classification of the species at risk, which represents a very substantial improvement over the existing legislation. By extending protection to the threatened and vulnerable species before they reach critical levels of extinction, this legislation adds to preserve and maintain populations with levels at risk, rather than simply responding to a crisis situation once the species have been labelled as endangered.

The proposed legislation provides a legal basis for a recovery plan for every endangered and threatened species within the province, and goodness only knows we need that legislation.

I think it's important to understand that the proposed legislation will provide the Minister of Natural Resources with the power to acquire land in order to protect, manage or restore the animals or plants declared to be endangered, threatened or vulnerable. I find it interesting that that part of this legislation poses such a worry and a concern to members of the third party, which I suppose really is nothing new there.

The penalties and sentencing provisions under this legislation take a much more aggressive approach towards offenders, ensuring that the environmental damage they do can be reversed or that restitution can be made. I think that is very much needed in this legislation.

Finally, as the clock ticks away to my time to run out, and perhaps most importantly, the proposed legislation places a strong emphasis upon hearing the concerns and ideas of the general public by providing for an advisory committee that would ensure broad public input on any decisions taken to designate species as threatened, vulnerable or endangered under the act.

In my last eight seconds I appeal to all members of all parties to support this very much needed piece of legislation.

Mr Wiseman: Thank you to all the members who have participated in this debate. I'd like to respond to some of these comments.

First, it was almost implied that somehow this is hasty legislation and not clearly thought through. Every member of this Legislature was given a copy of this text. It's rather voluminous, and so I can't go through it in detail, but this has been in our hands since May 1991.

Prior to that there have been many studies clearly indicating that this kind of legislation is necessary. There have been hundreds and thousands of hours of work done by people in the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the World Wildlife Fund and a whole host of other groups of people who have been involved. So this is not hasty legislation. They have all seen it and they have had comment on it, and you've heard some of those comments this morning.

As to the wetlands policy, I was instrumental in that wetlands policy. It was in response to a resolution passed in this House, by the entire House, to go forward with wetlands policy. I think it's essential that we go ahead and we continue to build on the protection that the policy puts into place. I think the failure to act and to move forward continues to put animal species and flora and fauna at risk in the province of Ontario.

In concluding, I would like to say that I am here both as a member of the government and also as an individual member who has obligations and responsibilities to his constituents. I do not believe that every action taken by this House should be from the government's executive branch. I believe that this House must regain control of the legislative agenda and that this House must show the responsibility to the people of Ontario that it is elected to demonstrate. So I again request that all members take their legislative responsibility seriously and pass this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 69, standing in the name of Mr Brown. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Brown has moved private member's resolution number 51. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND VULNERABLE SPECIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ESPÈCES VULNÉRABLES, MENACÉES OU EN VOIE DE DISPARITION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 70. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Wiseman has moved second reading of Bill 174, An Act to revise the Endangered Species Act and to protect Threatened and Vulnerable Species. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall this bill be referred to the committee of the whole? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair, and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1200 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WILLIAM KROETSCH

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Today I rise to pay tribute to the late Rev William Kroetsch, a leader in Toronto's German-speaking community for over 40 years. Father Kroetsch, who celebrated his 75th birthday last May, passed away suddenly on October 30.

Born in Saskatchewan, Father Kroetsch joined the Redemptorist order in August 1939 and became a priest in 1944. Since June 1948, he was pastor of the German St Patrick's parish on McCaul Street here in Toronto.

As you can appreciate, in this central position he played a major role in the spiritual care of German-speaking Ontarians in and around Toronto. Beyond his responsibilities as a religious leader, he also helped numerous immigrants of Germanic origin make the difficult adjustment from war-torn Europe to their new homeland.

Not only his parish, but our civic community at large has lost in Rev Kroetsch a man of rare wisdom, compassion and courageous leadership in difficult times. Ontarians from all walks of life owe him deep thanks for his untiring, selfless efforts to build strong and contributing communities of new Canadians.

I invite this House to join me in expressing our heartfelt sympathy to his family, his parish and his Redemptorist brothers.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Finance, and it's based on a letter I received from Mr Nick Unitt of Orillia about this government's continuing tax grab policies. Mr Unitt writes:

"Dear Sir:

"Yesterday, my daughter went to renew her driver's licence. She is not presently earning a great deal of money and lives on a very tight budget. She was informed that she must renew her licence for seven years at a cost of $70, rather than as she expected for one year at $10.

"I am very concerned about this matter, not only because it upset my daughter, but because of the deeper problems that I foresee.

"The government is forcing people to prepay their taxes since, of course, the driver's licence is a tax. I believe this type of taxation is not within the power of any government and is illegal.

"Secondly, this is an attempt by the present government to boost revenues at the expense of future administrations. At a guess of four million licences in Ontario at $10 each and an average required renewal of five years, the government is collecting an extra $200 million this year that will result in a shortfall spread over the next five years....

"This is fiscal irresponsibility! I hope my comments are of use.

"Regards,

"Nick Unitt."

I agree with Mr Unitt's assessment that this is just one more fiscally irresponsible tax grab from a government that has no hesitation about stripping the people in Ontario of their hard-earned cash. It is irresponsible, unwarranted and unacceptable.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard, prior to my election, a small businessperson and employer who complained about programs that the government announced were going to help business to hire people, but when they went to apply in my county they found out their business was either too small or there was a hiring quota or, worst of all, that there was still so much paperwork that they just forgot about it -- a real waste of their tax dollars.

We heard that concern and that's how we came up with the Jobs Ontario Training program. We listened to their problems, and over the last eight or 10 months, when we've gone back to talk to those businesses, it's been no surprise to me that many businesses have said this program is working. As one person said when Bob and I, Bob Rae and I, were meeting with employers --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Oh, "Bob and I." It's "Bob."

Mr Klopp: -- in Goderich, "It's the first time a government ever created a program for which we didn't have to hire five people to do the red tape when all we wanted to hire were three people in the first place."

Mr Bradley: Must be the president of the association. The president of the NDP said that.

Mr Klopp: From the catcalls across the hall, it must really be bothering them.

We answered the questions about no quota: a business that wants to hire one person or 100 people. This program is flexible. We also for the first time recognized that farmers are a business too in this province and we didn't have them having to come afterwards and say, "We'd like to apply." I remember some other program that said, "You're not a business; you can't get involved in this." We listened.

I just want to say, where are Lyn and Mike, the tag team? This program is working. They're not friends of business. We're friends of business and we're going to continue to work for them.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Yesterday the Minister of Finance was asked a question about the serious issue of mall property tax apportionment. Today I'd like to ask the minister, where is your legislation?

You know, Minister, that mall tax apportionment is a worry to many small businesses in Oriole's Fairview Mall and other large malls in the province of Ontario. These businesses are struggling to survive. Urgency is therefore a factor, as the legislation must be passed this session in order for the changes to be implemented for the 1995 tax roll.

My caucus has been calling for a solution to this matter for some time. Now, through the hard work of the anchor tenants and the smaller retailers, an agreement has been reached. Your continued stalling is creating monumental problems for all mall retailers. I repeat: The legislation has not been tabled. What are you waiting for?

This, in my view, is an example of legislative incompetence by the NDP. By not introducing this legislation, the government has proven that it's not concerned about mall retailers. The only solution to this problem of mall tax apportionment is legislation.

I know how important this issue is. You say you have a deal, but we haven't seen the legislation. If the government won't act, then I will. I put you on notice, Minister: I will table a private member's bill on Monday if you don't.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Now that the Premier has promoted the Candu nuclear reactor in China, we hope he might champion this technology at home. In the past, this government and various ministers of energy who have come and gone have blamed Hydro's fiscal problems on Darlington. Candu is not to blame. The government is to blame for creating cost overruns amounting to $6 billion.

Before our Premier saw the light, it was his anti-nuke sentiment which brought about a moratorium on Candu development during their partnership with the Liberals. However, in light of the Premier's recent conversion, I would like to share the facts and dispel the fiction about Darlington and Candu technology.

Darlington, which produces 20% of Ontario's electricity, is both an efficient and cost-effective producer. At a price, without debt overheads, of only one cent per kilowatt-hour, operating costs at Darlington are the lowest of any nuclear station in the province. With all four units at Darlington running at 100%, the station is producing power at a rate which will allow the station to retire $500 million of debt by the end of this year.

With this information in mind, I expect this government to promote Candu reactors as the most effective and environmentally benign source of energy for the province of Ontario.

SUBSTITUTE DECISION-MAKING

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Mayor Michael Prue in the borough of East York for his resounding victory in last Monday's municipal election. Mayor Prue has worked tirelessly to benefit the lives of the people of East York, and I look forward to continuing to work in partnership with him and the borough of East York.

Also, I would like to speak about the importance of the Substitute Decisions Act not only to the people in East York but to all Ontarians. This act updates the law that deals with what may happen when someone is not mentally able to make important decisions in their life. I feel it is essential for members of this Legislature to inform their constituents about this important legislation and how it may help them if they were to become incapable of dealing with their own affairs.

To this end, I want to encourage all constituents to attend any one of several information meetings that will be held across the province. These meetings are sponsored by the Substitute Decisions Project. Because of the tremendous interest in my riding, I have assisted some local members of the Leaside United Church in organizing a meeting which will be held on November 22 at 7:30 pm. I plan to host similar meetings in other parts of my riding over the next few months, and I'd like to invite all my colleagues in the Legislature to join me in my efforts to share this vital information with the public.

1340

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Today the government will be introducing yet another time allocation motion or a motion which limits the ability of the members of the Ontario Legislature to adequately debate legislation before this House.

The public would like to know, of course, that this session of the Legislature will be only a 20-day session, that the Premier decided that the House would not be called back into session normally, as it should have been, the third week of September but rather almost November 1. Then, with only 20 days of sitting, the government would introduce closure motion after closure motion, time allocation motion after time allocation motion.

We've already seen this applied to one bill. We will now see it applied to Bill 173, which is the act that relates to long-term care for many people in our community. The bill in fact may kill volunteerism across this province. It creates a much more bureaucratic system which will be difficult to administer. It will likely result, in the final analysis, in higher costs and less service to the people, and even Price Waterhouse, which had given a letter of some support in the past, has withdrawn that.

Clearly, this government does not want to see an adequate debate of this piece of legislation which has so much opposition in the province of Ontario. This is once again a sad day when this government stifles debate and stifles the opportunity for the public to have input on an important piece of legislation.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This Monday, every voter in Ontario had the opportunity to choose which elected officials they wanted to run their municipal governments for the next three years. Unfortunately, in many municipalities voter turnout was less than stellar, often just one third of all eligible voters. That's half the 60% to 65% turnout recorded for most provincial elections. In my home town of Brockville, only 35% of eligible voters bothered to cast their ballot. In Toronto, the turnout was 36%.

Later today I will be introducing a bill entitled the Municipal Elections Amendment Act. The thrust of the bill is straightforward: to provide that polling stations for municipal elections shall open two extra hours in the morning, so they shall open at 8 am rather than 10 am as the Municipal Elections Act currently provides.

Statistics have shown lately that workers, those fortunate enough to have a job in this province, are working longer and longer hours. Opening the polls at 10 am does not permit most people to vote before they begin their busy working day. My amendment will help long-distance commuters or those on shift work. It will help those who, while provided by law with three hours in which to vote during the day, feel they are just too busy to go back home and cast their ballot.

The cost for this change will be minimal. It will bring municipal voting hours closer to provincial poll hours and, most importantly, it will boost the number of voters able to exercise their democratic right.

SCHOOL TEACHERS

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Recently, I attended the annual meeting of the Wellington County Women Teachers' Association, and while I was there I was talking with a lot of teachers. It reminded me of the important jobs that teachers do every day.

You know, Mr Speaker, being a former teacher, how hard the job is. As front-line workers in our education system, they deserve our respect and our support, and we, as parents and community leaders, should recognize and thank our teachers openly for their dedication and their perseverance. Even though they, teachers, have taken the brunt of the criticism being levelled at our education system, they are still the ones who are going to be there for our children.

Teachers must always be seen as partners in our system, not as a problem. They are a major reason that our system has survived through countless years of change, some of which has put teachers in an environment of being all things to all people. They deal with drug and alcohol problems, stress, sexism, racism and violence. They must identify family abuse and be the moral leaders of our children. Teachers deserve a fair shake from government, communities, parents and the media.

Each of us can remember a teacher who did something special for us. It's time we remembered what we should be doing for teachers. I give the teachers of Guelph and Wellington county an A+.

OPPOSITION DAY MOTIONS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Members will be aware that there appears on today's Orders and Notices paper two notices of an opposition day to be debated next week. Under standing order 42(d) the Speaker is required to select one of these notices for consideration, taking into account the order in which they were received. I would like to advise the members that the motion by Mr Harris will be the one that will be selected for debate next week.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FURNACE VENTING SYSTEMS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): In the absence of the Minister of Housing and in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, my question will therefore be to the Premier, the leader of the government.

Premier, despite the very unseasonal November weather, we all know that winter is coming. We have in Ontario evidence that 10,000 homes domiciling tens of thousands of our residents and constituents are, as of this moment, confronted with potentially defective venting systems for recently installed heating devices.

Your government has known of this for several months, and I put the question to you today -- I regret that the two ministers to whom I would ordinarily direct this are not here, but I have to tell you, Premier, that there is a widespread concern in the homes of those 10,000 dwellings where these defective devices have been identified.

Premier, can you or anyone else in the government today indicate what help, what action, what comfort you and your government are going to provide on the eve of winter for these thousands of Ontarians faced with a potentially serious health hazard?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Good question.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It is a good question, and it's a serious one. I would say to the member that I take the question seriously, but I will have to take it as notice and will undertake to speak to the --

Interjection: He has come in.

Hon Mr Rae: No, that would be for an MNR question. With respect, this isn't to do with water; this is to do with heating.

Since it has to do with heating and since it has to do with some 10,000 residents, the member is asking a reasonable question. I hope that in the circumstances he will appreciate that what I will do is undertake to have the ministers respond to him on Monday.

Mr Conway: I appreciate that. The reason I raise the question today is that I just received a copy of a letter that's been sent to the government, to the Minister of Housing, copies to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and the Premier got a copy of it as well and I'll be happy to provide him with another. It's from the Ontario Home Builders' Association, and I will be happy to send it over.

Let me just read one part of the letter which was sent by the Ontario Home Builders' Association to the Ontario government, including the Premier, a few days ago. I realize he may not yet have seen this. This is a very real problem, because these venting systems that are potentially defective could, if they fail, release carbon monoxide into these homes. They're not just single-family dwellings. My information is that we have some government of Ontario social housing units that are also involved and affected. Our evidence is that there are 10,000 homes in Ontario that have been identified as having these potentially defective venting devices. If these devices fail, they could send carbon monoxide into these homes and dwellings.

The Ontario Home Builders' Association, in its letter to the government of November 14 says, in part, "In light of the time that any remedial action is going to take for the homes involved and in light of the very real risk of serious injury, any program, any remediation must be implemented and announced to homeowners within days, if not hours."

Premier, I ask you again to indicate to the House and to all of these affected people that you will take immediate action to coordinate a remedial program before winter sets in, because these are mostly furnaces. We've been lucky we've had very, very unseasonably warm weather in November, but the first bit of cold weather is going to send these furnaces into action and, I repeat, 10,000 homes serving tens of thousands of our residents are affected.

Hon Mr Rae: Since it's customary, when a member refers to a letter or a piece of correspondence, that he would share it with me, and obviously there's an issue here, I would like simply to say to the member that we take the concerns that have been expressed very seriously. I can assure him that in terms of the House there will be a response to him on Monday. I can also assure him that in terms of the issue he has now raised today, obviously I'll be speaking directly to the deputies involved as soon as I leave this place and discover exactly what the situation is.

Mr Conway: I appreciate that the Premier has given an undertaking that we will have a statement by the government on Monday of next week, because it is a matter of urgent and pressing concern to a lot of people. I appreciate the Premier's undertaking, and we will await a response on Monday of next week.

1350

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My next question is to the Minister of Health and it concerns the Mental Health Act. It is now nearly two years since the coroner's inquest filed its report following upon the tragic death of Christopher Stephenson, who was brutally murdered in Ontario a few years ago.

The minister will know that that coroner's inquest recommended changes to the Ontario Mental Health Act that would keep predatory sex offenders off the streets. Making these changes called for by the Stephenson inquest is well within your -- our -- Ontario jurisdiction. In fact, one of your senior officials told the Stephenson inquest that changes could and should be made to the Mental Health Act to keep these predatory sex offenders off the streets and away from our children.

Minister, I ask you: Since these changes to the Ontario Mental Health Act are needed, and needed immediately for the reasons stated, and since you clearly, by the admission of your own officials and the Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, have it within your jurisdiction and competence, will you, for the protection of the children of Ontario, commit today to make immediately those changes to the Mental Health Act?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me start by saying that the recommendations of that coroner's jury and of others, and of course the question of public safety and the protection of children and families, are of very real and serious concern to us and we take them very seriously. After that coroner's recommendations were received two years ago, in fact we established within the Ministry of Health a group to examine all of our forensic issues and policies.

We are very encouraged by discussions we've had between ministries, because this is not merely a case of making changes to the Mental Health Act. It is a case of working in a much more coordinated way between ministries both provincially and federally. In many cases the kinds of people the member refers to have been confined under the Criminal Code and then, when their term is served, it becomes an issue for communities, because under the Criminal Code they may well be released.

We are working with our own ministries and with the federal government to deal with these issues. I'm not in a position today to give the member an assurance in a blanket way as to what that solution will be, but I do say to him that we take it very seriously.

Mr Conway: The public out there, particularly the parents of children, doesn't care about intergovernmental committees. All they know is that two and a half or three years ago an innocent 11-year-old child, Christopher Stephenson, was brutally murdered by a repeat sex offender who somehow got through the cracks, and two years ago or a year and half ago the Deputy Attorney General, George Thomson, and the senior official, Gilbert Sharpe from the Ministry of Health, said that these kinds of changes that were called for by the Stephenson inquiry could and should be made by this government in this Legislature.

Tomorrow, Wray Budreo, another tragic case of a predator with a long record of molesting children, is eligible to walk out the doors of the Kingston penitentiary and to return to the streets and the shopping malls of Ontario. On behalf of the parents of millions of kids in this province, I ask you, I beg you, will you today commit to do what people like the Deputy Attorney General and your own officials said months ago could and should be done? Will you please, in the interests of and for the protection of innocent, defenceless young children, amend the Mental Health Act so these repeat sexual predators do not return to the streets and shopping malls to prey upon defenceless kids?

Hon Mrs Grier: As a mother, as a grandmother and on behalf of everybody in this House, I don't think any of us needs to be lectured about the need to protect the safety of kids on the streets in our communities.

If I move today amendments to the Mental Health Act as the member suggests, that would not deal with the particular instance that he refers to that is occurring this week.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): You've had lots of time, Ruth.

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

Hon Mrs Grier: What I am saying to him and what I continue to commit us to is making sure that in every case where there is any risk to the safety of the people of this province, the work, the collaboration and the coordination that needs to occur between corrections and between health institutions occurs and is occurring. In a case such as the one he refers to, corrections and the ministry and any other institutions involved, I can assure him, have the discussions that are appropriate to deal with any particular case.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Madam Minister, your responses and inaction in this matter are, in a word, irresponsible. You have a duty and a responsibility to act.

I introduced into this Legislature this Monday and gave to you a piece of legislation which would amend the Mental Health Act. This legislation has as its purpose a mechanism by which the public can be protected against dangerous sexual offenders who are about to be released into the community. You have the legislation. It is tabled. You have the authority and the responsibility to act. Will you pass legislation which protects our children from dangerous sexual predators?

Hon Mrs Grier: The opposition begins its question by saying this coroner's jury was two years ago. Then it tells me that this week it has produced a solution and that we should have answered immediately.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): You're the minister.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me tell the member what has happened over the last two years since those coroner's jury --

Mrs Sullivan: It's her job to do it.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take her seat. The member for Halton Centre, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: The coordination, collaboration and cooperation between ministries and between the federal and provincial governments that has been established over the last two years is unparalleled in the experience of previous governments.

