Journal des débats 1994-déc-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Bill 189, An Act to protect certain rent-geared-to-income Tenants in publicly funded rental units / Projet de loi 189, Loi visant à protéger des locataires de logements locatifs dont le financement est public qui paient un loyer indexé sur le revenu.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Etobicoke-Humber has 10 minutes in which to initiate debate.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): Like many members, I have in my constituency large numbers of senior citizens on fixed incomes living in apartment buildings with rent assistance. Most senior citizens have contributed, and sometimes contributed greatly to Ontario society. Some have risked their lives in military or other service to bequeath to the rest of us a free, democratic and prosperous society. Many of those same seniors who have sacrificed greatly for Ontario and for Canada find themselves late in life on fixed incomes with no hope of increasing their revenues. A succession of governments has appropriately ensured that seniors on fixed and limited incomes will have rent-assisted housing so they can live in decency and in dignity.

However, it is not quite as simple as that. From time to time, a senior citizen who is already housed in a rent-assisted building finds his or her rental costs and/or utility costs increasing at a rate which is unconscionable given that their income is firmly fixed. Currently rents are being increased from 25% to 30% of total income at a rate of 1% per year, an understandable move but none the less one that works serious hardship on persons whose budgets have been stabilized on the basis of a 25% rental figure.

Added to that has been a substantial and less predictable increase in utility costs. Furthermore, many of those seniors are victims of a catch-up program whereby hydro-electric power previously paid for on a bulk-metered basis will now be charged at a much higher rate, sometimes at two or three times the previous monthly charge.

I will quote from a letter recently sent to the Minister of Housing by Bruce Melanson, the chairman of the residents' committee of rent-assisted buildings in my constituency. The residents, says this letter, are "deeply concerned over the new rent and utility increases." This group requested a meeting with the Minister of Housing to discuss its fears. They go on in that letter to speak of "an unfair...burden on low-income senior citizens" and of "financial hardships for senior citizens," given that there are no specific guidelines in place for utility increases. The letter makes mention of the total increase of rental costs from 25% to 30% of a senior citizen's fixed income and of an unprecedented increase in utility costs.

As the residents' committee observes, many seniors living in Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority accommodation have no way of gaining extra income other than small increases in old age security, Canada pension and other similar fixed benefits. An increase of rent and utility costs therefore diminishes the disposable income of the senior citizen available to spend on other items and means unnecessary and forced lowering of living standard. In my opinion, Ontario's senior citizens deserve better. I had the pleasure of addressing the Islington Kiwanis this week and I have talked to residents of Mabelle and Dundas streets in my constituency, and I know how strongly seniors feel about these matters.

Let me spell out the figures a little more clearly: A single senior citizen without personal assets and living alone receives as income about $388 in old age security, with a maximum supplement, depending on income, of up to $461, often much less. To this sum of up to $849 may be added a provincial guaranteed annual income supplement of $83, for a total monthly income of up to $932. When that senior citizen's rent is increased from 25% to 30%, $47 per month more goes to rent. To that must be added a utilities increase, which can be of the order of $15 or $20 per month, for a total and fully unexpected overall increase of living costs of nearly $70 per month.

That senior's disposable income after rent and utilities is about $625, so we are speaking of an immediate decrease of nearly 12% in disposable income. However, since food costs are fixed and may take up to three quarters or more of that disposable income, or about $470, we are really talking about a monthly budget of about $150 or less, sometimes much less, after rent, utilities and food. To snatch $70 out of that $150 monthly spending allowance means about a 50% or more cutback in a senior's budget for matters other than room and board. How can we in good conscience impose such hardship on our senior citizens? I believe we cannot.

Ontario's seniors are used to bad news. There are rumours of a $7.5-billion slash in federal social programs. The social safety net that seniors were told they had bought and paid for is unravelling. Seniors struggle on fixed incomes while costs rise and familiar services fall, and I am speaking of such essential matters as health care, social services, pensions and taxes. Almost half of Canadians over 65 have annual incomes of less than $10,000 per year before taxes. The erosion of lifestyle for seniors is not a matter of snatching away perks and frills; we are snatching away essentials; we are snatching away human dignity and self-respect.