We immediately, after the coroner's jury which was referred to, established within our own ministry a group to look at our forensic services. We have established with the provincial ministries of Health, Solicitor General, Correctional Services and Attorney General a mental disorder justice review committee that is developing a common framework, that is articulating a strategy for mentally disordered offenders. We have two federal, provincial and territorial working groups examining policy, operational and legislative issues.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Do something, Ruth.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Oriole please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: For the first time, all of the various ministries involved are working together to protect the safety of the people of Ontario.

1400

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Attorney General and it as well is about the fact that Wray Budreo, a convicted, sadistic paedophile, is going to be released into Ontario within a matter of days. This man has a 30-year history of molesting children and it seems everybody agrees that he shouldn't be out on the street, but we're powerless to do anything about it.

Minister, you are the seniormost minister in the Bob Rae government responsible for justice in this province. Could you please tell the parents of children in this province just exactly what you are doing and your government is doing today regarding the release of Wray Budreo? What are you doing for the safety of our children?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): The member needs to be reminded, as the Health minister reminded us all, that this sort of situation is a concern for all of us. I would say, as I always say in this House, it is not appropriate for us to be discussing specific instances but it is important for us to realize that the law has certain provisions within it and that it is the responsibility of governments to support the provisions of the law.

What we are doing --

Mrs Caplan: Then change the law.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I cannot change the federal law --

Mrs Caplan: You can change the Mental Health Act.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- and the minister has already responded around the Mental Health Act.

What I will say to the member is that in cases like this our government has taken a very strong stance that where it is appropriate and where the recommendation from a crown attorney is that we apply for a dangerous offender application, that is what we do. We have been very vigorous, much more vigorous than other administrations in this province or in fact the administrations of other provinces, to apply for dangerous offender applications, which are the provision in the Criminal Code to deal with this kind of case where there has been repeated behaviour that has not been changed by the efforts of the correctional system.

I would say to you that when sentencing has already occurred, when a situation has already occurred, the actions are limited when a person has already served their sentence and those actions cannot be done through the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code once that has happened, that in cases that occur now --

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- we are very vigorous in our pursuit of dangerous offender applications, which is the method we do have at hand.

Mr Jackson: On October 31, Christopher Higginbottom, a known homosexual paedophile, was acquitted in Milton district court under provincial jurisdiction of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy in Burlington. He previously had attacked four other children victims, in the United States, in Oakville, Ontario, and in Hamilton, Ontario. He has received convictions for previous assaults and he has been in and out of the Clarke Institute four times with assessments, and Dr Peter Collins's partial testimony that I have from that trial is very frightening indeed about the incidence for reoffending here.

They read into the court Mr Higginbottom's diary, and it contains references to having repeated sex with the little boy, then chopping up his body parts and doing things with them. He can only be held in this province for another seven days on a vagrancy charge, Minister, because he was found, in violation of his probation, wandering through an elementary school in Burlington.

Now you've indicated that your government might consider changes to the Mental Health Act, but we need some action today, and you said you've been diligent in this matter. I want to remind you, my colleague the member for York Mills two years ago called upon you and your government -- he tabled a private member's bill, the Registration of Pedophiles Act, to protect children against sexual predators. Minister, why have you done nothing and why will you not support this bill?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have an obligation as the Attorney General to be very mindful of the rights of all individuals, whether they have been accused or not of various crimes in this province. It is extremely important that we in this House be very aware that many people are accused of crimes. If we cannot in the courts prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the court that a particular accusation is true, then a conviction doesn't result, and however much we might regret that, that is the rule of law and it is the rule of law that we must protect for our own protection because otherwise all accusations might result in a very serious problem for justice for all of us.

It is in all of our best interests to realize that we have a regime that whatever our concerns may be about an individual and whatever an individual may have been convicted of doing in the past, if we cannot prove in a particular case beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the court that a crime has been committed and that that individual committed it, then we cannot get a conviction. In terms of dangerous offenders, as the member asked, we cannot ask for a dangerous offender application unless the person has been convicted, and then in sentencing we can ask for a dangerous offender application.

So I would say to the member, yes, there are times when it appears to the community that the justice system may not be working as they wish, but we cannot pick and choose our cases. In terms of the registration of paedophiles, this goes to the very heart of how we deal with the issue of protecting our children and protecting our communities.

The member will be aware that the federal Minister of Justice is looking at the possibility of registration of those who have been convicted of such crimes, looking at how they can be screened if they are going to be hired in areas that have to do with children. But the member must also be very mindful that it is the job of all of us --

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- to protect against the unreasonable infringement of the rights of citizens of this country.

Mr Jackson: Christopher Higginbottom was charged with sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, sexual intercourse, forcible confinement and anal intercourse with an 11-year-old Burlington boy. The judge in this case did not believe the testimony of the now 12-year-old boy.

His stated reasons for judgement in this case were that he was uncomfortable with the demeanour of the complainant and the credibility of the complainant. I suspect that most 11-year-olds who have been sexually assaulted are having some difficulties out there. It's the whole basis on which the Grandview victims had to become more believable in the eyes of the court.

The judge and the crown in this case were not made aware during the trial that the victim suffers from attention-deficit disorder. He was awakened at 6 am to be taken on a trip to court, to arrive at 8:30 in the morning, and was on this trial stand at 2:30 in the afternoon.

Would you not agree, given that the time for appeal from the crown's office, where you can have a hand, will expire at the end of this month, on behalf of the victim child's mother, who has written a letter, and I'll give you a copy, to undertake an appeal of this case based on this evidence, and will you not read the reasons for judgement and examine, with the crown office involved, to determine if in fact we can have an appeal and keep this dangerous paedophile, self-admitted on the stand homosexual paedophile, off the streets until justice can be properly served in the province of Ontario? Will you give that assurance to the family and to this victim?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We have a process within the ministry whereby we go through the exercise of looking at whether or not decisions in the duly constituted courts are appealable or not, and as that process goes through, recommendations are made from the trial crown attorney, they are reviewed a number of times within the crown law office, and then a recommendation is made to me. Indeed the member is quite right, at the end of that process it is my responsibility to make a decision one way or the other in those kinds of situations.

But it is very important that this member be aware that it is totally inappropriate to be discussing a case that may or may not be appealed within this House. He knows that. He has been warned about that many times. It is now a real problem that he has raised in this House --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Burlington South.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- in a public forum, issues that may become under appeal in a court of law, and I will not discuss it any further.

1410

ANTI-RACISM ACTIVITIES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is for the Attorney General. Ernst Zundel, a self-identified Nazi, is a key figure in a network of Fascists and white supremacists and is responsible for publishing and exporting a huge volume of hate propaganda that is distributed worldwide.

I'm sending over a copy of Power: Zundelists vs Zionists, published by Ernst Zundel from 206 Carlton Street in downtown Toronto. I'd like to quote from the document:

"Now the time and hour has come for the American and Canadian patriotic movement to rise like one man and vent their wrath on those German traitors and vassals. We can finally lance that festering boil and expose the Holocaust racket."

Minister, I am offended by this statement. However, I am equally offended by your government's inaction. Why have charges not been laid against Ernst Zundel?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I too am offended by this, and I will say to the member that he is well aware that charges are laid in the first instance at the instance of the police, who bring materials forward. Yes, I need to, in this particular case of hate literature, agree to a charge or not, but I do that when the police have a case, bring a charge and bring that to us, and this has not happened in this particular case. So the member needs to be aware that this is the process that goes on.

I share his concern about this sort of thing, but he is also aware that there are very great difficulties with the hate law as it is now defined in the Criminal Code. We have many times, as a province, talked to our federal counterparts about the need to change that law and make it more effective in order to deal with this sort of thing, and we continue to advocate on behalf of that.

But I will say to the member that this material has not been brought forward to me with a request for a charge.

Mr Harnick: In this province, the Attorney General's department has time to run anti-racist seminars. They think of having segregated diversion programs. Now you have a chance to really deal with something to show that this means something to your government.

I'm sending over another copy of Power: Zundelists vs Zionists, and would like to read another quote from Ernst Zundel: "Not all goys are stupid. Not all are going to be forever intimidated. One day in the not too distant future, the tables might well be turned and the aroused Gentile world will mete out justice and vengeance." Minister, does this not constitute the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, as defined in the Criminal Code?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I will certainly take this material to the crown law office and have them consult with the police around whether or not this is a chargeable offence under the law. I accept the legal advice of those who are experts in this area.

There are many people who make allegations, around different pieces of literature, that they fit the definition of the law and then have been proven, in the courts and before a court, that in fact that is not seen to be the case. But I will certainly bring this material to the notice of the crown law office and will seek its advice about the appropriateness of a charge being laid in this case.

Mr Harnick: I'm going to quote one final passage from Power: Zundelists vs Zionists: "Once cleansed from the stigma of having been tainted by Nazi Holocaust lies and propaganda, we can use the eminently successful policies of Hitler."

Minister, this self-identified Nazi is responsible for publishing and exporting hate propaganda that is distributed not only in Canada but to over 41 countries worldwide. The government of Germany has asked that you take every action within your power to stop Ernst Zundel. When will you respond to the requests of the government of Germany and of human rights groups like B'nai Brith and stop the spewing of this filth from Ontario that incites hatred and violence?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member was quite correct in asking that we do everything within our power to do this. I agree with him: We must do everything within our power. He does not agree with the judgement we have made, which we have made in conjunction with our federal counterparts, about where our power lies. There are certain things we can do in our jurisdiction and other things we cannot. It does not mean we are not concerned about this material. It does mean we are prepared to do what we can.

While I admire the member's very strong motivation in bringing this forward, and I think it is an issue that needs public discussion, it is also an issue that is of very sensitive concern to many people. There are many of those who are affected by the kind of hatred expressed in the quotes he made who are deeply affected by this sort of matter and in fact are offended that we would repeat those words in this House. We need to be very clear when we deal with this sort of thing that the more publicity we give this kind of scurrilous material, sometimes the more people think it has some power that it ought not to have.

ENVIRONMENTAL PAMPHLET

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): In the absence of my friend the Premier and especially in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy.

My good friend Mrs Fawcett has returned from the rural reaches of Northumberland, and she has brought some really interesting mail that the House generally and farm members particularly will be interested to hear. My question concerns a brochure that is being put out by an environmental group which claims to be generously supported by the Ontario Ministry of Environment. This environmental group that is involved in public education out in the rural areas and elsewhere is called the Power of the Dream Collective. The Power of the Dream Collective has prepared a brochure with the generous support of the Ontario government, the Ministry of Environment, and this is to help educate the young people of Ontario.

Let me read just one part of this public information brochure that is being distributed in the schools of Northumberland and I presume elsewhere. This is what the Dream Collective is observing and is using as part of its education material: "Agribusinesses being run by large multinational corporations are having a devastating impact on the planet's ecology. The unabated use of carcinogenic pesticides on farms and orchards, as well as the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and growth hormones in meat and dairy production, is poisoning every link in the food chain." Then of course the brochure goes on to warn kids to stay away from meat and dairy products, because of course this conspiracy is somehow organized to contaminate much of their food.

Minister, since this brochure, which I think you've now got a copy of, is put out by the Power of the Dream Collective, generously supported by your ministry, can you tell us whether or not you're aware of this and if you have any views about this kind of public information campaign, particularly in the rural counties like Northumberland?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): The member should free the back bench. I don't know why the member for Northumberland couldn't ask a question about her own riding. But I would be happy to tell the member for Renfrew North, who is speaking on behalf of his friend from Northumberland, that this group has indeed received funding from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, but the Ministry of Environment and Energy did not provide funding for the production of this brochure, nor did the ministry have any involvement in it.

I would also point out to the member, as he's fully aware, that the ministry also provides funding to organizations such as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for its programs, and also produces educational materials for the schools that deal with the safety of Ontario food and all the efforts that are being made to deal with the environmental problems we all face.

I would be happy to reiterate for the member's edification and for the information of all the members of the House that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs was able to publish last week a document that showed that farmers in this province are making a tremendous lot of progress in lowering the use of pesticides in Ontario. We're all in support of that, and the ministry is doing everything it can to help them.

1420

Mr Conway: Let us be clear. Teachers and students in rural Ontario, and I represent a big slice of it, are getting a brochure that says clearly and unequivocally, and let me quote the introduction, "This brochure, which was created by the Power of the Dream Collective...was made possible through the generous support of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment." That is what is on this brochure.

I want to make it very clear that teachers and farmers in Northumberland and in Renfrew and in Essex and in Algoma will be getting this, and they're mad as hell. They know that this government, according to Tom Walkom, is run by a pack of nitwits who are apparently connected to some kind of extragalactic power. And they will want to know --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Will the member for Renfrew North take his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I would like the member to take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is asked to come to order.

The member for Renfrew North, the distinguished member for Renfrew North, will know that he used unparliamentary language, and I am surprised at the lack of respect for the Chair. I would ask the member first to at least withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Mr Conway: I'd be happy to. I want to follow your order, Mr Speaker. Which of the statements? I'll withdraw when somebody tells me. But I've got to tell you, I've got a bunch of farmers who are going to be pretty ticked off.

The Speaker: I would ask the member to simply withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Interjection.

The Speaker: All right. Will the member take his seat, please. Will the member please take his seat.

A question has been placed. Minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, after listening to that philippic from the member opposite, I can only conclude that his whole approach is Mephistophelian.

I would say that the member knows very well that the document he has before him has a good deal of information in it which is of use to all of us in terms of dealing with the environment. However, the comments made about diet, as I've said, are matters that are of concern to the farm community in this province, and I don't think it serves that community or anyone else very well to play the court jester in this place.

We are doing everything we can to ensure that the agricultural community, in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, can move forward to deal with issues such as the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, and how we deal with those matters to protect the environment and to ensure that we have good, safe food production, which we've always had and have always been proud of here in this province.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. It concerns an ongoing issue in the county of Simcoe with regard to the short rail lines. My colleague the member for Simcoe West has raised this issue on many occasions, as have I.

Last November 1, the Minister of Labour said: "We have found potential investors for these lines. Ontario has taken the leadership in the absence of the federal leadership." Minister, can you tell us today what you're going to do with regard to the disastrous effect of the job-killing Bill 40 in this Legislature on the abandonment of the CN lines?

Your colleague has promised he would bring forth the agreements. I understand that there's a letter and communications from Labour with regard to the ongoing problem we're having. Could you enlighten the people in Simcoe county today as to what's happening?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I truly appreciate the opportunity to address this matter. The member's concern is well noted, as are those of other members from that region of the province. I hope he will acknowledge and will actually take this message back to the people and to the federal government representatives in that area, who have not been doing a job in terms of representing the members of that part of the province, that in fact we are making progress at the provincial level in trying to clean up the mess that CN and the federal Liberals are leaving us with respect to their policy of abandonment of rail lines in Ontario.

I do want to address specifically the comment the member made with respect to Bill 40 because there is important information in advancements that have been made.

Following meetings that have taken place with the national rail unions, those unions have indicated a full willingness to negotiate appropriate collective agreements to short-line operations. By that I mean they've indicated a willingness to combine into one collective agreement, and collective agreements that differ from the national rail agreements.

In meeting with the mayors up in Simcoe county, both the city and regional representatives, they have indicated, along with business people, they have indicated to me that they understand that Bill 40 in fact is not an impediment in this area any more. A member over there looks surprised. In fact, they've said that directly to me. I'll tell you about the Goderich line; the Exeter line, which in fact was short-lined before Bill 40.

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

Hon Ms Lankin: People say that's an example of why Bill 40 is a problem. It has now been certified with the union. They're negotiating a first contract.

The union's indication in writing, directly to me in person and to potential investors, that it will sit down and negotiate has alleviated that as a problem or barrier to the creation of short lines.

Mr McLean: Quite frankly, the people of Simcoe county are running out of patience; they want something to happen. We have a copy of a letter from federal minister Young with regard to the problems indicating to us that as of next February or March, they will start removing the lines.

What agreements are we going to have, and what are you going to do to make sure that the lines are put in place? Can you give us the names of the investors that are interested in purchasing the lines? Do you have any correspondence from investors that said they're willing to purchase the lines? Do you have any correspondence from the unions that indicates they will cooperate, with one union, so we can proceed to negotiate to sell these lines? Can we have that information, please?

Hon Ms Lankin: I'd be pleased to share copies of correspondence with the member. I know he will take them back to share with the public in Simcoe county and at public meetings that will be held in the near future that I'm aware of, and I look forward to that information being disseminated. I have letters from the unions which indicate their willingness to negotiate flexible agreements suitable to short lines.

There are a number of potential investors which the community is aware of. But I'll tell you, the member hit the nail right on the head when he talked about the letter from the federal Liberals. Quite frankly, we fought together with provincial members from that part of the province to stop the abandonment of the Barrie-Collingwood line, and you'll know that the National Transportation Agency ruled in our favour and said that for two more years they couldn't do it. And what happened within a matter of two months? CN applies for abandonment of the south part of the line, from Toronto up to Bradford, which would cut the legs out from under the community up there, and applies for reconsideration of that NTA decision.

It is time the federal Liberals took control of CN and stopped the destruction of our national transportation systems.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm not satisfied with the answer. Under the rules of this Legislature, I will be calling for a late show.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member will file the necessary papers, I trust.

1430

WATER QUALITY

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I understand from examining the Provincial Auditor's report that in 1992 his office examined water treatment plants in the province of Ontario and found some not in compliance. As a result of this being raised by some ballistic members of the official opposition, it got some interesting media and it caused some phone calls to my constituency office.

This was 1992. The Liberals chose to do nothing when they were in office, reaping great revenues in the province of Ontario. However, I want to say that in my riding, with the Ontario Clean Water Agency and with less than 1% of the population of the province of Ontario, we got 6% of the dollars available to ensure that water treatment plants and sewage plants in my riding are up to standard.

However, Minister, yesterday you promised to table in this House a list of the water treatment plants in Ontario which the auditor identified as having been out of compliance. Have you tabled this list and what does it tell us?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Environment and Energy.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): This is question period, not slow-pitch. Slow-pitch they play outside.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the minister take his seat, please.

Minister?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): I do believe that it is important for all members of the House to receive information that is accurate and up to date, particularly because of some of the concerns that have been raised as a result of the important auditor's report that was tabled earlier in the week. I made a commitment yesterday that --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You tried to cover it up.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: The members will know that concerns have been raised, and I made a commitment yesterday that when I tabled the 23 that the auditor had actually looked at, I would also table today a full list of the 120 sites referred to in the auditor's report. I have tabled a list of 151.

The reason for the difference in number is that some municipalities have more than one water source and the auditor grouped them by municipality, so that's the reason for the difference between 151 and 120. It is on the Clerk's desk. It will be distributed to members of the House and it shows very clearly the up-to-date information, as of this date, that there are no unsafe drinking water situations in the 151 listed. The water is safe, despite what my friend across the way attempted to persuade the public and to warn them about this issue.

I will just close --

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

Hon Mr Wildman: I will just say that 73 --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could the minister quickly conclude his response.

Hon Mr Wildman: I will try, Mr Speaker. Of the 151, 73 are fully in compliance; 88 have minor problems but the indication is that there are no unsafe drinking water sources in this list. There is one -- only one -- "boil water" order that we know of in the province --

The Speaker: No, I'm sorry. Would the minister take his seat, please. More than ample time has been allotted for the minister to reply. There is a supplementary allowed. There may be an opportunity to add more information. The minister knows he can table information.

Mr Paul Johnson: My only supplementary would be only to get a fuller response with respect to it, but if that's inappropriate, then I can wait to see the report on the table.

Hon Mr Wildman: I was just saying that there is one "boil water" order in the province. That's at McMarmac in northwestern Ontario, the water supply for Red Lake. That is the only such order in the province at this time. There is safe water for the residents of Ontario. The ministry took immediate action upon the receipt of the report in 1992. The auditor made a very important report as to the status of 1992. In 1994 we have safe water in the province, despite the fact that this disappoints the members opposite.

CANCER TREATMENT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, this morning I sponsored a press conference by the Alliance of Breast Cancer Survivors. Dr Judith Rosner-Siegel and many other breast cancer survivors are with us in the gallery today.

In December 1993, a new drug, Taxol, was approved for use against metastatic breast cancer. Taxol has been proven to be extremely effective in improving the quality of life of many women who have been threatened with this disease. Unfortunately, Taxol is not available to many Ontario women who have this type of breast cancer, and your government has not agreed to fund the cost.

Minister, in a letter dated September 15, 1994, your ministry encouraged the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation to establish administrative guidelines and conduct clinical trials. Although you did not require the cancer foundation to do so, it will be providing you with administrative guidelines and positive efficacy results shortly. When you receive these guidelines, will you commit today that you will provide the necessary funding to cancer centres and hospitals across the province to ensure that Taxol is available to the women who so desperately need it?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to address this question because I'm certainly very aware of the concerns that were raised this morning, and disturbed that the impression seemed to be left that Taxol was not being paid for. We in fact spent $700,000 last year on Taxol through the regional cancer centres and through hospitals in this province.

It is a new drug. It is a drug that is very effective in some cases. It is extremely expensive because the pharmaceutical companies, of course, set the price, but as a woman and as part of a government that has done more to improve the cancer treatment in this province than any other government in the country, I am delighted when a new drug does appear because it gives us all hope. We have asked the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation to provide us with guidelines so that it may continue to be prescribed in a way that we can be sure is most effective and most cost-effective.

1440

Ms Poole: Let's make it very clear, Minister: The federal government has already conducted clinical trials, established guidelines and approved Taxol for usage in Canada. Secondly, nowhere in this letter does it imply, suggest or state in any way that if guidelines and efficacy testing are provided, then you will provide funding for this drug.

You did not require the Ontario cancer foundation to provide the information; you only encouraged it. Notwithstanding that, they are providing the information to you. What you have said is that you're going to leave the cancer centres to carry the burden alone, and then there is no option for all those women who are receiving treatment in hospitals. They are not receiving the treatment of Taxol, which as you know is a last-resort treatment for metastatic breast cancer.

Minister, we're not looking for a bureaucratic response. We're looking for real help for real people. Will you today commit that once you receive this positive report from the cancer foundation, you will provide funding for the treatment centres and also the hospitals across this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: I thought I made it very clear in my first response --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think the word might resemble "fuddle-duddle" from the minister over there, who just told me to eff off in this House. I demand an apology from the Minister of Environment and Energy right now.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the House comes to order, I will deal with the matter that's been raised.

To the honourable member for Mississauga West, I did not hear the alleged remark, but as is our custom, I will allow the Minister of Environment the opportunity to withdraw such a remark if such a remark indeed was made.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Mr Speaker, if I made any remark that offends the member, I withdraw it.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say, as a woman, that when there is a matter under discussion that is of critical importance to all of the women and their families, such as breast cancer, a disease in which 6,500 women a year in this province are being diagnosed, to interrupt such an exchange because of games between members is typical of the members opposite and affronts me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me use the opportunity to repeat our government's action and commitment on cancer in this province: Two new cancer centres, 13 more radiation machines, 600 more breast-screening centres, $185 million to Princess Margaret Hospital, that's what this government has done in four years.

In response to the question that was raised by the member for Eglinton, the letter she refers to is very clear. It says the foundation, OCTRF, should identify funding pressures resulting from increased service demand in its operating plan. These pressures will be dealt with through the operating plan process. We need the guidelines so that physicians can be clear as to what circumstances they prescribe this drug, and we need the guidelines so that patients can be sure that they get the drug they need when they need it and when it will be effective.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Simcoe West.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think it's appropriate to get on the record the offence taken by myself, as the member for York Centre, and my colleague the member for Mississauga West.

During her response, the Minister of Health suggested that in this very important matter relating to the government's initiatives on breast cancer, we had interrupted the proceedings with a matter of privilege. To simply set the matter straight, during her answer, the Minister of Environment and Energy was with the table officer berating the --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member will take his seat now. I caution the member. He is about to be named.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West will be recognized. He will have an opportunity to place his question. I caution the member for York Centre that it is not helpful, when trying to deal with serious matters before the House, to not have respect for the Chair.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. On Tuesday, weeks of speculation became reality. Seniors and home health care providers saw the real agenda driving your reform of the long-term-care system. First there was Bill 40, your government's labour laws, then there was Bill 91, the farm labour legislation, and now this week we got the third instalment of Bob Rae's plan to unionize the province.

Home health care groups see your amendments --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Get a life.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Durham East.

Mr Jim Wilson: -- to Bill 173 as simply being --

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Durham East to please come to order. The member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson: Minister, thousands of home health care workers and their supporters see your amendments to Bill 173 as simply being a unionization drive that will amount to fewer services to seniors and job losses for non-unionized home health care workers. Because of your 11th-hour amendments, non-unionized community health care workers are toast. Their jobs will disappear. Why are you so determined to put non-unionized VON, Red Cross and Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association and many, many other good people out of work? Why are you so determined to do that?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The opposition's distortion of long-term care and the initiatives of this government obviously knows no bounds. I have made it clear, as has the government, as have all of our responses to committee --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that the long-term-care reorganization was about protecting --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- the service to seniors and to the disabled, the continuity of that service and the continuance of the provision of that service by the people who now provide it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: We have made it very clear from the beginning that people now working --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That's not true --

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the minister please take her seat. I caution the member for Halton Centre to please come to order. Minister, would you conclude your remarks, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: I've finished.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Jim Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It was my understanding you indicated earlier, with a couple of minutes on the clock, that I would be entitled to my full question.

The Speaker: The member was indeed allowed an opportunity to place his question. There is not sufficient time on the clock for a supplementary.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I looked at the clock when my colleague for Simcoe West rose to ask his question. There was, I believe, two minutes and 12 seconds remaining in question period and then we had the delay based on the other point of order. I would ask unanimous consent of the House to allow him --

The Speaker: The member for Wellington has been here long enough to know that the interruptions are at the instigation of all the members and that the clock continues to tick.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I move that Mr Dadamo and Mr Rizzo 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.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would just ask your guidance. When the Liberal members abuse the system in the House, that doesn't permit government members to ask important questions. I'm asking your guidance on what I can do.

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

1450

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition reads as follows, and this is addressed to members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 173, the long-term-care reform bill, if allowed to pass without necessary and appropriate amendments, will result in a lower level of service to consumers in the province; and

"Whereas the enactment of this legislation in its present form will increase the cost of the provision of care to the elderly and those in medical need; and

"Whereas the passage of Bill 173 will bring about a decrease in the number of volunteers available to organizations now directly involved in providing service in the field of long-term care; and

"Whereas local communities will lose control and influence over the delivery of long-term-care services, even though they are best able to determine local needs,

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario be requested to amend Bill 173 to comply with the recommendations of service organizations who at present deliver home care to people in communities across Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I am in agreement with its contents.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition here signed by citizens of London, Ontario, and the county of Middlesex.

"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 Workers' Compensation Board 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."

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On behalf of my constituents who have signed these petitions, they have asked me to introduce them to the government of Ontario. I'm sure Tara, the page here who's from my riding, can testify to these petitions being around the community. They state:

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

On behalf of those constituents, I present the petition, which ranges from people from Thamesville, Morpeth, Dresden, Ridgetown and the communities surrounding the city of Chatham.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): I have a petition from the residents of the provincial electoral district of Oakwood:

"Whereas the protection of human rights is a fundamental principle of international law and it is an overriding responsibility of all governments; and

"Whereas the NDP government of Ontario has undertaken a review of Ontario statutes based on the principle that 'all Ontario laws and programs must treat people fairly regardless of the nature of their personal relationships or their family units'; and

"Whereas a September 1992 ruling by the board of inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code in the Leshner case upheld the principle of equal rights for same-sex spouses, citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"Whereas Bill 45, recently introduced as a private member's bill, serves only to confirm the status quo without addressing discriminatory language in nearly 80 other statutes, and will therefore require years of further litigation to secure equality rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"Whereas any further denial of these human rights is unconscionable,

"Therefore we, the undersigned residents of the provincial electoral district of Oakwood, petition the government of Ontario to immediately enact legislation amending the definition of 'spouse' and related terms wherever they occur in Ontario statutes so that they are inclusive of same-sex partners and their families."

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, a petition with regard to Bill 119:

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

"Bill 119 is An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to Regulate its Sale and Use by Others. It is stated in section 9 of this bill that 'no person shall smoke tobacco or hold lighted tobacco in any...' (page 4) 'school, as defined in the Education Act' (page 5).

"Also it states in section 22: '(4) The right under section 1 to equal treatment with respect to goods without discrimination because of age is not infringed by the provisions of the Tobacco Control Act' (page 18).

"Even though G.A. Wheable in London is an adult education school and has no persons under the age of 19, G.A. Wheable," which is an adult education school, "falls under the Education Act and smoking will not be allowed on our school property;

"Therefore, the surrounding area residents and the students at G.A. Wheable feel that smokers are being discriminated against. We would like a designated smoking area at the rear of the school."

Although all of these people are not supporting smoking, the intent of the act, as they state, is to eliminate young persons from acquiring tobacco and to regulate its sale, so they feel they're being discriminated against. This petition has been signed by hundreds of students and others at the school, and I'm presenting it on their behalf.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

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

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

This is signed by hundreds of people from Oakville, Milton and Burlington. I'm pleased to affix my signature, as I concur with the sentiments expressed therein.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

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

"Whereas Christopher Higginbottom is a known homosexual paedophile who has been released into the Burlington community even though he was diagnosed by medical experts as remaining highly at risk of reoffending; and

"Whereas Higginbottom was acquitted of another sexual assault involving a child on the basis of inappropriate and unjustified conclusions drawn by the trial judge in relation to the evidence of the victim, all of which are unjustified in law; and

"Whereas in rendering the decision to acquit Higginbottom the fact of his breach of probation and the long history of his past sex attacks on children was not adequately taken into account by the judge,

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

"That the Attorney General of Ontario undertake to investigate this case with the view to ensuring that justice is done;

"That she undertake to amend the provincial Mental Health Act to protect citizens against dangerous, high-risk offenders and support federal high-risk offender legislation; and

"That the government of Ontario undertake to entrench within law a bill of rights for victims of crime."

That has been signed by me as well and has my full support.

1500

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario has long represented a serious inequity between the two regions; and

"Whereas the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario is often between 10 and 20 cents a litre; and

"Whereas residents of most northern Ontario communities have no access to public transportation options and are therefore dependent on private automobiles; and

"Whereas 1990 NDP election promises to 'equalize' the price of gasoline across the province have not been kept; and

"Whereas" I, the Kenora MPP, have "called upon the NDP government to keep their 1990 election promises; and

"Whereas the elimination of motor vehicle registration fees for northern Ontario residents does not compensate for the excessively high price of gas in the north;

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

"That the NDP government of Ontario fulfil its election promises to the people of northern Ontario by equalizing the price of gas across the province."

That's signed by constituents from Sioux Lookout and Hudson as well as people from Thunder Bay. I too attach my name to that petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a further petition to the Legislative Assembly, also dealing with gun control.

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

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

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we do not have a desire to own;

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

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

That's signed by a number of people from the Perth area of the province.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from people in St Catharines, Toronto, Mississauga, Sebringville, Markham, Guelph, Windsor, Scarborough and Peterborough. This is addressed to the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"Whereas Bill 173, the long-term-care reform bill, if allowed to pass without necessary and appropriate amendments, will result in a lower level of service to consumers in the province; and

"Whereas the enactment of this legislation in its present form will increase the cost of provision of care to the elderly and those in medical need; and

"Whereas the passage of Bill 173 will bring about a decrease in the number of volunteers available to organizations now directly involved in providing service in the field of long-term care; and

"Whereas local communities will lose control and influence over the delivery of long-term-care services even though they are best able to determine local needs,

This is an important petition and I've affixed my signature to it.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed this petition, and it has been signed by some 100 residents of S-D-G & East Grenville.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Eglinton has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Health concerning Taxol. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Simcoe East has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Economic Development and Trade concerning CN Rail. This matter will also be debated today at 6 pm.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): As the Chair of the standing committee on estimates, I beg leave to present our report for the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates reports the following resolutions:

Resolved that supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses for the following ministries and offices be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995:

Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services --

Mr Jackson: Dispense.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Dispense? Agreed.

See Votes and Proceedings.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF YORK ACT, 1994

Mr Rizzo moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr147, An Act respecting the City of York.

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): The purpose of the bill is to allow --

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): To the member, could you send the bill down to the table, please.

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

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ÉLECTIONS MUNICIPALES

Mr Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 191, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act / Projet de loi 191, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les élections municipales.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Is it the pleasure of this House that the motion carry? Carried.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Just before I call the order, the House leaders of the three parties have had some discussions. I'll be calling government notice of motion number 36. We have agreed that the Minister of Health, after I move the motion, will speak for 10 minutes, we will reserve five minutes for the parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham-York, to speak at the end of the debate and the opposition parties will split the remainder of the time.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Is it the pleasure of the House that this agreement go forward? Agreed.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 36:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order in relation to Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care, the standing committee on social development shall complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on the first regularly scheduled meeting of the committee following passage of this motion. All proposed amendments must be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 12 noon on the above-noted day. At 4 pm on that same day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further amendment or debate, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The Chair may allow only one 20-minute waiting period pursuant to standing order 128(a);

That the committee be authorized to continue to meet beyond its normal adjournment if necessary until consideration of clause-by-clause has been completed. The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on social development, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment and at such time, the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That two hours and 30 minutes be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(g) shall be permitted.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: If this government is going to move closure, I think they should have 20 members in the House to see it, so I'm calling quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Could the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

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

The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: We will resume. The Minister of Health now has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak today, on a day which is difficult, because time allocation is something that not all of us wish to see with legislation, particularly legislation that has been talked about for 10 years, legislation that has been demanded by seniors and disabled across this province, legislation that is about giving seniors and the disabled, the consumers of the service we're talking about, a system that has one-stop access to a wide range of services that are coordinated and that are integrated.

I know it's that word "integration" that causes the concerns and has a number of people saying that that is not what should happen. But that is clearly what we need if we are to provide the kind of high-quality care and service that people want to have in their own homes and in their own communities.

Why? Because people are tired of the red tape and the frustration that comes with trying to find the services they need, they're tired of the lack of coordination and integration, they're tired of being shuffled from one agency to another, and they're tired of constantly being assessed and reassessed when they need a higher level of service. They're tired of having to make the dozens of phone calls that they or their families or their caregivers have to make when they want to find the care they need from a series of service providers who operate independently and separately from each other.

One of the organizations that has been opposing this legislation said to one of my colleagues last week: "How can you bring this legislation in now? We're working so well with our partners in the system." My colleague said: "I'm glad to hear that. When did you start working with agencies A, B and C?" They said, "Three months ago, when you introduced the legislation." That says volumes about why the voluntary approach to coordination hasn't existed in a lot of communities and cannot be relied upon to provide the level of service, the level of continuity and the level of integration that people need if they are to be sure they get the service they need.

What these organizations opposing our legislation are all about is providing service to seniors. They do it well. They've done it in some cases magnificently, so well that we have said, yes, we want to take what you're doing and create a system that everybody in this province, whether they live in the north or the south or urban or rural areas, can be sure they get a minimum level of service, that their community is funded not on the basis of which organization has existed for a long time or which organization manages to generate the most funding, but on the basis of the needs of the people who live there, on demographic factors, the number of seniors, the need that is there.

If we don't move now to make these kinds of changes, as those demographic changes occur and as more and more of our population ages and, after they've turned 65, live 20 or 30 years longer than just 65 because more of us are turning 65 and more of us are living longer, we won't be able to cope with the demands on the system, and that's very much a reason for reorganizing in a way that creates a foundation for the future.

Many of the people who have been calling for this change for a long time have recognized the improvements in administration that will occur by moving from more than 1,000 organizations, large and small, to a much smaller number, 200, 300 multiservice agencies, organizations that will be run by volunteer boards, that will differ in their composition to reflect the diversity and the makeup of the communities they represent, organizations that will be voluntary agencies, charitable organizations, just like many of the ones that now exist, but will be working on a geographic or a community basis to meet the needs in an integrated way of the people in those communities. Consumers know that doing that will be a more effective use of the money we spend.

The bill will have five broad objectives: to provide that one-stop access; to improve the community-based care; to put the consumer first; to achieve consistency in the system and improved accountability because one third of the boards will be consumers -- something my colleagues opposite do not support but which we believe is critical for the accountability of these agencies; and finally, to ensure that locally controlled planning of services is in place by strengthening and clarifying the role of district health councils in the planning process.

I said this had been under discussion for 10 years. Let me remind the House of when it began. It began in 1981 when the Conservative government of the day said we should have a one-stop shopping initiative and that there should be some pilot projects. Guess what? The pilot projects were never implemented.

During the 1980s, there were a number of examinations of our health care system -- the Evans report, the Spasoff and Podborski reports, commissioned by the Liberals when they were in government, the work of the Premier's Council, initiated by the Liberals and continued by our government -- all of which said we need to reform the way we provide health care, that we need to make long-term care part of the health care system and we need to do local planning and we need to ensure community accountability.

In 1990, the Liberals put out a discussion paper with the model of coordinated agencies that they are continuing to espouse. It was soundly rejected in a consultation in 1991 when 70,000 people across the province came out and said: "Service-coordinating agencies won't work. Integrate the services."

We're doing that in this legislation, but we've already begun to reform the services by our commitment of funding to increase the services. This is a growth industry, and I say to the people who are concerned about their jobs that our commitment to making sure that the people who now work in the system continue to work in the system is solid, and that our commitment is backed by dollars that have increased the number of jobs in the system and will continue to do so.

The growth rate over the last number of years has been phenomenal. Since 1990, funding for community services has increased by over $30 million. That's a 54% increase, in tough times, from a government that has not got increasing revenue, from a government that is managing the institutional side of the system in a way that enables us to put our money on our priorities.

1520

We have increased integrated homemaker and put it all across the province, something that other governments said they would do and never moved to do. We have put placement coordination in place all across the province so that the agony of finding a place in a nursing home or a home for the aged, agony experienced by the workers in the system just as much as by the patients and their clients, can come to an end.

We have put our money behind our principles and our policies, and this legislation solidifies that. This legislation, for the first time, enumerates what a community-based service must be and the mandate and the basket of services that will be provided. This legislation, for the first time, legitimizes and regularizes the role of district health councils. They have been in existence for 20 years. They never had a mandate or the resources to do effective community-based planning until our government began to give them that mandate and, through this legislation, makes them a reality and recognizes that the best decisions are not made at Queen's Park; the best decisions are made in communities that plan for their own services.

I find the distortion of this legislation unacceptable. I find the obstruction of this legislation unacceptable. I find time allocation regrettable, because I always live in hope that in a democracy we can have a constructive debate about a policy and we can take constructive suggestions from the opposition to improve the policies and the legislation of this government. What we have found in this debate is, as I've said, distortion of the objectives, distortion of what the legislation will mean, and consistent obstruction of our attempts to put people first, to put consumers first and to make sure the seniors and the disabled of this province, after 10 years of promises, finally get the long-term-care system that they deserve and that they demand.

The Acting Speaker: The balance of the time between now and 6 pm will be divided equally between the opposition parties in further debate, and five minutes to wrap up by the government.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I will start out by saying that I believe this closure motion is not only regrettable but is reprehensible and unconscionable.

Let me speak to the bill itself and where we are in deliberation on that bill. There are 65 sections to this bill, a bill that, as the minister has indicated, has been a long time coming. It's a bill that people want to be right. This bill, however, was only introduced in June. Public consultation was held on this bill during the summer months and only concluded in September. We are within two or three weeks, I suppose, of clause-by-clause hearings; in other words, six days of clause-by-clause hearings and all of a sudden we have closure.

Let me tell you that there are 65 sections to this bill, not including new sections which the government has introduced by way of amendment to the bill. On top of that, the government itself has introduced 112 amendments, many of them significant amendments, and indeed many of them, frankly, beyond the scope of the bill with respect to the legislation.

My party has introduced 61 amendments to the bill and the Conservatives have introduced 57 amendments. I do not consider any of the amendments that I have introduced to this bill to be frivolous. Indeed, I believe they are singularly important if we are going to have a long-term-care system that will work for people in every part of the province on an equivalent, equal and fair basis.

Of the amendments that have been placed, we have dealt with 70 of those amendments. Of the sections of the bill that have been brought forward, we have carried section 1. Unfortunately, that section will have to be reopened to consider amendments placed by the government and by my own party with respect to first nations. Section 2 has been stood down, although considered in its entirety, so that we may also consider amendments that have been put forward with respect to first nations. Section 3, the patient bill of rights, has been carried with amendments that have strengthened that section, and I will tell you that those amendments came from the opposition. Section 4, at the government's request, was defeated. Section 5, at the government's request, was defeated.

We have been speaking throughout this debate about a long-term-care system that will bring significant improvements to the way people receive access and are treated in the long-term-care system. There is no question that there is an equivalency of support and demand for change in long-term care; there's reason for change and we support change.

Some of the areas where we believe there must be change include simplified access to services; equivalency of services throughout the province on an equal basis, delivered by trained personnel; and the intention that those social services and medical services be brought together so there is no single priority, one over the other.

We believe that community-based services should have a place that is equivalent and that is considered in the long-term-care system on a basis that is equivalent to those provided by facilities. We do not believe that facilities should be out of the picture. We believe access to services that are provided in the community, whether through an agency or in an individual's home, may well offer an equivalent and even better service to some of that which is offered by facilities. None the less, for some people those facility services will still be required.

We expected, we hoped for and we got some things that are quite right in this bill, and I really object to the minister's repeating incorrect assumptions about my party's own positions, positions I have raised in that committee and across the province, through the public hearing process, and will continue to raise, and about the kinds of amendments I'm putting forward.

We expected coordinated access. We believe we will get increased coordinated access in this bill.

We wanted centralized provincial standards for long-term care. We believe this bill goes a long way in providing that.

We wanted a minimum basket of services, so that people in well-resourced, well-financed areas will not have greater and more extensive services than people in communities with fewer resources. We got that.

We wanted clear rules that were consistent across the province with respect to payment for services. We got that.

We wanted an assurance that the local community would be involved in the planning and implementation of this bill and, over the longer term, in the implementation and recognition of changes that are needed to meet the needs of individual communities. We didn't get that.

We wanted to ensure that there was a caregiver recognition, that when a wife or another family member or a neighbour or another kind of volunteer was supporting someone who required long-term care in their own homes, there were opportunities on an equivalent basis for access to the long-term-care system for respite services for that person. We got that.

We are very, very happy, I will tell you, with much of what we see in this legislation. What we do not see in this legislation and where we part company with this government is an extremely important area.

I want to be very certain that this House understands where and why we part company. I believe sincerely that we part company because the government system as put forward in this bill will not work. There are parts of the province where it will not work for the first second, let alone over the longer term.

1530

We believe, on the basis of their history, their culture, the way their organizations and people work together, the way their consumers are involved in determining what is best for their communities, that communities ought to be able to determine not the what of long-term care but the how of long-term care, how best the needs of a community will be met through a long-term-care system.

The government says it has got all the answers. There is one way, and that is by throwing out organizations like the VON -- the VON is going to be bankrupted by this legislation -- and by not allowing the Red Cross to be recognized as an agency under this bill, and the government tells us that it won't recognize Red Cross because the government says that it cannot be assured of the accountability of Red Cross.

I ask you, where has the government been all these years when Red Cross has been delivering homemaking services in every community across this province? Weren't they accountable last week? Why won't they be accountable tomorrow? The government will not allow Red Cross to be recognized as an agency because Red Cross happens to be incorporated under our federal laws rather than our provincial laws. Well, that makes absolutely no sense. Red Cross homemaking -- out of business.

What about organizations such as those in my community like Halton Helping Hands? That's one of the 1,200 agencies that this government doesn't like, that they want to replace with one agency. That organization delivers a significant amount of care by people who are caring and who work many hours and long hours and hours that are not totally required by the conditions of their employment to ensure that the patients that they are working with are receiving the appropriate care.

This government believes that care givers don't give a damn about the patients. Let me tell you, that has not been my experience. That is not the experience of patients in my community. That is not the experience of patients in communities across Ontario. Why should Halton Helping Hands all of a sudden disappear? Why should the March of Dimes service all of a sudden disappear? Why should Meals on Wheels all of a sudden disappear? Why should organizations such as Saint Elizabeth, Victorian Order of Nurses, Baycrest disappear?

Under this bill those agencies will disappear and there's a reason that they will disappear. Because the government has said that the centralized agency, the new bureaucracy, the new model, the inflexible template must be the sole deliverer of services. But the government says that agency, that new bureaucracy, can buy 20% of services from outside.

Let me tell you, organizations such as the VON have over the years as a result of the expertise that they have brought into the long-term-care system expanded their services to include areas such as home dialysis. They have specialized in those areas. They have introduced new expertise, new techniques and new technologies to the delivery of those services.

Victorian Order of Nurses, because it will be limited to that 20% narrow basket, will no longer be able to afford to deliver those services because it will no longer have the critical mass of service delivery to stay in business. VON is gone.

Now I suggest when you are discussing these issues with your patients who have had exemplary service from VON nurses and with those volunteers who have worked over a period of years with VON, that you ask them, "Why should VON go?" and you will find that they don't want VON to go. Thousands and thousands of people across this province are writing to this House and submitting petitions and writing to the Premier and they are saying, "We don't believe this organization should be put out of business." I don't believe so either.

The 20% rule is a problem in many other areas, because one of the things that is totally forgotten in this debate is that it's not only seniors' services that are included in this bill but children's services and services to the disabled. They're included in this bill. Indeed there are amendments that have been put forward which are constructive and important amendments that will not be considered in any way. Some of those amendments have been put forward by the government, some by the opposition, but we will not have a time to examine those amendments in any way, shape or form.

There is no understanding, by example, of whether children's treatment centres will be lumped into an MSA. If that's the government's intention, what then for children? What then for the VON? If they're not lumped in with the MSAs, then the VON and Red Cross and the other organizations of which I've spoken don't have a prayer, because the service purchases will have to be made for specialized services, including specialized services to assist children with problems.

I believe that the intention of local decision-making with respect to the planning and operation of multiservice agencies or the long-term-care system is absolutely important if we are going to have an appropriate system where the care needs and the service delivery is appropriately provided.

Interestingly enough, the government talks a good line in this area: "Oh yes, we're going to have a board for this multiservice agency and one third of the members of the board are going to be consumers." We believe that consumers should be on the board of any agency which is involved in long-term-care delivery, but let's look at what this government is providing in terms of powers to that board. Then I ask you, why would anybody want to be involved?

The first thing is that the government mandates all of the services. The government determines all of the money. If the local multiservice agency indicates that it wants to provide additional services to meet particular needs of a particular geographic area or particular needs that are disease oriented, does the local MSA board have the power to add those services? No, it doesn't. Does the local MSA board have the power to decide that certain services that are mandated, that are required, are not necessary? No, it doesn't. Does the local MSA board have any power at all that doesn't come directly from and with the imprimatur of the minister? No, it doesn't.

This government is fooling people when it tells board members of the next MSAs that they will have power. There is no power in terms of funding decisions, there is no power in terms of addition of services and there is no power in terms of retraction of services. We asked that the MSA board have adequate powers so that it could determine and could shape the operation of the MSA to meet the needs of the local community, given that we also want a minimum basket of services that must be applied everywhere in Ontario. The answer was no.

So MSA boards and the consumers who have been supporting this legislation because they feel they will have a greater voice will find that their voices are the voice of the Minister of Health and their views don't matter. The decisions will be made in the minister's office in Toronto or the decisions will be made in the office of one of the bureaucrats in one of the long-term-care offices around the province if the minister decides that she will share that power with that office. In other words, this isn't a consumer piece of legislation; this is the Minister of Health's legislation. The Minister of Health is the only one who has the power to make change.

There's another area where this bill is misleading, and I don't think in fact that there are amendments that can change this. But I really believe that people across Ontario have been led to an understanding that if they are receiving care in their homes, there will be one person who will be coming into their homes to provide that care, whether that care is a homemaking service, whether it's assistance with daily living activities or whether it in fact is the delivery of health or professional services, such as nursing services and so on.

1540

People have been led to believe that there will be one worker who will provide those services. I will tell you that this is totally misleading. A nurse will not be doing the shopping or paying the bills and providing other services that have been traditionally provided as a community support service, as a homemaking service to people. A nurse will not be providing those services. A social worker will not be providing those services.

People will be providing services for which they are trained and for which they are paid, according to their training and according to their skill levels. To suggest to people that their lives will only be interrupted or involved with one person now is completely off base. It will not happen, yet the government continues to advise people that this is going to be one of the major improvements under this bill. I tell you it will not happen.

One of the issues we have been very concerned about in this bill is the mix of services that can be purchased from outside, and I think one of the most telling presentations to the committee was from a group of people who suffer from respiratory ailments. These are very, very severe respiratory illnesses. They live in a scenario where services are not available in local communities. Indeed, for the specialized services that they require, they will have to be transported across geographic borders to specialized areas for the devices, for the assessment and for the evaluation that's necessary to their continuing life, as a matter of fact.

One of the things that is highly problematic in this bill is that the services which are provided to people in that situation are limited to a specific geographic area. We have an amendment that would ensure that in specialized circumstances, on an as-needed basis, those individuals who needed those services elsewhere would be able to receive them beyond the local MSA. You know, we won't even be able to get through that amendment to discuss it. I believe that if the government heard that debate, it would probably accept that amendment. It's very clear now that the government is going to turn down all amendments of that nature.

But the government has put forward some interesting amendments. One of the most interesting is one that clearly the government had a great deal of trouble with, and that's an amendment with respect to successor rights under this bill. While we were in public hearings, we heard on many occasions that it was very important that since these organizations were going to be put out of business -- they would no longer exist -- those individuals who would be displaced through the creation of new multiservice agencies ought to be considered in a fair and equitable manner for employment in a new agency.

Madam Speaker, you will know from your own experience in your community and from the work you've done around the province that in certain sectors, particularly in the home care sector, more than 90% of workers do not belong to unions. It was our contention throughout and the contention of frankly both those organizations representing union workers and those organizations representing non-union workers that there should be an equivalency and a fairness and an equity in the treatment of individuals who were displaced and who would be considered for work, whether they were union members or non-union members.

Indeed, when the government brought in its first amendment to the bill with respect to successor organizations and how workers would be treated, we looked quite favourably on that first amendment. It appeared not to discriminate between workers who had belonged to unions and workers who did not belong to unions. It did not place a value judgement on anything other than the work and the skills and the length of service.

We probably would have supported that. We thought that was a reasonable amendment and we wanted to ensure that there was equity and fairness in the treatment of workers no matter what kind of scenario, no matter what kind of background they came from. Their union membership or non-union membership was incidental to the work they would be doing and to the consideration that should be based on their rehiring.

Since that first amendment was put, two new amendments have been put. They have replaced the earlier amendments, and the new amendments, particularly the last one -- I will refer to it.

The new amendments do two things. In the first case, the new amendment overrides section 54 of the Labour Relations Act so that the labour relations board will not now be able to make a decision with respect to the continuation of non-union status if there happen to be more non-union members who are hired in a particular situation. In other words, the labour relations board now -- and I want to be very careful that people will understand this. The labour relations board now, under the Labour Relations Act, under section 64, has the responsibility and the power to review those successor scenarios and to identify whether in a successor situation the new hires are in fact reaching a level where the majority or X number that the labour relations board would find appropriate would mean that a new union situation would automatically follow, or whether in fact in that situation a new union drive should begin.

This bill indeed overrides that section of the Labour Relations Act and says that no matter how many union workers are rehired or would be hired, or jobs would be created and former union members would be hired, there would automatically be a union situation without a vote, without a determination by the workers themselves if they wanted to join a union. Well, the ex-Minister of Labour --

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'm sorry to interrupt my colleague's remarks. However, I think the remarks are important and there should be a quorum in this House and I ask, do you see that?

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1550

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

The Acting Speaker: We will resume the debate. The member for Halton Centre has the floor.

Mrs Sullivan: I was referring to the government amendments to section 15, particularly with respect to the changes which the government is putting forward for this particular situation of long-term-care services where the activity of the labour relations board, under the Labour Relations Act, has been changed.

Indeed, what the government is doing with this particular amendment is not simply to have a representation vote to ensure that those people wanted to belong to a union. The government is overriding that and saying that a bargaining unit will exist no matter whether there is appropriate representation of prior union members or not.

But even more difficult in the government's amendments to that section of the bill is one which would give priority to union members in new hires, in newly created jobs, under the MSA.

As I've indicated, some 90% of people in home care, many people who are providing home nursing, many people who are providing other home or community-based services that are long-term-care services for long-term-care clients are not unionized, and there are a few who are.

What the government has said in its amendment to subsection 15.3(3), is that the MSA will offer jobs first to unionized workers before non-unionized workers are offered positions. That bill, and I will read the section of the amendment, now reads:

"If a position performing work transferred from a previous employer is in a bargaining unit, the successor employer shall make offers to persons employed by the previous employer in descending order of seniority, as defined in the applicable collective agreement, before a position is offered to a person not represented by the bargaining agent."

In other words, if you are, as a woman who spoke to me today is -- a 58-year-old woman in Kitchener. She's worked for 14 years as a Red Cross homemaker. She earns $11,000 a year. She does not belong to a union. I will tell you, she will not have a job. That's the effect of this legislation. That is the precise effect of this legislation.

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): That is nonsense.

Mrs Sullivan: If that is not your intent, then go back and redraft the amendment to reflect your intent. Right now, this amendment will say that union workers have priority. There is no fairness, there is no equity. You are saying that the value of the non-union work performed is less than that of a union worker.

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): Stay with the facts.

Interjections.

Mrs Sullivan: This is unconscionable. It is unacceptable. The people in Ontario do not want this. It is absolutely outrageous and it is misleading for government members from across the way to deny the legal words they've written down. The government is saying that the value of work that's done by non-union workers is of a lesser value than the work done by union workers.

Interjections.

Mrs Sullivan: I suggest to you, Mr Farnan, and you, whoever you are, that you read your own legislation and your own amendments.

The government has and we have and the third party has put forward amendments to this bill with respect to the first nations.

We had several meetings, I think each one of us, with respect to concerns that were put forward not only in the public hearings but latterly from representatives of first nations with respect to how long-term care would be delivered following an agreement with the Minister of Health that first nations would themselves direct and operate and deliver services as if they had a multiservice agency in their own situations.

We won't have a chance to talk about those amendments because we have closure. We will not have a chance to discuss how the agreements will be made. We will not have a chance to debate in committee issues associated with the relationship of DHCs to first nations, of other MSAs to first nations. Those have not been brought forward in committee at this point. We stood down two sections of the bill so we would have an opportunity to consider, after the government had an opportunity to prepare its own amendments, amendments that would affect first nations.

There will be no discussion. There will be no public understanding of what is on the table, of whether improvements to what the Minister of Health has put forward might be needed or whether what the Minister of Health has put forward is in fact appropriate. We don't think that's acceptable. But on the other hand, we didn't bring in closure.

There are other areas where the government has brought in substantial amendments that don't have anything to do with this bill. That's with respect to consent to treatment. A huge package of amendments -- the government has not referred to them once in committee, but there they are.

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister without Portfolio and Chief Government Whip): Spend, spend, spend.

Mrs Sullivan: It's your government's amendments that are not being discussed. It's the importance of your government's amendments that are not being discussed.

The Acting Speaker: Please address the Chair.

Mrs Sullivan: Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, it is the government's own members who have provided much of the filibuster in this committee. It appears all the way through the operation of this committee on clause-by-clause that the government members didn't know who was carrying this bill. There happened to be three parliamentary assistants in the committee, one ex-minister. They all have to talk on everything, don't they, despite the fact that a parliamentary assistant, Mr Wessenger, has the lead on the bill and, it is assumed, has the knowledge and the skill to carry it. Closure came about, I say to the House leader, despite the fact that your own members had filibustered your own bill.

We have indicated that we believe that local communities ought to be able to determine the model of service. There should not be an inflexible template that is spelled out by the province with respect to the how of implementation of long-term-care reform. So far, we've been rebuffed. We are at a significant amendment to be placed before committee that would ensure that local communities would determine how best long-term-care reform could be brought to their people.

Clearly, the government is going to vote down that amendment. There will not be adequate time for debate. There will not be adequate time to ensure that the mix of services, the addition of services, the shape of services that are offered can be determined by local people based on what local needs are. The government says: "No, there is one model. It's our model. It's our way or the highway." We are deeply, deeply concerned that as a result of the government's intransigence in this area, this legislation will not work.

1600

What that means is that those parts of the bill that we support, those issues that we believe are fundamental and very, very important in ensuring that we do have a long-term-care system that works, will in fact be passed by, they will be lost. I will tell you, it's our intention, if we form the next government, to bring appropriate changes to this legislation to ensure that local communities and local people will have a say. They won't be overridden by the minister and they will be able to shape the how of long-term care in a way that best meets the needs of local areas.

I am outraged, I am deeply upset, along with thousands of people throughout this province who will lose their jobs, who will lose their caregivers and who will lose the kind of accountability that they have within their own communities. I think this is madness, and not only is it madness but it's outrageous that the government is so determined to proceed that it will cut off discussion.

My sense is that the government has cut off discussion for one reason. Some time ago, included in a report that was presented to our committee by the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance for Long-Term Care Reform, was a report prepared for the consumer alliance by Price Waterhouse, which contained information which was latterly described by KPMG as not consistent with the approach taken by Ernst and Young on an earlier study with respect to the costs of long-term care, nor was this report presented with information that met generally accepted financial management reporting practices.

Subsequently, on November 15, you will recall that I stood in the House on a question of privilege to read a letter written to Mr Ted Ball representing the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance from Price Waterhouse, which in an unprecedented, absolutely unprecedented, scenario withdrew its report to make appropriate changes to the cost impact methodology.

I will tell you, the withdrawal of that report is the talk of Bay Street. This doesn't happen. It happened because Price Waterhouse understands that the figures it presented and the analysis it did were inadequate for us to use as part of our analysis or to depend on, and it's been very interesting throughout this debate that the government, in the absence of studies conducted by itself, has relied on that Price Waterhouse report.

That's the report government members have referred to, that's their expertise, that's where their documentation comes from. They didn't do it on their own. They funded it, and that's fine. I admire much of the work done by the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance, but as soon as the rug was pulled out from under the government by the very people who presented the erroneous report in the first place, the government brought in closure.

You can't have it both ways. They haven't done their own studies, and when the study they've relied on all the way along is proven to be flawed, they say: "Let's get this bill out of the way. Let's get this situation over. We're done. Closure. Stop debate. No more discussion."

People who are receiving care in my community and in communities represented right here in this House are saying: "This debate shouldn't be over, because this isn't what the consultation showed we wanted. It is not what the consultation showed we wanted."

What the consultation indicated was that people wanted increased accountability, they wanted local autonomy, they wanted single access, they wanted improved coordination. They didn't say anything about wanting to get rid of VON and Saint Elizabeth and Meals on Wheels. They didn't say anything about that. It was never contemplated. It was not part of the consultative process, but that's what they've got. Because that's what the government wants, that's what they're going to get.

I am going to conclude my remarks now because some of my colleagues want to participate in this debate. I am distressed that the government is limiting the time we will be able to put on this bill. I believe that some vitally important matters will not be addressed in any way. There will not be a reasonable exchange of views, there will not be reasonable consideration, there will not be an opportunity for improvement, and there will not be an opportunity to register objections.

Unfortunately, my conclusion is that as a result of that we're going to end up in a situation that's going to have to be corrected down the line. Changes will have to be made. The necessity for those changes could have been avoided if the government had paid attention to what people were saying.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's indeed a very, very sad day for the province of Ontario. For the 18th time since coming to office, the NDP has brought in closure. Every time this government doesn't want to hear from the people whom it is affecting with its legislation, it closes us down.

Today, closure has been brought in on Bill 173, which is phase 2 of long-term-care reform. It's a sad day for many other people outside of this Legislature -- or sitting in this Legislature; some of them are actually with us here today. They're members of our health care team in Ontario who will be put out of business and lose their jobs as a result of some last-minute amendments to Bill 173 that we just saw this week, and as a result of some of the original content. I'm referring to the 80-20 rule, which I will elaborate on in a few minutes.

I think it's important from the beginning, because this is one of the very last opportunities I will have to speak in this Legislature on this very important piece of legislation, that I point out to members something of historical significance. It is the first time that a very large coalition of some 27 associations concerned about Bill 173 has come together to oppose the government en masse with respect to a piece of legislation. I think it's important that in this House we get the names of all of those associations on the record:

The Association of Ontario Home Care Therapists, the Association of Local Official Health Agencies, the Association of Ontario Physicians and Dentists in Public Service, the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario, the Canadian Red Cross Society, the Catholic Health Association of Ontario, the Catholic Women's League of Canada, the Council on Aging for Ottawa-Carleton, the Federation of Non-Profit Organizations Working with Seniors, the Lambton Alliance, the Ontario Association of Medical Laboratories, the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors, the Ontario Association of Residents' Councils, the Ontario Community Support Association, Ontario Home Care Case Managers' Association, Ontario Home Care Medical Advisors, Ontario Home Care Programs Association, Ontario Home Health Care Providers' Association, Ontario Home Respiratory Services Association, Ontario Hospital Association, Ontario Medical Association, Ontario Nursing Home Association, Ontario Nursing Home Volunteers, Ontario Psychogeriatric Association, Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association, Victorian Order of Nurses (Ontario) and Villa Charities, not to mention the Red Cross, the VON, as I've said, and Saint Elizabeth, those people who will lose their jobs because this government, in its attempts to bring long-term care to fruition in this province, has very much misled the public about not only the content of this legislation but also what its effect will be on our community-based service sector in the province.

1610

The minister said in her remarks at the beginning of this debate that the opposition, and by inference, all of the members of the 27 associations I've just read into the record, are misleading the public. In fact, the facts point to the opposite, that the government is not being truthful.

What this bill truly shows us today is the hidden agenda of the NDP, that is, to unionize a sector of our health care community that is on average about 50% non-unionized now, a sector that their Bill 40 job-killing labour legislation was unable, in the NDP's and unions' eyes, to go far enough to unionize this sector. Therefore, Ruth Grier and the NDP today are bringing forward this legislation to do what Bill 40 couldn't do easily. I will talk about that in a few minutes and read to this House the legal opinions we have with respect to the unionization drive.

It's a sad day for all of us in Ontario who will some day need long-term-care services. It's a misrepresentation at the very least by this government to say that since 1975 nothing has been done in long-term care in this province. It is an insult to the thousands of nurses and homemakers and caregivers in the community-based sector to contend and to continually tell the public that nothing's been done since long-term-care reform began to be discussed in Queen's Park around 1975.

That is to say to the public that three governments have done nothing. That is to say to the VON and the Red Cross and Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses, the three largest players in the community-based sector now, that their efforts have not been appreciated, that they've done nothing to reform and to meet the needs of the people of this province and that three successive governments have done nothing.

I say that history does not support the minister's contention or her government's contention. Even the NDP extended the integrated homemaker program, something the minister a few months ago took great pride in announcing to this House. That was some reform in long-term care.

It's also untrue and misleading to suggest that when the government had its public consultations on long-term care -- it heard from seniors, the disabled and the people most affected by long-term care, community-based services -- those people told the government that there should be a monopoly created in terms of a multiservice agency to deliver services; and to say, as the government claims, that those people and the seniors' alliance and the very small number of people now that the government has on side, as opposed to the 27 associations, the thousands of volunteers and the literally millions of people in this province who I know oppose this legislation, for them to claim that seniors wanted the VON, Para-Med, Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses, Villa Charities, March of Dimes and some of the services it delivers, Red Cross, to say that anybody wanted them put out of business during these consultations, history and the records of those consultations themselves do not show that was the case.

Diane McKenzie was in the members' gallery today. She's a VON nurse from the Caledon area. She was a facilitator during the consultation process and asked seniors what they wanted in terms of long-term care. In fact these meetings took the form of asking seniors what their wish list would be. Seniors talked about one-stop access. They said there was some confusion out there now as to what agency they were to go to for help and that one phone number in a geographical area would be very handy and would be very sensible. That's what was essentially meant by one-stop access, that there be one number to go to in a simplified access process to get into the long-term-care services.

Not once in those public consultations and the research we've done did they discuss at all eliminating the VON and the Red Cross and Saint Elizabeth. People said they were somewhat confused about the current rules; they were confused about some of the rules surrounding eligibility and the different programs we have out there now. They were somewhat confused, as I said, with respect to how to access the system, and I should say that this wasn't true throughout the province. In my area of the province I have not had complaints over the years about accessing long-term-care services. Simply, what the government is attempting to do is to correct a wrong that didn't exist in some areas. If MPPs would do their jobs when people call their offices and they would properly refer people to agencies, then there wouldn't be a need for some of the measures in this bill.

The minister spoke about the opposition not being cooperative in its approach to this legislation. Again, that is not exactly at all what history will show. We spent a few weeks listening to the public during the open consultation that took place around Bill 173 during the standing committee on social development.

What we found was that contrary to the government's public diatribe about this legislation, over 95% of the presenters who appeared before the standing committee, including the written submissions, claimed that the government had got it wrong. They took what they heard in those public consultations at the beginning of long-term-care reform and somehow they introduced their own twist to this legislation. The twist came in the form of the monopoly they're creating, the monopoly that not only will an MSA be one-stop access but it will also have a monopoly on the delivery of services in this province.

That was a typical socialist, ideological twist, and I waited patiently for weeks for the government to tell us in committee exactly why they needed to create a government monopoly in the face of all the evidence which indicated that they should not do this, that bigger is not better, that there are other ways to improve access to the system without destroying the good people we have out there now. I did not hear a logical or even coherent and sensible argument from the government as to why they needed to create this monopoly and drive all of those people who work for the existing agencies out of business.

You could not and cannot get a good reason for this from the government. The only thing the government could hang its hat on was the Price Waterhouse study that was presented to the committee by the seniors' consumer alliance. Well, lo and behold, this week Price Waterhouse, a major accounting firm in this province and country, in an unprecedented move wrote the following letter to the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance. It was addressed to Mr Ted Ball:

"Dear Mr Ball:

"Several concerns have been raised about the approach followed in our report for the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance titled A Comparison of the Administrative Component of the Current and Proposed Home Care Systems in Ontario, dated August 31, 1994. Our firm is withdrawing the report. We will review these concerns and reissue the report with appropriate changes to the cost impact methodology.

"Yours very truly

"Neil Stuart

"Partner"

Unprecedented. It clearly was a major blow to the government's case that the MSA monopolies would be more cost-effective, provide better coordination, better access to our long-term-care services.

1620

But typical of this government and other very small groups that were in favour of the bill, mainly OPSEU and CUPE and the unions who before our committee, they used the Price Waterhouse study to try to convince legislators that the NDP's MSA model was the way to go. It was the only thing they could hang their hats on. Even in the face of the fact that study is now no longer in existence and that its validity was not only questioned but successfully challenged, the government moves ahead.

Shortly after the Price Waterhouse blow, there was another major blow to the people of Ontario and the service providers, and that was with the section 15 labour amendments.

Today we have closure simply because the government knows that if we were to continue in committee for a few more days, more and more citizens would begin to understand very clearly that the true agenda of Bill 173 is not improved services to the people of this province, and it's not all the rhetoric that the government's been using to sell its legislation; they want to unionize, to pay back the unions as one final attempt to make amends because they certainly lost union support when they unilaterally opened up collective agreements during the social contract. They've certainly lost union support on just about everything else they've ever done.

We're going into an election period, and this is the last attempt in one of the largest sectors in our province, the health sector, to try to get a few of the union bosses back on side. That's what this is. There is no doubt that the amendments brought in at the 11th hour by the government facilitate the ease of unionization in this sector.

We have a legal opinion that says in part:

"The most recent amendments to the bill appear to require that jobs must first be offered to unionized workers before any non-unionized workers are offered positions. The difficulty with this approach is that it fails to recognize that the vast majority of the home support sector is not unionized. The employees in this sector have largely not chosen to be represented by trade unions."

It concludes by saying:

"The new amendments appear to further disadvantage non-unionized workers in this sector. The amendments may have the effect of causing the MSAs to be automatically unionized where only a small fraction of their employees were previously represented by unions. This would have the added effect of disenfranchising the formerly non-unionized workers."

The Ontario Hospital Association also shared with us their opinion on the section 15 labour amendments. It says with reference to section 15.2(2):

"In this new section, the Ontario Labour Relations Board is restricted from using its powers under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act to remove union status from employees who were unionized prior to the transfer. This would appear to allow unionized employees to remain unionized even where they are transferred to a non-unionized setting."

In commenting on the next section, the new section that the government brought in this week, the OHA says:

"This section replaces the previous sections 15.3 and 15.4 and ensures that unionized positions that are transferred must be offered to unionized employees from their previous employer in the order of their seniority prior to offering such positions to non-unionized employees. By removing the earlier proposals for section 15, the placement on the basis of length of service is removed and the ability to displace someone based on relative length of service is also removed."

Dan Stapleton from the Ontario Community Support Association said, "This means that a non-unionized, long-term-care worker with 20 years of experience could be pushed out of the system by a worker who has been on the job for four months."

Talk about the ultimate in unfairness. I recall the Premier of this province, in the last election campaign and in the years and months leading up to that campaign, talking about fairness, and yet there's been nothing fair to employees in this sector of health, nothing fair at all, contained in the newest version of this legislation.

All I can say to the people of the province is that I hope you're able, in a very few short days, to muster up opposition to the government. This is the party, the NDP, that invented the picket, the protest and the petition, and I think it's time to throw all the weapons in our arsenal against this government or it will be the end of many, many non-unionized jobs in the community-based sector. For the record, currently the VON, the Victorian Order of Nurses, is 75% non-unionized and 25% unionized. The Red Cross is 50% unionized, 50% non-unionized. Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses is 100% non-unionized and has 900 employees. There will be little option for non-unionized employees in the sector now but to unionize in order to get in the waiting line for a job when the new MSAs are created.

I can only tell the people of this province that during this death-watch period of the NDP government here at Queen's Park -- because clearly the NDP are toast in this province. I firmly believe that the people of this province will reject your government, your leader -- I don't even think he'll win his own riding -- they will reject your legislation, and they're looking to a new government to amend what you are passing in Bill 173, to scrap your Bill 40 labour laws, your Bill 91 farm labour laws and a number of other things; the list grows every day.

So on behalf of my colleagues in the PC caucus, I make the commitment today, and Mike Harris has made the commitment, that we will scrap the NDP's MSA model, with its 80-20 rule monopoly. We will scrap it because we think it is immoral for any government to do a unionization drive for any sector of our economy, because unions must be grass-roots movements, because unions must be sought after by people on their own accord, and it is not the role of government, and has not historically been the role of government in this province, to do a unionization drive for the big unions in this province.

There are many, many other problems, that we've talked about in committee, with this legislation. I want to just for a moment talk about the 80-20 rule. For those at home who may not exactly know what the 80-20 rule is, it is this little twist of NDP ideology that got injected into long-term-care reform that says that 80% of the services that are being provided under Bill 173, those long-term-care services, those people who are visiting your homes now if you're the frail elderly and the disabled -- they will be put out of work in the agencies they work for now, like the VON, Red Cross and Saint Elizabeth, the most often-cited ones; they will be put out of work and have to go to work for the government.

The government says they're setting up community agencies that are either not-for-profit or co-ops and that a third of the people on these MSA boards will be "consumers," however they define that. We all want consumer participation. The Tories have a bill of rights that includes that in health care, and more, to ensure that people have a full say in the direction the health care system goes. It's interesting that when they delist 20 things out of OHIP like circumcision, IVF, torn ear lobes, removal of port wine stains, and here they delist a couple of things with respect to home care, when they do that they don't want to hear from the public, but when they're doing a unionization drive they don't mind stacking their own consumers on these local boards.

1630

I think they're going to have a heck of a time getting volunteers for these MSAs when the people out there read Bill 173 and find out that these MSAs are simply fronts for government policy. There is nothing left to decide. This bill is so overly prescriptive that I don't know what decisions the consumers are going to be making when they get together with their compatriots at the local level. There's nothing left to decide. If they did have a stroke of genius about how to deliver something in a more cost-effective way or in a better way, they'd need the approval of the minister here at Queen's Park. There is no local autonomy, as the government tries to tell us there is. Local decision-making is done. It's cut and dried in this legislation. There's nothing left to decide.

With respect to this monopoly, the 80% of services in effect might as well read that 100% of services have to be delivered by the new multiservice agencies, because there won't be enough business, to put it simply, left over in the sector for any of our existing service providers to bother keeping around the bit of administration that would be required to serve such a small part of the sector. It will not be cost-effective for the Red Cross and the VON and certainly Saint Elizabeth to keep a few people around to administer such a small part of the sector.

The 80-20 rule is simply an expropriation of services, and this is how the government uses its wordsmithing to try and convince the people that it's not creating a monopoly and not putting these other existing agencies out of business. It says they can still exist and they can compete for the 20% of the market that's left over. They won't in any way acknowledge what those agencies are telling us, that is, that they cannot exist and the commercial agencies cannot exist. In some parts of these community-based services, the commercial agencies are providing in some parts of our province about half the current services.

At the end of the day, when you wipe out everybody who's doing community-based services now, when you wipe out the 75 years of the Canadian Red Cross -- since 1908 Saint Elizabeth has been delivering services in this province, long before government ever thought of the idea. The churches and denominational organizations and volunteers in our communities were helping the frail elderly, the disabled and all others affected by long-term-care services long before this government came along and decided to create a monopoly.

I don't think the government should get away with this, to put it at its mildest and most polite expression. This government, in bringing in closure at such a critical time in the clause-by-clause discussion, clearly doesn't want anyone to understand truly what it's doing. They don't want us to have the ability to get the word out. Eighteen times they brought in closure. In the days when the NDP was in opposition, we would have had to peel NDP members off the ceiling. They'd have been screaming bloody murder if the government of the day had brought in closure on anything, and they did. In the few times it occurred under a Tory government over 42 years, the NDP were hanging from the chandeliers, screaming that it was absolutely against democracy.

Two years ago, and the people of this province should know this, this government took away many of our rights as legislators to represent the people of Ontario. It changed the House rules in a dramatic way in this province. No longer can you do a Peter Kormos 17-hour filibuster, which put the NDP on the map in this province and convinced a number of my constituents in the last election that the NDP had a corner on compassion, because one of its members stood up for 17 hours and talked about something he truly cared about, on behalf of the NDP party.

What are the new rules? At the most, the first speaker on a bill can speak for one and a half hours. That's it. Every subsequent speaker for that caucus can speak for half an hour. That's it. The rules have been stacked against the opposition to do its job, they've been stacked against democracy, and you still bring closure in 18 times. The fact that we've got concerns in committee, the fact that committee might take just a little bit longer than you're prepared to wait, might tell you that you've got one of the stupidest bills here in the history of the province. It might tell you, you bunch of thickheads, that there's something wrong with your legislation.

Hon Mr Wilson: Jim, come on, now. A little control here.

Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Speaker, it's hard not to get excited about this. We sit in committee trying to make logical points to people on the other side of the table, on the NDP side, who --

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It appears that there isn't a quorum of thickheads in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Could you please reword that?

Mrs Sullivan: I call for a quorum, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Could the Clerk check for a quorum.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: Speaker, a quorum is now present.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Simcoe West may resume his participation.

Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Speaker, even with the rule changes around here which mean that if we all took the time allowed in this House to debate every bill the government would still get its way with its majority in just a few short days on each piece of legislation, even with that, they have to bring in closure. So the hidden agenda there, or not so hidden any more, is to bring in closure, not because they can't get this bill done in the normal way before Christmas, but because they don't want us to have the opportunity to tell the people of Ontario what this bill is really about. I'm speechless as to how a government is allowed in a democracy to get away with this.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): How can you say that with a straight face when --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview will have his opportunity.

1640

Mr Jim Wilson: If the government were serious about allowing us enough time to debate this legislation, it would have called Parliament back five weeks earlier, when by law it was required to sit. The parliamentary calendar is clear, Mr House Leader for the NDP. This House was to come back five weeks earlier. You passed a motion using your majority to bring it back later because you don't like question period, you don't like hearing the truth about legislation and you sure as heck don't want to give us the opportunity to tell the people of this province what this legislation and other draconian pieces of legislation you've got on the order paper are all about.

Not only do I hope the people of Ontario rise en masse next week to tell this government what it thinks; I want to throw back at the government one of the best briefs I think we had, one of the most honest briefs from one of its own friends.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada talked about the 80-20 rule. They talked about this bill creating a monopoly. They talked about the huge bureaucracy it would create. They talked about driving commercial providers out of the system. And they spoke about workers losing their choice under this legislation.

One section of their brief is entitled "Why the requirement that MSAs deliver service?" Remember, during the consultations, the people of Ontario told us, "We want coordinated, easier access," but nobody told us to create a monopolistic delivery service model.

This union, which is the third largest union, said:

"The elimination of diverse services will occur because of the requirement that the MSA not only ensure access but also deliver at least 80% of the service. This reduces consumer choice."

That was something I thought the NDP used to stand for in this province.

"It also places the MSA in an inherent conflict-of-interest position. The MSA will have control over funds, be responsible for ensuring that regulations are upheld and manage the delivery of service. At the end of the day, all these functions will report to a single board of decision-makers who inevitably will have to rely on the professionals who will run the MSA on a day-to-day basis.

"By virtue of the provisions of this bill, MSAs are being placed in virtual monopoly positions responsible for the total delivery of long-term-care services. Whenever a monopoly position is afforded, questions of accountability are crucial."

In the section entitled "Government bureaucracy -- more efficient?" this union stated:

"When our members ask us why the government is proposing to eliminate the various agencies that currently serve the community and replace them with a government agency, we have provided the government's stated rationale: This is supposed to eliminate the duplication of management and overhead costs and increase the coordination by placing them within a single agency.

"The response usually runs something like this: 'You mean the government actually thinks that one of its agencies is going to reduce overhead costs by creating a new bureaucracy? By the time they have their directors, communications persons, newsletters and consultants paid for, I doubt a penny will be saved.'"

Clearly, the withdrawal of the Price Waterhouse report earlier this week indicates that reputable accounting firm also had its doubts as to whether a penny would be saved.

My time is up. Other colleagues want to discuss this legislation. I just want to say to the government that one of the most enjoyable things I do each year in a non-partisan way with colleagues from Simcoe county who represent the NDP is attend a number of Red Cross volunteer award recognition days throughout the county.

In a very short period of time, I doubt I will have the privilege of attending those days to thank volunteers with the Red Cross, of which there are some 10,000 across this province, because if this legislation goes through and is enacted by the government, those volunteers will not be with the Red Cross. There are a myriad of other agencies outside of this sector that those volunteers will transfer their loyalties to.

The proof is in Quebec. That province created CLSCs, a similar type of monopolistic model for access to health services. Three weeks ago in Montreal, I spoke to the former parliamentary assistant to the Liberal Minister of Health there. He told me and others at a public gathering that, "Yes, Jim, we did kill volunteerism in the province of Quebec." In fact his exact words, for the record, were, "We virtually eliminated volunteerism in the province of Quebec."

In committee, when we asked the government to provide information about the Quebec model and its effect on volunteers and the millions of dollars that volunteers raise and contribute to the delivery of services now in our province, they refused. They refused to provide that basic research which used to be the democratic right of any member of this Legislature. They refused to bring forward their own costing, their own cost-benefit analysis.

They relied on the Price Waterhouse study. It gets pulled and they're unable to come up with one iota of a study to show that what they're claiming, what they're telling the people of the province, is at all true: that MSAs will be more cost-effective, that MSAs are the way to go and that a monopoly is good for you. They're unable to show in any factual way with 12,600 bureaucrats in the Ministry of Health -- they can't come up with one piece of paper that shows that MSAs will be more cost-effective. That is an absolute disgrace.

As I end, the only thing I can say is that I have some good news for the people of this province. The good news is that you bums will be thrown out in about seven months. If the government lawyers are telling us the truth, they tell us they haven't got any of the regulations written yet.

For once I say, "Thank God," because if my calculations are correct, it should take them -- and if I have anything to do with it, it will take them -- several months to write the regulations to this legislation and, therefore, my hope and my prayer is that you won't be in government to enact this legislation, to proclaim this legislation.

The people of Ontario will clean house in this Legislature. They'll clean that side of the House and if they had any doubts in the past of the need to clean house in this Legislature on the NDP side, today Bill 173 is proof positive that hidden agendas must not be tolerated, that hidden agendas do exist on all of their legislation and that they deserve to be thrown out of office. They do not have a mandate from the people on Bill 173; they do not have a mandate for much of what they've done. They know they don't have a mandate, so they bring in closure to silence anyone who might have the common sense to oppose you.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this debate although, as was the case the other day in the debate where we were dealing with an issue of the government applying time allocation or cutting off the debate on this particular piece of legislation, I'm not so pleased that I'm speaking on this legislation. I wish it were instead exclusively on the contents of the bill and where I believe the bill can be improved or withdrawn and brought back in a form that would gain a consensus in this House.

I'm not going to get into a partisan rant this afternoon about this. There are days where I probably do get into a partisan rant about things, but I'm not going to this afternoon. I want to, however, deal with some of the problems that I see with applying time allocation on this particular bill.

1650

I think it bears repetition that this is a rather unique session of this Legislature. This Legislature is supposed to be in session approximately from the third week of September until about mid-December; that's the normal parliamentary calendar that we have. All of us would expect that we were going to sit in that, each one of us. Our constituents, I know, believed that we were sitting. They saw the federal House sitting and they assumed that this Legislature was sitting.

That gives us then time to deal with legislation that is before the House in a detailed fashion. Every government believes that the opposition takes too long in dealing with legislation and every opposition probably believes that a government wants to rush it through. That's generally the stand that is taken in these cases.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Committees sat, Jim, committees sat all October.

Mr Bradley: The government is particularly edgy this afternoon. I don't know why they're so edgy over there this afternoon. The only one smiling is the former Minister of Labour, who appears to be delighted at the relief of the burden that he once had, so I'm glad to see that he is smiling in the House this afternoon. But what is happening is that again we are seeing a diminishing of the role that members of the Legislature play.

I think everybody assumes that the civil service, the public service, has a very significant role to play in terms of drafting legislation, drafting amendments for members of the Legislature and so on, and we are pleased to have that kind of assistance. But we as elected members, as I've said on a number of occasions in this House, are the only people the electorate can get at.

They can't get at the civil servants. They can speak to them but they really don't have any control over them. They can't get at the special advisers to the Premier in the Premier's office, the gurus who advise according to polls or whatever else they have in hand to advise the Premier on, or their own particular philosophy, so the only people they can get at in fact are those of us who are elected.

Through the change of rules that Mr Rae, the Premier of the province, has brought in, this House has yielded some of that power, not voluntarily on the part of the opposition, but certainly it has happened nevertheless because of the majority of the government. There are a few members on the government side who refuse to vote for closure motions and so on because philosophically they have been opposed to them, and perhaps when they were in opposition they had utilized the rules to advantage.

One of the reasons that you want the Legislature sitting for a fairly lengthy period of time is to allow the public to get a view of the debate; that is, to make their own decision watching on television or looking at the print coverage that there is, or perhaps they read Hansard -- a few people in this province might well read the written Hansard -- and they can then make a judgement as to what arguments are put forward best. The government has a chance to justify the stand that it takes. The opposition has a chance to criticize and offer some alternative suggestions on how legislation can be improved.

Increasingly what we see is that the government's mind is essentially made up, that there are a few amendments brought in that tinker with the concerns that are out there, but basically the legislation is not changed very much. That means the elected members, whether they're government backbenchers, members of the official opposition or the third party, really don't have as significant a role as they should have.

I'm not advocating that we go to the American system of government, because it has its problems as well. I know that there members may vote against party lines and it's a pretty independent place in terms of the voting procedure, but there are problems with that as well that I'll leave to another debate. I think our system can work well if the government is responsive to its own members and to the opposition.

I was reading an article in the Kingston Whig-Standard, for instance. I don't want to get too personal on this, but it's an example of how governments defend, no matter what. A woman from the Red Cross had written a letter to the Kingston Whig-Standard where she had been critical of government policy, and a government member wrote back in pretty damning terms about what this woman had suggested.

This is an overreaction. I know governments become edgy and irritated sometimes when there's a lot of criticism that's offered, but I thought this, upon reading it, was somewhat overkill. What happens is that the government backbenchers get hit with a situation where they essentially have to simply give the message out and aren't able to respond perhaps as they would like themselves to the representations made.

This letter was from Kathy Kennedy, who is the chair of the homemaker advisory committee, Canadian Red Cross Society, Kingston and district branch, and she said:

"I am writing to express my concerns with a piece of legislation that will soon become law.

"The legislation, Bill 173, An Act to reform Long-Term Care, will have a serious impact on the health and social services provided in our community. It will mean changes for the clients who are receiving those services."

She went on at some considerable length, and she's a knowledgeable person, she's worked in the field. She indicated: "The bill is undergoing a clause-by-clause review this week. Rewording of the bill is needed to allow our community to develop and implement the model for community-based long-term care that best meets our community's needs."

She said, "For further information or if you have questions about Bill 173, please contact the Canadian Red Cross Society," and suggests that they do so, so people would know what its position is.

Well, she got a reply, all right. There was a beaming picture of the minister and a pretty condemning and -- I won't say vicious, but a very strongly worded response that the Honourable Fred Wilson gave in this particular case.

Then the next article that comes in the paper says, "Shocked at Fred Wilson's Slur of Health Volunteers." Ms Kennedy again talks about her right to voice her concerns.

Now, there seems to be some evidence that there's a pattern developing out there. I don't know whether it can be substantiated with a lot of examples, but there appears to be a pattern out there with this government that anybody who criticizes it must be attacked. We've seen some examples of it. There was a person in the Solicitor General's office who had to resign last week or the week before. That person looked into a person's personal file -- I want to thank the member for Burlington South for assisting me with the letters -- looked into a person's personal file and made all kinds of threats. This has happened more than once. It has happened to some reporters in the press gallery. Jim Coyle of the Ottawa Citizen and the president of the press gallery both were investigated and some remarks were made by the police about what their stand had been on a particular issue.

I get concerned when that's the reaction. It's an overreaction, and I know it ties the hands of the government members who aren't in the cabinet when they have to meet with various individuals around the community. I don't know whether they're told to, but they feel a compulsion to simply give the government line instead of listening to the concerns of the people and perhaps making a judgement different from what the cabinet has decided.

That's why I think it's important to have a pretty free-wheeling and extensive debate both in committee and in this House. The committee work is extremely important. If you went into the committee and you saw the people who were sitting in the gallery day after day, you can tell these are people vitally interested in this legislation. They're largely people who have been involved with the delivery of long-term care to people in the communities over the years.

My colleague the member for Halton Centre, Ms Sullivan, made some of the points about the bill that I won't go into great detail on now, but I do want to express my concern again about the fact that the government is moving so quickly to bring this bill to fruition. The terminology we use in opposition is to "ram the bill through the House." I would have preferred more of a debate. I would have preferred the House to come back the third week of September and have an extensive debate both in committee and this House.

It might be that the government, under some considerable pressure -- and I say that in a positive sense -- might make some amendments that have been suggested by some of the people who are in the gallery today and some who may be watching on television, reasonable amendments. I have heard very few people who have said that the bill is no good from the start, that it should be thrown out completely, that it never was any good. Most people understood the need, particularly when there aren't a lot of dollars around to be spent on any government programs, to look at how we can best deliver health care services. I don't think people would quarrel with that. I don't think they would quarrel with the need for coordinating the services. I think people recognize that.

Where I think it breaks down is when you start treating those organizations which have been delivering these services over the years, and very well, thank you, in the way they have, by saying, "Only 20% of those services can be provided in the future by these organizations." What does that mean? It means organizations such as the VON, the Red Cross, Meals on Wheels, the March of Dimes, the Saint Elizabeth society, a number of these organizations, some of them religious, some of them cultural, that have been delivering services over the years are going to have their role significantly diminished under this legislation.

1700

I remember meeting with some people in my constituency office, one of whom was an ardent NDP supporter, I think up till this bill. She is a person I've known over the years and have always assumed was quite a strong NDP supporter. Maybe it's unfair just on one bill to fall off the wagon, so to speak, but she had mentioned how concerned she was about this bill. She was with one of the private, for-profit organizations as opposed to the VON, but felt that the organization she was with was also delivering some good health care.

What I see happening here is the government again, with about a 20-day session of the Legislature, wanting to ram everything through. If after a long debate in the House, if the House had sat all of this session that it normally would and at the end of that the government had made a decision, even if I disagreed with it in opposition and perhaps some who are observing disagreed with it, at least they would know there had been a thorough debate, that perhaps the government had listened, perhaps the government had made some significant changes to the legislation.

Instead it's the old routine of, "We don't want to face the House," because you have to face the question period, you have to face what we refer to as the scrum outside, which is the gathering of reporters who interview the cabinet ministers after and there's a lot of heat on the government. It's not as good as being able to go around and give out the cheques all over Ontario and shake hands and be at nice events. They are nice for people in government, and they always enjoy that.

But there is a responsibility for accountability. I think what we lose when this House is not in session is that kind of accountability, and that's what we need to have in our system. If the party that is sitting over there happens to be in opposition again -- that may or may not happen; that's up to the electorate to decide -- they will find that the rules Mr Rae, the Premier, has imposed on this House are rules which would confine them considerably.

When they were in opposition, I always thought they utilized the rules to the full extent and became an effective opposition as a result. My judgement is not so charitable in terms of the New Democratic Party in government, but I think the NDP in opposition was effective because those rules were available.

Today, you've taken that away. You've applied closure or time allocation 18 different times. You've limited the amount of time that members can speak in this House, individual members who want to bring the concerns of their constituents to this House. You've done a number of those things. You've shortened the regular calendar and then you don't even adhere to that calendar. You've taken away from the Speaker the right to make certain decisions that the Speaker used to make and you've put those in the hands of a cabinet minister.

This House becomes less relevant as the government continues to change those rules. The sad thing is, if you think another party is going to turn around if it gets in power and change the rules back, you're dreaming in Technicolor. Once you change them, it is very difficult for a government to bring itself to change the rules again, and that's the problem.

I hate to get into this, and you'll forgive me for a moment, but it's like casinos. Once you've got a casino, the other government that comes in, if it comes in, doesn't shut down the casino; you're stuck with it, you've got casinos. And that's one of my concerns. You can oppose it, as I do personally -- not all my colleagues agree with me -- but once you have these things, it's very difficult to get rid of them, and the rules certainly apply to that.

So far, the minister has rejected some good amendments by Ms Sullivan, the member for Halton North, the Health critic for the Liberal Party. I think you are going to diminish the role of volunteers. I'm not going to be as drastic and say they're all going to quit tomorrow, but it's certainly going to have a dampening effect on the enthusiasm of volunteers in this province if these agencies are relegated to 20% of the action.

I would say that about 90% of the people out there who are visited through long-term care need the help of a professional person, of a person with some medical knowledge, because a lot of these people have medical problems. All of us would agree that it's nice to be able to serve the people in the context of their homes. For their own health that certainly is true, and it is a less expensive way, most people believe, to be able to treat individuals.

I was also struck by the fact that the Price Waterhouse report -- and it's a reputable firm -- had been used to show that there was going to be a significant saving of administrative costs through this legislation. Price Waterhouse has written a letter, that we have a copy of -- Ms Sullivan has read that into the record, I believe -- which in fact retracts what it said originally. They've now come to the conclusion that those savings won't be there, that there were a lot of things factored in that shouldn't have been.

I look at the legislation and say, here's an opportunity for a government. It's brought in some legislation, and some out there will say rhetorically: "It must be all thrown out. It's bad legislation and these people over there don't know what they're doing." I don't take that approach. I think you've done some consultation and the previous government had done some consultation. The minister mentioned that the Conservative government, when it was in power about 1981, was talking about some kind of model to better deliver services. But I think what's important is that we bring forward the best possible legislation.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for Hamilton East is going to retire, I understand. He's one of the most partisan members I've ever encountered in the House. Don't you ever believe your government is wrong, Bob? I don't think he does. Maybe that's why he has been a good, ardent member of the NDP over the years, although he must be sometimes having just a few doubts about some of the changes in policy that he wouldn't agree with. But I don't expect this to be confession for him today.

What I would like to see the government do is to say: "We're not going to proceed with this time allocation. We're going to give some more time for consideration. Perhaps we'll bring the House back in January." I know I would enjoy a January session very much with my colleagues in the House to be able to discuss this matter further and perhaps persuade the government to make the changes that are required.

Mine I think is a reasonable approach, it's a relatively non-partisan approach -- it's as relatively non-partisan as one can be in this House -- and I think it's a sensible approach. It takes into account what a lot of people have told me through their letters to me and through personal meetings I've had with them about this legislation: Let's make it better legislation. Let's make it legislation that's really going to work. Let's make it legislation that will be acceptable to both those who are delivering the care in our community and, most importantly, to the consumers of that care out there who have benefited for years from the volunteer organizations, even from some profit organizations and non-profit organizations out there. Let's bring people together. Let's unite people in this. Let's treat people fairly. If we do that, we'll find out that there's a good consensus in this province.

One of my criticisms of this government has been that essentially it doesn't represent mainstream Ontario, it represents somewhat of an extreme. I'm not saying a great extreme, I'm not saying an extreme left or anything of that nature, but generally something outside of the mainstream of Ontario.

I think you can bring that mainstream together. You can build that consensus by making the changes that we have advocated in opposition. I find it a sad day indeed in this House when we are confronted with yet another motion to limit debate and to close off debate on an important piece of legislation.

My colleague from Renfrew North will offer a few comments because he too has received representations from people in his community, a different kind of community from mine, more rural, more small-town, but nevertheless a most valid point of view to be put forward.

I'm pleased to be able to offer some advice to the government. I ask you again, those on the back benches, to rise up, rebel, make yourselves relevant in this House and tell the cabinet where you really stand.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I'm rather upset that I have the occasion to be in the House to speak about this bill today, because this is really not about the bill, it's about closure. I'd much rather be in committee working on the amendments and carrying forward the substantive amendments that are required to make this bill a workable piece of reform and a relevant piece of reform for the province of Ontario.

The fact that the government has pulled the plug on our ability and our rights to perform that important function for all the citizens of this province is a sad occasion indeed, and I in no way relish the opportunity to be speaking about closure.

Closure is a decision that a government which lacks courage takes. It's a decision which flies in the face of our democratic principles. My colleague made references to Peter Kormos filibustering an issue around automobile insurance. I guess that was an important issue to the government at some point in its life.

1710

I'm reminded of one NDP MLA, Elijah Harper, who held up the whole future of our country with Meech Lake, but it was democracy. It was the right of a citizen to express his fundamental concerns and his beliefs and to fight tenaciously in any democratic forum, whether he holds a minority or a majority position in that Parliament. It was their right to be able to fight for what they believed in.

We, on this side of the House, feel that we're fighting for some very important things. We are all fighting to reform long-term care. It is badly needed, it is long overdue and it is necessary if we're to continue to provide services effectively, efficiently and appropriately in this province to the frail elderly and the disabled who require them.

But after waiting 10 years -- because in almost 10 years I've been in this Legislature we've been talking about reforming long-term care -- it would seem wrong that now, at the 11th hour, we would do a great injustice to the years of the work of consultation to perhaps set in place a piece of legislation which has not been adequately amended, appropriately modified to reflect the very legitimate concerns of the most important people out there, those who are affected.

They, quite frankly, in their order of priority, are the clients we serve: the senior citizens, the individuals who need some form of support or some degree of support in order to remain and live with dignity and comfort in their own homes or in a family setting. They're the first and foremost to be the most important persons in this scenario and they still have outstanding concerns about this legislation. I'll address those in a moment.

The second most important group of course is the front-line workers, the people charged on a daily basis with providing the sensitive care, quite frankly under low wages, under pressured conditions, under tough budgeting circumstances. They have delivered services in this province above and beyond the call of duty. They've done that with the support of probably the third most important group, a whole series of charitable groups, non-profit groups and agencies which are providing the coordination of these services.

If the government a decade ago was throwing around money for these programs, there would be all sorts of people in it. For most of these organizations, the genesis was to respond to a need in the community and not sit around waiting for government grants. They were there out of compassion, out of compassionate care, seeing an unaddressed need in the community and simply moving and responding to it and not simply saying, "Why isn't the taxpayer lining up to throw more money at us so that we can provide the service?"

Somehow we're punishing those people with their long history, their ethos, their principles, their compassionate people, their infrastructure, their network of funding opportunities. All of this is being challenged by this legislation. They too have a right, as those who contributed perhaps the most to our current infrastructure, to have some of their concerns considered.

The fourth important group of course is the taxpayer, who expects of any government that it will respond to the needs and reforms that are required in a society that wants to improve, that it be done in an efficient manner and a cost-effective manner and that it be ensured that those services are provided to those who are truly in need.

Yet I see this legislation and the hundreds of amendments. We're not talking about a large bill with 10 or 15 amendments. We are talking about hundreds of amendments which have been thrown at this bill since it was tabled in this Legislature back in June of this year. I might remind the members of this House that 25-some-odd amendments were thrown at the committee just within the last week, government amendments that deal with some substantive issues with one of the most important stakeholders in this enterprise, that is, the caregivers.

Several speakers have talked about these clandestine, behind-closed-doors, under-the-table meetings with organized labour to make these 11th-hour amendments behind the backs of unsuspecting, predominantly women workers in the province of Ontario. It presents again from this government a most offensive, discriminatory approach to looking at a person's value to our society by defining them based on whether they hold a union card in their pockets and not by how much compassion is in their hands in the delivery of their service.

On this case alone, this legislation should be damned, because a union card is what qualifies you to provide services to our frail elderly, not the compassion, not the understanding, not the experience, not the commitment, all those things which built this infrastructure in this province. We're now going to turn our backs to it.

I say, as my colleagues on this side of the House have indicated, we believe we have every right to fight as hard for this legislation to ensure the reforms are in place and the amendments are in place; we have the right to fight for that just as much as Elijah Harper had the right to fight for some changes to the Meech Lake accord. But this NDP government has chosen to remove them from us and, in so doing, has removed them from the thousands and thousands of senior citizens and handicapped persons in this province who rely on this legislation, and from the thousands and thousands of workers who today all across Ontario are delivering these services.

I would like to spend a little bit of time talking about some of the history of this legislation, because I think it's relevant and it's tempting to do so. I want to remind members of the House that in 1985-86 we undertook to start reform in long-term care, and I've said in this House on many occasions, I think we went about this entire reform backwards.

Instead of starting with making sure we had community-based services in place, which is what Bill 173 is all about, we started at the opposite end of the continuum-care model for senior citizens in this province and we began ratcheting down access to support for those most frail in society who, because of circumstances and conditions in their families and their medical condition, found themselves institutionalized.

I want to remind members that this bill is not the panacea that everybody will be miraculously able to get up and walk out of chronic care hospitals, return to their homes and receive services. We will always have institutionally based care in this province. But no, the government of the day, and it began with the Liberals, decided that we were going to put a cap on the number of chronic care beds that were available in this province. For obvious reasons, we ran into complications because of that.

I want to remind members of this House that the initial money the government found to finance the public consultation for long-term care came by removing $75 million from the 18 or 19 chronic care hospitals in this province and then proceeded to reclassify those beds to reduce incrementally the professional services and some of the support services that were delivered in those hospitals.

The next shoe to drop was the tabling of Bill 101. This was a real gem of a piece of legislation. The first thing it did was it removed access to a chronic care bed from the OHIP formulary. When I asked the government of the day, the NDP government, "Why are you even considering this?" they said: "Well, there are only two other provinces that have it in their formulary. We can afford to have it removed." This casual, lackadaisical attitude about something as fundamental as a citizen's right to a hospital bed or a chronic care facility in order to receive care -- the fundamental right was removed. So we fought that and we didn't get our amendments. The government went along.

Now we have a situation -- oh, there's a whole series of problems wrong with Bill 101. I might add that the government to this day still stands in the Legislature and says with much pride, much fanfare, much self-aggrandizement, "You know" -- I've got to watch these words carefully, Mr Speaker -- "this government has allocated some $400 million." It didn't say it spent it; it said it has pledged it or it has allocated it, but it didn't spend it.

1720

I'll tell you where $150 million came from. It came from increase of the user fees or the accommodation costs. Poor unsuspecting families, this Bill 101, in spite of all the promises, bang, this is what they get. Based on this government's performance on how it started at the opposite end by ratcheting down access to nursing home beds and home for the aged beds -- no capital growth going on in this area: we're reducing the number of beds; Bill 101 reductions in access to institutional beds.

What's happening is, people are on waiting lists. They're on waiting lists everywhere. In my community, you go into my local hospital, there are 50 people bed-blocking at the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital. They can't find an institutional bed. In the GTA I'm hearing that waiting lists are in the thousands. We're going to put all these people back into the community and try and provide them community-based care when their level of care needs is growing, because their acuity rate is growing, because we've created this blockage and cutoff at our institutional beds.

Now we find ourselves in this crazy situation where we're told, "Boy, we'd better get this long-term-care reform through right away because we're going to hold up the system." The system already needs an enema based on your last effort with Bill 101.

Mr Bradley: What would the enema do?

Mr Jackson: I'll tell you. The member for St Catharines is very interested in this subject. This legislation should have been in place first so that we had the support services in place, so that the blockage in the system didn't fall backwards and that we had a higher, greater acuity rate in the average senior citizen who needs a service. This is going to create all sorts of complications and infighting within an MSA to determine what are the most important services required. That's what I'm trying to suggest here.

Anyway, for purposes of the debate on closure, I want to put on the record that we were attempting during the many weeks of clause-by-clause to put a few issues on to the table and I want to state in general terms where the Progressive Conservative caucus is coming from on this bill.

My colleague from Simcoe West and I have participated in virtually all the public consultations on Bill 101 and on Bill 173 and in the clause-by-clause work as well. We can tell you that the first thing we want to say is, we don't want to hold up long-term-care reform. We want to make sure it's done right and done once and implemented. My fear is that people suggest that they would block the bill. I have a press release from Lyn McLeod indicating that she would put a screeching halt on the whole bill. My fear is that'll be an excuse not to fund it. We've got to fund it.

The second thing the Conservatives have indicated is that we need a system that's flexible. We fundamentally disagree that one made-in-Toronto formula brokering services will work in Espanola or work in Kingston, Ontario, or any other part of this province where the unique needs of a community and the complexities of their geography, their aging population mix, their varying levels of medical complications -- all of these factors can't really be organized under one set cookie-cutter model known as the MSA.

So we tabled extensive amendments to achieve a federated model where the local decision-making, based on the same boards -- we have no trouble with who sits on the boards, no trouble with that at all. What we're having trouble with is that they have to become an employer, that they become a bureaucracy, a civil service, and they're now employing all these people, when in fact perfectly viable, cost-effective, experienced infrastructures are in place. Agencies are in place like the Red Cross, the VON, Saint Elizabeth homemaking services. A whole series of organizations are in place.

Now, we go back to 1985. Until June of this year everybody's been talking about a federated model. Then in June of this year, with millions being spent on consultation, all of a sudden the governments says, "By the way, we're going to make a small change here." It wasn't all that small. "We're going to turn these agencies into government agencies that broker or purchase a small bit of service." With 20% of their budget they can purchase outside agency services, but 80% of it has to be directly provided by that agency of government. That is what an MSA is, ladies and gentlemen: It is an agency of this government.

The other issue that we raised was the issue of choice. We feel that a senior citizen must have certain fundamental rights of choice when it comes to the delivery of health care services. These are intimate, personal services. They should have a right to be able to say, "I believe these services might better be conveyed by" -- we'll use a Catholic agency because of my catholicity as an example. But not under this legislation, no sir. Once Sid Ryan and the boys got hold of this legislation, there were absolutely no choices.

When the Minister of Health stood before the first day of public hearings in this committee and broadcast how proud they were of the choice, I said: "Minister, could we cut to the quick? What choice does a senior citizen now have once your legislation is placed? Give me a clearly defined example under the act where they have new choice."

She said, to quote her loosely. "They have the choice to refuse the service." That's it. She didn't even attempt to try to sugarcoat it or find something else that she could run up the flagpole. She had nothing else. That's it. You have the right to refuse the service.

But what if you desperately need the service -- you need your colostomy changed, you need assistance because of a separated disc in your back, you can't wash your dishes or cook your meal -- you need those services? Well, you have the right to refuse the service in Ontario. I think that's wonderful.

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: While the former minister of everything, Mr Philip -- where are you from? Etobicoke-Rexdale. I would just remind the minister that we have yet another piece of your legislation. Bill 173 -- surprise, everybody -- takes and delists home care services out of the OHIP formulary. You tried it in Bill 101 and you got away with it. Let's try it now. Let's take it as a guaranteed, insured service.

Now, if you'll take the frail elderly, who have a precious small voice as it is in this province, out of the formulary, let me ask you, what is next? Probably some paediatric services, because they're not very well represented when it comes to having a public voice and government listening.

You don't want this to be publicly exposed any more than it currently is. You don't want the public discussing about what services are being removed from this bill.

Interjection.

Mr Jim Wilson: Read your own explanatory notes.

Mr Jackson: It's in your explanatory notes to the bill. But don't ask me to roll over and say, "Yes, let's close one eye and vote for this," because I know that there are 63-year-old or 70-year-old widows sitting in their own homes by themselves who are going to need that service, and some bureaucrat is going to walk into that house and say, "Frankly, I don't think you really need this."

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It won't happen.

Mr Jackson: Mr Mills, the member for Durham East, says it won't happen. I want your home phone number after the next election so I can find you and I want to be able to call you with the families that get turned down for services in your own backyard.

1730

Mr Jim Wilson: Join the waiting list, the legislated waiting list.

Mr Jackson: Join the waiting list. That's the message.

When it comes to the issue of choice for consumers, it's gone and there's no appellate mechanism. I tell my constituents, "If you enjoy the idea now of picking up the telephone and trying to talk to any department of government" -- let's just say you've got a traffic violation and you want to talk to the local court about your concerns about your traffic ticket -- "you're going to love trying to get through to a civil servant about why your grandmother can't have home care."

We're going to talk a bit about another rule that the Conservatives find offensive, the 80-20 rule. Again, it's been well established that this is going to wipe out several agencies from the service delivery system in this province, and that's tragic. We've documented that volunteer losses could be as high as $37 million.

Last week I read into the record information about the legislation brought in by the pro-labour Liberals in Quebec to create the CLSCs, the Quebec government task force report on health promotion with the objective of developing a health concept in Quebec. The CLSCs are identical to the MSAs which are going to be operating in Ontario.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): They are not the same.

Mr Jackson: Mr O'Connor says they're not the same because the board members get paid in Quebec. Let me remind you that Sid Ryan and the unions -- one of the few groups that liked the legislation -- said when they came before the committee, "Oh, by the way, if any of our labour members are on the MSA boards, we want to be paid." Check the Hansard, check the record.

There is a price for a contribution, we've found. I didn't think there was supposed to be one, but Sid Ryan and some of the labour groups have indicated they definitely want to get paid.

Mr Jim Wilson: They don't like volunteers.

Mr Jackson: They don't like volunteers. I didn't think they'd take it to a ridiculous extreme; even when labour members get to volunteer, they want to get paid for it.

I want to mention as well that we brought in amendments, and they were successful amendments, to strengthen the purpose clause in this legislation to protect seniors. I have publicly thanked the government for the flexibility it showed by giving some more teeth and meaning to a bill of rights for those who receive these services. I truly believe there is an occasion within the balance of these amendments that we can seek out further amendments, if you'd give it the time, instead of invoking closure.

We are deeply distressed that you have deprofessionalized in a sense, within this legislation, a whole group of professional service providers in long-term care ranging everywhere from chiropractic, where we've indicated there is a clear application for that, to professional nursing services, where there's evidence in the bill that this is being deprofessionalized.

The unionization has been very well covered by my colleague.

The fact that the Price Waterhouse study has now been withdrawn attacks the government's number one argument that it is affordable. You will not give us a cost-benefit analysis. You can't find a figure; so how can we trust your figure? If you'd give us a figure to work with, maybe we'd know how to deal with it, but you won't give us a figure. The one figure you had has been withdrawn.

Without imputing motive at all, you don't have a figure on this legislation in terms of what it will cost. So you will do what you do best of all, you'll throw more money at it. That's not what we should be doing, especially when you're destroying and tearing down many organized agencies that are providing services.

I want to close because my colleague from London wishes to make some comments for the record.

I simply want to say that this legislation started out in 1985-86 being about providing long-term care more efficiently, more effectively but, most important, more compassionately in this province. What we've seen evolve over that nine-year period is a steady move to simply control costs for the sake of costs, to change the makeup of those front-line workers who provided the compassion and care and delivery of that service, and, perhaps its strongest indictment, they've done all this without consulting directly with the persons whom this legislation should be all about: the seniors, the disabled, the frail who need the services in this province. That's why closure is wrong and why you should be amending this legislation so that it can be proceeded with as soon as possible.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd just like to put on the record that the member for Burlington South said that when this bill is passed, he wants my telephone number. I want to tell him that unlike my Conservative predecessor, my telephone number's been in the book since 1990 for anybody to call me.

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

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'd like to join my colleagues in the assembly today, and most especially my colleagues Mrs Sullivan and Mr Bradley, in speaking to Bill 173, the government's Long-Term Care Act, and to express the views of my constituents in the Ottawa Valley.

As has been commented by a number of previous members, the whole question of long-term care has a history over many years and over at least three administrations: the Rae, the Peterson, and the Miller-Davis administrations of the early 1980s. I think it is fair to say, and I want to be very clear and categorical, that what we set out to do in this process and where I believe there is still all-party support is that there be one-stop access for those services that our frail elderly and disabled require, whether they live in Ottawa, Pembroke, Woodstock, rural southwestern Ontario or northern Ontario.

I and my colleagues in the Liberal Party and, I have to believe, everybody in this assembly endorse absolutely the fundamental importance of one-stop access. I congratulate the government for recognizing that that was a fundamental area where action was required. It built on the efforts of previous governments. I think it has to be said that we want, all of us, to move forward to deal with that polyglot of service out there that tends to confuse people, particularly the frail elderly.

The question I have as I look at Bill 173 is, what went wrong? We started out, all of us, with a very powerful and positive consensus around one-stop access. We were going to effect through legislative change and community action a far better coordination of all these services on the community-based model, and we were, as we moved forward in Glengarry or elsewhere, going to do that, improve the coordination, through one-stop access. We were going to make the system more clear, more sensible, more efficient for the clients: the frail elderly, the disabled and in some cases children. That was what we set out to do, and we have got a bill that I think is madness on stilts, and people should be concerned about what went wrong. I can't support this bill, though I support the principle of one-stop access.

I want to say to my colleagues that I have not seen, not even in the worst days of the separate school bill where I and my colleagues in government, and many in the assembly, were denounced for a very unpopular piece of government handiwork -- I can't ever remember in 20 years where so many people in my county and across the province denounced fundamental aspects of this bill.

Mr O'Connor: That's because you ignored the seniors.

Mr Conway: My friend from Durham-York says we're ignoring people. I am only telling you that I went to one day of Kingston hearings and a day in Toronto, two days of public hearings around this bill -- I wasn't a member of the committee -- but I was stupefied by the incredible wall of opposition. Virtually everybody in Kingston and everybody in Toronto said, "This started out as a good idea but it is fundamentally flawed because it is not in accord with the community realities as we have them in Kingston," or in Leeds or in west Toronto.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: My friends opposite say to me, "You've got it all wrong." I tell my NDP friends, and they are good people and well intentioned -- I can see this group of New Democrats staring Galileo in the face and saying, "Notwithstanding your telescopic evidence, the world is flat." No, the world isn't flat. Galileo is right and so were the scores of people who came to that committee, from Toronto to Windsor to Thunder Bay to Ottawa, and said, "This bill is fundamentally flawed."

1740

I hold in my hand but part of my file as one member in this assembly. These are letters from the Grey Sisters, from the county of Renfrew, from the Red Cross, from the VON, from every reputable, community-based organization in my constituency, saying: "The bill is fundamentally flawed. Please change it and stop this juggernaut."

I think we have that obligation to not only change this bill but refocus the debate on what it is we all set out to do years ago. Colleagues on all sides, beware that this bill, if implemented -- and let me say, this bill will not be implemented. This bill as written, irrespective of what happens in this chamber tonight and later this season, will not be implemented.

I want to say that we are going to the polls. We are going to the polls within six months, and I assure you that a new Liberal government, or, I am sure, should it be elected, a Tory government, will not proceed with those parts of this bill that are clearly, transparently and fundamentally flawed.

I say, furthermore, to the Ministry of Health and to those district health councils out there, you'd better plan on the basis of having one-stop access, but you'd better understand, whether you're a health council in the Ottawa Valley or in Thunder Bay or in Halton or in Metropolitan Toronto, that the fundamental flaw in this bill, the government's multiservice agency, will be fundamentally recast by a Liberal government.

We will do so because those hundreds of people, good people, the Grey Sisters, the VON, the Red Cross and all others who came forward, said: "This won't work. This can't work. This violates decades, in some cases over a century, of good, community-based activism in places like London and Pembroke and Parry Sound and elsewhere in the province."

They say to me and they said to the committee, "Will not the NDP ideologues understand that they do not appreciate what they are doing with this bill?" I say that we support as a Liberal party, and Mrs McLeod and Mrs Sullivan have said that we continue to endorse, the principle of one-stop access. But we will as a new government, and on a priority basis, recast this policy to make the multiservice agency much more reflective of genuine community conditions and we will provide in our policy a far wider range of alternatives for communities across the province.

Let me cite an example. It may be a big surprise to members opposite, but in the county of Renfrew our district health unit provides over 50% of the services that are at issue in this debate. They are effectively and largely disqualified from continuing as any kind of a major multiservice agency. That is madness in Renfrew county. That is madness on stilts. Why? Because the people who run that are people who happen to be elected. And it is very interesting that in the NDP world, the one disqualification is this: If you've ever been elected to anything, then you are transparently not community-based.

If you appoint yourself an important person, with no popular mandate other than your mother-in-law or father-in-law writing a laudatory letter to the NDP quarterly, then of course you are a community-based activist. But in our county, the district health unit will be disqualified from delivering most of the services that it has delivered sensitively and in concert with the VON and the Red Cross and other very good, cost-effective, community-based organizations for decades.

Now, you say, what will happen? The government has come forward and said, "We've got the 80-20 rule," that's been adverted to earlier by a number of previous speakers.

What we have, of course, is the fact that in my county for months, and probably a couple of years, most of the people who receive these services are going to be left in limbo while an elaborate, costly divorce proceeding is undertaken because of this madcap policy, and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of dollars, are going to be spent on severing good people from a good organization, while the frail elderly and the disabled and children are denied service.

It is nuts. It is totally nuts. I have been around here long enough to know that we have all got problems.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): The member is honest.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Nipigon.

Mr Conway: I do not want to be going home to places like Killaloe and Barry's Bay and Westmeath and Ross township and Chalk River and explaining to 85-year-old constituents why those very good people who have been associated with the Red Cross and the health unit and the Grey Sisters and everybody else, can't continue to do what they have done for decades. It is nuts.

Interjection: Tell them to get involved --

Mr Conway: These people are the core of my community, and they don't need some NDP ideologue, who doesn't know anything about anything, telling them that what they've done for a century can't continue.

Mrs Sullivan: That's right. They don't need you to make judgements about what acceptable volunteer work they can do. That is such an arrogant idea: "Tell them that they will participate as a volunteer in an MSA."

Interjections.

Mrs Sullivan: They can make their own choices about where they want to volunteer. They don't need the NDP to tell them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There are many members out of order, many members who are not seated in their rightful places. I ask the House to come to order, and the member for Renfrew North to continue.

Mr Conway: Members must know -- I know my colleagues opposite. They're not, hopefully, blind to the realities of their own community.

We've got in a city like Pembroke the Marianhill home for the aged, which has an enormous series of tentacles that have reached out over a century. These people are the lifeblood of social services in a city like Pembroke.

The Red Cross -- I've got a letter here from the Renfrew and district homemakers saying, "This will kill us." These are good people. They have been doing public works in my county long before I was born and they will be continuing, hopefully, long after I'm gone from this place and I've shuffled off this mortal coil. What right do we have to tell these people that they can't continue with some adjustment that is sensible and achievable and affordable in their community to keep that pattern of public service? It is irresponsible for anyone in this assembly to make that claim, as the government regrettably does in this bill.

Let me say finally that even if we wanted to do this -- we cannot and we will not see the MSA model that is incorporated in this bill become the law or become the actual reality of the land, but even if we wanted to -- we haven't got the money to do this. This is, at another level, fiscal irresponsibility of the most transparent kind.

I know what my friends opposite are trying to do. We all recognize that the old system, with some of the duplication and some of the lack of coordination, needed improvement, and I think there is a consensus around how we might do that. But we set out, my friends, to drive to -- I live in Pembroke. This is as though I set out to drive to Toronto and I've ended up in Moosenee, and the public knows that. They know that the instruments that the government -- I see a look of bewilderment across the way.

I repeat that I listen. I have read my mail, hundreds of letters from the most reputable people I know in my county. I went to but two days only of committee hearings, and 95% of the people who came, good people, young, middle-aged and older, from the not-for-profit, some from the government sector, said: "The general objective of one-stop access is right and appropriate. We support that. But the instruments that are chosen and provided for in this bill are absolutely outrageous. They won't work. They're unachievable. They are unaffordable. And please, Legislature, draw back and do not impair the kind of community-based services that are so vital to long-term care across the land." That's why I cannot support this bill as written.

1750

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'd like to just spend the few moments I've got talking about the process and the intent of this government when it was elected four years ago. They were a government that was out there to do business in a different way and to listen to the people.

All I can say is that when I first came down to this Legislative Assembly, I was asked to speak on this motion of closure, and at that time, in 1988, I learned that in governments of the day, but especially the Conservatives, since 1867 there were three closure motions in this House. Afterwards, during the Liberal term of office, there were three or four, and this government in the past four years, and in just this third session, I have to say, has introduced 18 motions to close debate. I really don't think that is listening to the people. In opposition they never would have tolerated it. I know, because I was here.

It's our job in opposition to bring good ideas, amendments, to this government after public hearings. On this most important piece of legislation, Bill 173, that talks about community care for our seniors, for very old people, for the disabled, where we're all looking for the best solution, we now find ourselves, after just four afternoons of debate in committee since the House resumed, facing a closure motion which next Monday will allow us to vote with no debate "nay" or "yea" in committee and then come to the House on Tuesday for two and a half hours of this kind of debate.

During that third reading, I can tell you everyone will be talking about this government that wanted to listen to the people. I say that sincerely, because this is one of the most important pieces of legislation this province has faced in probably two decades of health care.

I want to say on behalf of a couple of my constituents -- Janice McCallum, president of the board of directors for the Victorian Order of Nurses, Middlesex-Elgin branch, wrote, "The legislation needs to be flexible enough to allow the community to select the MSA model that best meets its needs and allow the consumers' right to choice where this is economically feasible."

She just said two things. "Select the MSA model that best meets its needs." When I was at the district health council meeting last week, they did not believe that this legislation would allow that community to best meet its needs.

Interjections.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): We never said that, Dianne.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oxford is out of order.

Mr David Winninger (London South): No, I don't think we said that either, Dianne

Mrs Cunningham: Secondly, if I am not particularly clear on that one, I can assure you that the issue of consumer choice was discussed and they did say very clearly, with no interpretation, that in fact the consumers' right to choice is limited by the 80-20 discussion.

If in fact the member for Oxford and the member for London South are disagreeing with this interpretation, I would invite them to look at their mail -- if they can read -- which is exactly the same mail as I get, and I will quote from another letter. This concern was also stressed by Patricia Cordeiro, the director of the Middlesex-London Home Care Program, who brought this issue to all of my colleagues in southwest Ontario and who would very much appreciate the opportunity to be heard and to listen to debate in committee. I just know it.

She stated in her letter that, "The Middlesex-London Home Care Program feel that the bill is too rigid and prescriptive." They felt that, "If the bill was passed unamended, many of the strengths of the current system will be seriously undermined and improved access to services by consumers will be impeded."

I have read into the record directly from the letters of the Victorian Order of Nurses, Middlesex-Elgin branch, and from the director of the Middlesex-London Home Care Program. They speak for hundreds of individuals who have cared, before this government ever came into the office, for people with real needs in their communities. They are telling us that the changes that are about to be implemented as a result of this legislation are not helpful. I think it's a very sad commentary on a government that spoke for the people. In fact maybe they do, but they certainly haven't been listening on this particular piece of legislation.

I'm not certain what we can do next, but I do know I have my doubts that this government will ever call this Parliament back into session. I think for two reasons I can speak very clearly that the public is crying out for an election this spring. This bill will absolutely seal the wishes of the public, because it knows that this particular government has not listened.

They have used closure motions 18 times. They do not care about the public, they only care about their own ideology, and when we see the debate in committee on Monday next week, where clause 15 is discussed --

Interjections.

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

Mrs Cunningham: -- what we call the labour clause, it will be solidified that once again the promises and the ideology of certain individuals in this government, where they want to in fact unionize all of Ontario, will be met by this bill. If there's one piece of legislation that will completely throw them out of office, this is it, because real people care about their families first and what they want is choice.

The Victorian Order of Nurses came into my office, the local chapter, with representatives from the state of Michigan where they have over 20,000 volunteers doing work in communities, because they too face the challenge of high costs of health care. In society today we will probably be reaching out in housing, in education and in health care for more volunteers, not less.

I should say in the last 35 seconds that it's very difficult to speak --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Cunningham: -- on this piece of legislation today because of the government members screaming and yelling across the House, but if I felt as guilty as they did, and if I listened as little as they do to their constituents, and if I rammed legislation through this assembly more than any other government since September 3, 1867, I too would have nothing left to do but shout about nothing, and that's what they'll be doing in the election. They can all kiss their seats goodbye.

The Speaker: Is there further debate?

Mr O'Connor: Let's try to have a calm moment or two here to reflect exactly what we're doing here. It's easy for me to see the difficulty that my colleagues across the way are having because this represents change, real meaningful change that has been proposed for well over a decade, changes they've even talked about at different points, though they don't agree with where we're headed. Change is a difficult process. Part of the difficulty is --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's hard to speak over all the heckling opposite, and I guess that really is an example of how well they listened to the people that came to the committee hearings because --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Halton Centre, please come to order.

Mr O'Connor: -- because what we heard --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre, the member for Simcoe West, please come to order. The member for Durham-York.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's because of their lack of ability to go through the information being provided to us as honourable members of the Legislature to recognize the difference between the consumers, those people who want to see this reform take place, for a more equitable, integrated and coordinated system, one that's far more simplified in access. The actual fact is, the legislation is about the consumers.

We heard about all kinds of providers, but the members opposite refused to listen to the seniors. In fact, on Tuesday this week, we had over 300 seniors come to this Legislative Assembly and, true to the opposition form, not one of their members had the decency to listen. They wrote a letter to every member of this Legislature, and I just want to quote from a few parts of it.

"We assure you that our consumer organizations want this legislation passed. We feel it is necessary for the delivery of appropriate and necessary care which is more accessible to consumers," written by the consumers that they ignored.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Simcoe West is asked to come to order.

Mr O'Connor: "In the current economic environment, our organizations believe that agency amalgamations must be the outcome of this reform. As taxpayers, we want our dollars spent expanding direct services -- not maintaining the duplicated administration and management structures created by 1,200 separate agencies."

Interjections.

Mr O'Connor: I hope the people at home can hear this, because I don't think many of my colleagues can.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I cannot stand intellectual dishonesty. Be honest. You are unionizing the people.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills knows better. I ask that he withdraw the unparliamentary remark that he just made.

Mr Turnbull: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Mr O'Connor: I'll just continue.

"While we have concerns regarding the implementation...we feel that Bill 173 is the necessary foundation for building a comprehensive long-term-care system that we can all be proud of. Therefore we would once again like to urge all the legislators," and that means including the opposition members, "to move forward with this legislation without further delay." And what did we have on Tuesday this week? Delay after delay after delay.

The point is, we heard this from the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance, we heard this from the Older Women's Network, we heard this from the Consumer Coalition on Health and Long-Term Care, we heard this from the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, we heard this from the Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities, we heard this from the Canadian Pensioners Concerned, we heard this from the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations, we heard this from the CAW retirees even.

The point is that they have listened to one argument only, and it's reprehensible that after going through hearings through August, September and October, they wouldn't even listen. The fact that we've been all over Ontario -- they could only listen to part of it and forgot to listen to the consumers who came here, 300 in number, and they refused to even meet one of them. They refused to meet even one senior.

The Speaker: Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion 36, a resolution which stands in his name.

All those in favour of Mr Charlton's motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members: a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1802 to 1812.

The Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

All those in favour of Mr Charlton's motion should please rise one by one.

Ayes

Abel, Bisson, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Cooper, Coppen, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Charlton's motion should please rise one by one.

Nays

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Conway, Curling, Daigeler, Harnick, Hodgson, Jordan, McLean, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sorbara, Sullivan, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57, the nays 20.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Does the government House leader have the business statement for next week?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the week of November 21.

On Monday, November 21, we will continue second reading deliberation of Bill 187, the business regulation reform.

On Tuesday, November 22, we will continue with Bill 187 and, following that, committee of the whole consideration of Bill 175, the efficient management omnibus.

For Wednesday, November 23, the business is to be announced, hopefully early in the week.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Charlton: We do; we just don't know which one we want to do.

In the morning of Thursday, November 24, during private members' public business, we will consider ballot item number 71, Bill 183, standing in the name of Mrs Caplan, and ballot item number 72, Bill 156, standing in the name of Mr Rizzo. On Thursday afternoon, we will consider an opposition day motion standing in the name of Mr Harris.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 34, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

JOB SECURITY

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Simcoe East gave notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Economic Development and Trade concerning CN rail. The member has to up to five minutes to make his presentation and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade has up to five minutes for her response.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I filed my notice of dissatisfaction with the minister's answer because when it come to the abandonment of rail lines in Simcoe county the federal and provincial levels of government continue to fiddle while Rome burns.

Months ago, I warned the Legislature that if the Collingwood to Barrie rail line is abandoned, the Bradford to Washago line will be the next to fall.

Officials of Simcoe county made this government aware last fall that private investors will not purchase short-rail operations because the government's job-killing labour laws made it uneconomical to do so. A year later, the clock is ticking, and CN and the National Transportation Agency have run out of patience.

Rather than rolling the dice with the economic future of Simcoe county, the NDP government should have supported the private member's bill of Jim Wilson, the member for Simcoe West, which amends the successor rights provisions of the labour legislation.

As you know, I received a letter from CN North American vice-president, Allan Deegan, who indicated that CN filed a notice of intent on April 26 with the NTA to cease rail operations on the Newmarket subdivision, Bradford to Washago, and the Midland subdivision, Uhthoff from Orillia. Mr Deegan indicated that CN invited proposals from short-line operators for five lines in Ontario including the Barrie-Collingwood and Midland-Uhthoff lines. However, "potential bidders withdrew from this process when changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act were enacted," said Deegan's letter.

On February 8, 1994, the member for Simcoe West, the member for Grey-Owen Sound and I met with representatives from CN rail, the Ministry of Transportation, the city of Orillia, the town of Collingwood, and numerous businesses and industries in Simcoe county, because we all knew that the future of economic development and employment rests heavily on rail service in our region.

We were all deeply concerned about rail abandonment and we wanted to find a workable solution to the successor rights problems. When asked if potential purchasers of rail lines Canadian National wants to abandon could get exemptions from part of your labour law, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade told a meeting of the Simcoe County Rail Retention Committee that her government has no intention of giving any legislative relief because she doesn't believe it's necessary.

The minister's statement was confirmed by Simcoe county warden, Bob Drury, and Simcoe North MP, Paul DeVillers, who attended the meeting.

The clock is ticking, time is running out, and all the people of Simcoe county are getting is conflicting stories from the Premier, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, the Minister of Labour, from the federal member of Parliament for Simcoe North and from the federal Minister of Transport.

Paul DeVillers, MP for Simcoe North, has invited the leaders of the three provincial parties to a special rail meeting in Orillia on December 3. Mr DeVillers claims that he has obtained a special agreement with federal Transport minister Doug Young to delay abandonment for two years. However, Mr Young has written to Mr DeVillers to say:

"In my letter of October 4, 1994, to you I state that CN had indeed confirmed in writing our understanding that they will not be removing the track for the time being. Nowhere has it been stated that the tracks will remain until the spring of 1996."

It's another example of the conflicting stories and claims that are circulating about rail abandonment.

On November 3 the Minister of Labour told the member for Simcoe West that it is very convenient for CN and the federal government to try to pass the blame on to the province. She claimed that her government has found potential investors for these lines and that Ontario has taken on the leadership in the absence of federal leadership.

Will the minister tell us who these investors are and what lines they are interested in?

The Minister of Labour also said that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade met with three major rail unions that are willing to negotiate a new, single collective agreement with a short-line operator. She claims you have this position confirmed in writing. I'd like to see that written agreement.

On November 1, the Minister of Labour told the member for Simcoe West that she would be meeting with you to discuss the impact of Bill 40 on the purchase of abandoned rail lines. Have you met with the Minister of Labour, and what was the result of that meeting?

We don't want any more conflicting stories. We want to get on with the job. Having said that, I want the minister to reflect on the issues.

I want to read a paragraph of this letter addressed to Mr Paul DeVillers, MP, Simcoe North, from Doug Young, the Minister of Transport. He says:

"To be perfectly clear, 'for the time being' means that local interests must produce a serious alternative for CN's consideration before the beginning of the next track construction season. Unless a concrete offer is received, CN cannot be expected to leave valuable track unused when it is needed for repairs elsewhere in their system. Therefore, a concrete offer must be received before March 1995 or CN will have no option but to proceed with the removal of the track. I have been very clear that our mandate does not include a moratorium on rail abandonment," says Mr Young, Minister of Transport.

1820

The Speaker: The Minister of Economic Development and Trade has up to five minutes for her reply.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): And you won't cut me off this time, Mr Speaker, okay?

I have to say that earlier on today when you said that you weren't satisfied with the fullness of my answer, I was shocked. No one in four years has ever accused me of not giving a full answer in the House at question period. I was hurt, actually.

I appreciate the opportunity that the member for Simcoe East is actually giving both of us here. I think it is important to continue to put the facts on the record, and I think that's what he's trying to achieve. I know his interests, the member for Simcoe West's and the member for Simcoe Centre's who has met with me often on this issue as well.

There's just one statement I want to make first. I want to refer to some of the comments that were made by the Minister of Labour in her response to the member for Simcoe West. It really is putting some facts on the table, but I want to quote her from that. She said it very ably:

"This government is not abandoning rail service to communities." It's not this government. "CN is. This government is not threatening northern communities with complete isolation, with the threat of closing the northern lines. CN is.... This government is not trying to rip up the transportation infrastructure of this province. CN is."

"CN has one shareholder and that...is the federal government."

I appreciate the focus that the member for Simcoe East has given to the role of the federal government and particularly the role of the federal member in that area, Mr DeVillers.

Since I've taken over this portfolio, I have been very actively seeking a solution for a number of these communities which face the total abandonment of their rail infrastructure by the federal government and by CN. It's unfortunate that other levels of government have to pick up the responsibility, but we've been willing to work with partners. I have met with groups of mayors. You referenced one meeting that I attended myself. I've met several other times with groups from different communities.

We have canvassed the shippers in these areas. We have a full idea of what their options are with respect to alternative transportation, whether there are options, their reliance on rail. We have a much better and clearer idea of which of the lines in fact are economically viable. Many of the lines that are being proposed to be abandoned unfortunately aren't economically viable. As one shipper put it, CN has actively demarketed those lines and let the physical plant deteriorate to a point that no private investor is going to move in.

I have met with these people. I have met with the unions, and you referenced that meeting, and I have a commitment from them. I'm pleased to share some correspondence with you tonight.

I'm going to send over a September 20 letter from the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees. In that, you'll see they say that they are willing to negotiate. "The BMWE would agree to negotiate an agreement appropriate to any short-line purchases, based on each individual short line."

I'm also going to send over a letter of September 27 from the United Transportation Union. While they don't think CN should be abandoning these, and neither do the communities, they recognize that there may be special circumstances that would require a differentiated type of union than that which existed under the national railroads operation. They're prepared to discuss that.

I'm also going to send you an October 20 letter from myself to Paul Wessenger, the MPP for Simcoe Centre, a full update, and an October 31 letter from myself to Mr Drury, the warden of the county of Simcoe, updating him on our efforts and discussions with CN with respect to the potential purchase of the southern part of the line in terms of Toronto to Barrie to maintain the possibility of GO service, but also, I point out, because CN, backed again by the federal government, is proposing abandoning the very south part, which would cut the legs out from any discussion that would serve Simcoe county.

I have said time and time again that Bill 40 is not the problem, and I hope that you will start to appreciate what I mean when I see and show you the unions that are prepared to negotiate. I ask you to look at the Exeter line which was short-lined before Bill 40 was even proclaimed. Since then, it's been certified and the first contract is being negotiated.

The member asked about potential investors. There are two potential investors for the Graham subdivision, three for the Barrie to Collingwood line, one on the Rymal line. These are investors that we have sought. The federal government hasn't, and CN hasn't helped us. In general, companies like Railtex have expressed an interest in a number of lines; two other American companies and several Ontario-based companies. I'm not going to provide you with specific potential investors' names on those lines today, because at this point in time they haven't made their intentions clear.

But I'll tell you, at the very end of the day, as much as we can bring investors to the table and as much as we can bring unions to the table -- and we have -- CN will make the decision about to whom they will sell and if they will sell and under what conditions, and the federal government is the government that we should continue to push.

Mr DeVillers was at the meeting I had. All the people who were there in that room said they didn't believe Bill 40 was a problem any more. The only person up there who's continuing to say that is Mr DeVillers. Quite frankly, the meeting he is calling and having together is simply to deflect attention from where it properly belongs: the federal government.

The Speaker: And I didn't cut you off.

CANCER TREATMENT

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for Eglinton had filed her dissatisfaction with the answer given to her question by the Minister of Health concerning Taxol. The member for Eglinton has up to five minutes to make her presentation.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, you certainly know who your friends are during a late show. Notice everybody has left except the minister and I and a few other stalwarts.

This afternoon I asked a question of the Minister of Health about a very serious issue, breast cancer treatment. I have to tell you I was very disappointed in her response.

As members know, breast cancer is the single most common malignancy found in North American women. Currently, one in nine Canadian women can expect to develop breast cancer during her lifetime and one in 23 will die of the disease. Overall, breast cancer is the leading cause of death among women aged 35 to 55.

That is why there was such deep concern when the Alliance of Breast Cancer Survivors raised the issue of lack of access to a new treatment. This morning they held a press conference to bring their concerns to the Legislature.

In December 1993, a new drug, Taxol, was approved for use against metastatic breast cancer; that's breast cancer which has spread. Taxol has proven to be extremely effective in improving the quality of life of many women with this life-threatening disease. The British Columbia cancer agency has called Taxol "one of the most significant new drugs developed for breast and ovarian cancer treatment in the past decade." They state that in a Canadian clinical trial, biweekly administration of Taxol and Platinol in patients with advanced breast cancer resulted in either complete or partial remission in 85% of patients. You'd be interested to know that they fully fund Taxol in BC.

Hospitals and cancer centres in Ontario are concerned about the high cost involved in performing the treatment, particularly if they can't get ministry help in paying for it. The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation confirms that few hospitals are providing Taxol because of the cost. This poses a problem for the foundation. If its cancer centres only were to offer Taxol in Ontario, the foundation could not manage the demand, neither financially nor with the cancer centre's limited staff and space.

Minister, there's urgency to this situation. Only if women are admitted to hospital are they able to access Taxol through the hospital system. As you know, this leaves many women out in the cold. They don't want to become hospital inpatients; they want to stay at home with their families when they are in the advanced stages of breast cancer.

I do have to tell you again that I was disappointed in your response today. It's all well and good to recite statistics about funding new cancer centres and all the other recent initiatives, but as one of the breast cancer survivors said after your response, all that does not impact on patients now.

Let's make it clear: We are not talking about an untried drug in its early experimental stages. The federal government has already conducted clinical trials, established guidelines and approved Taxol for usage in Canada.

The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation will be providing you shortly with administrative guidelines and positive efficacy results. When you receive the guidelines from the cancer foundation, Minister, we urge you to act immediately to ensure cancer centres and hospitals are provided with the necessary funds to cover Taxol. We again call on the government today to make that commitment to the women of this province.

I'd like to close with a very eloquent plea from Dr Judith Rosner-Siegel, who this morning said in the press conference: "The Alliance of Breast Cancer Survivors and all persons touched by cancer in this province call on the minister to act now. Don't wait for another woman to die. Reduce the statistics a bit because you have acted with an understanding of what we need and with justice. Give us the freedom to live."

In the press conference this morning Judith Rosner-Siegel also quoted from the prayer which you read in this House every day, which talks about using power wisely and well.

The government can find money to support other programs which we do not feel is a good use of taxpayer money. I think the women of this province deserve nothing less than to have their share of funding for a drug which will make an incredible difference to the quality of life of those unfortunate women who have to face breast cancer.

The Speaker: The Minister of Health has up to five minutes for her reply.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): In reply, I have to say to the honourable member that I regret the tone of her remarks, which seem to imply that this government does not take seriously the issue of breast cancer in women. I think in my response this afternoon I made it very clear that our commitment to the cancer treatment system of this province is unparalleled.

Let me use this opportunity to correct the record, because as I said that, I used an incorrect figure. We have invested $370 million in capital funding in cancer treatment in this province and we have invested in the Ontario breast screening program. I said this afternoon that we had opened 600 more breast screening centres. I should have said six. The number I was thinking of was that now 60,000 women in this province are screened a year. That's up from 500 in 1990, progress that I'm very proud of having made.

Treatment and early detection are only two steps. We have to move to prevention of breast cancer. I was at an inspiring forum last night held in North York by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation about breast cancer and the environment. Experts from the United States who are working on the research to make the link between environmental effects and cancer were very eloquent; they talked about the issue of pesticides in our foodstuffs. While the member opposite is concerned about breast cancer, in the same question period today her colleague the member for Renfrew North was criticizing this government for having funded a group that was raising concerns in rural areas about pesticides and about foodstuffs.

Our Minister of Environment responded very effectively about the work we are doing with OMAFRA and with farmers in the OFA about reducing pesticides, but I say to the member opposite that you have to understand that just picking one little bit of the cancer problem isn't good enough. We have to look at this in its totality and we have to move to prevention. Our Tobacco Control Act is doing that too, the strongest legislation anywhere on the continent to stop young people from smoking because we know that smoking is a direct cause of cancer.

The question of the drugs to treat this deadly disease is a difficult one because new ones keep coming on the market. Taxol is one of those, but for the member to say we are not funding it is incorrect.

As I said this afternoon, we spent $700,000 on funding for Taxol last year, and our hospitals and our regional cancer centres provide Taxol within their existing budgets to patients who need it. That demand will place a heavy burden on hospitals and on the cancer centres in the years to come.

In the letter to OCTRF that was mentioned earlier, I made it very clear that the foundation should identify funding pressures resulting from increased service demand in its operating plan. As we do every year, we then work through the global budgets of hospitals and cancer treatment centres in order to identify what they need in the way of funding for drugs.

Taxol is only one of several new and expensive chemotherapy drugs that will be introduced for clinical use in the coming months, and we'll continue to work with the hospitals and the regional cancer centres to ensure that guidelines are in place so that practitioners are clear about what advice they need in order to know when to prescribe these drugs and so that patients are clear when they ask questions about in which cases they should be prescribed these drugs and what is most effective for them.

We have to do that so that we're sure we're both spending our money and treating people in the most effective way, because people sometimes believe that one new drug is going to solve their problem when in fact it can cause problems. That's why guidelines, not directed by me or somebody within the ministry but proclaimed and developed by the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, are what we need and what we will have and on the basis of which we will determine the funding.

I said in my remarks this afternoon that the price of Taxol is determined by the drug company. I think we have to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to work with consumers and with the health care system to set reasonable prices for these very expensive medications. Until we can do that, we're going to be faced with an ever-increasing cost of drugs and ever-increasingly difficult decisions, because if we fund one thing we have to look somewhere else to make some changes in order to provide that funding.

We've done that very effectively. That's why we're building a really good cancer treatment system in this province.

The Speaker: There being no further matters to be debated, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1835.

17 novembre 1994