I think elected members ignore these injustices at their peril. Seniors enjoy growing political clout and will use it. Seniors represent a third of the electorate and will not tolerate politicians who renege on promises and boost taxes and costs and nibble away at pension and other benefits behind closed doors. Seniors are angry with the antics of cash-strapped governments that chip away at their meagre incomes in the name of an attack on wealth. According to Statistics Canada, 60% of women 65 and older in Canada are living in poverty.

The limited but very timely intention of this bill is to protect senior citizens on fixed incomes from punitive increases in rent and utilities. The bill provides that when a senior citizen is lodged in a rent-assisted housing building, the rate of increase in rent plus utilities cannot exceed the rate of increase in their fixed income during the preceding year. I'll repeat that: When a senior citizen is lodged in rent-assisted housing, the rate of increase in rate plus utilities cannot exceed the rate of increase in their fixed income during the preceding year.

1010

This bill can be criticized for not going far enough. This bill will not affect the government's prerogative to fix the rent in rent-assisted buildings at whatever proportion of income it chooses. I'm not entirely pleased to admit that because I think that such a step in the case of senior citizens would be very warranted. However, in the hope of gathering some support for this bill from government members, I will stop short of that and simply say that once admitted to a rent-assisted housing building, the proportion of fixed income assigned to rent plus utilities cannot increase as a percentage of fixed income.

This modest step allows the government the freedom to fix rents at whatever proportion of fixed income it chooses to accept responsibility for doing, yet protects seniors who have already budgeted a proportion of their income for rent and utilities from unfair post facto increases that would, as I pointed out previously, constitute a 50% or more curtailment and decrease in their disposable income after room and board costs are paid for.

Senior citizens who have sacrificed, struggled and contributed greatly to Ontario and to Canada deserve to live in comfort and in dignity. This bill will not, of course, solve all the financial problems afflicting conscientious seniors, but it makes an important beginning by protecting seniors from a 50% or more decrease in their after-room-and-board disposal income.

This modest step is overdue and I urge all members of this assembly to support this limited yet very just and very timely legislative thrust. I will stop there for now.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Henderson has initiated debate on ballot item number 73. He will have two minutes to summarize. We will now proceed, with each recognized party within the Legislature having 15 minutes to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill 189.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to speak in support of the member for Etobicoke-Humber's private member's Bill 189, An Act to protect certain rent-geared-to income Tenants in publicly funded rental units. As you know, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that the rate of rent and utilities increases for tenants 65 years of age and older who pay rent for units that are publicly funded is not greater than the rate at which their income increases.

I will be supporting this bill because the NDP government has taken so much away from our senior citizens -- like out-of-country health coverage, like reducing property tax grants, like delisting certain prescription drugs -- that I think it's about time this same government gave something back to seniors on fixed incomes in the form of legislation to protect them from hurtful increases in rent.

Perhaps this is the appropriate time for us to be urging the government to put an end to the public housing boondoggle that profits only the large property developers and return to a shelter subsidy program for all people in Ontario who need help in getting affordable and decent housing.

We all know, and this is pointed out quite clearly on page 13 of The Common Sense Revolution: "This will eliminate the inefficiencies of government owned and operated housing. By spending money on people instead of bricks and mortar, we will be in a position to eliminate the two-year waiting list for affordable housing."

The PC caucus continues to urge this government to replace non-profit housing subsidies with shelter allowances. Ontario's leading housing sector economists, Clayton Research Associates, estimates the average monthly subsidy would be about $114 per household for a shelter allowance, compared to the current average of nearly $1,000 a month to subsidize a household in non-profit housing.

What is a shelter allowance? Shelter allowances are direct payments to households in need of assistance in order to secure adequate accommodation at a cost they can afford. It is a quite significantly different approach compared to that used in non-profit housing, since low-cost housing is not provided directly. With a shelter allowance, the tenant seeks accommodation on the private rental market and subsidies -- in this case shelter allowances -- are provided directly so that the rent is more affordable.

A shelter allowance program would help all those in needy target groups who wish to apply, especially Ontario's working poor or senior citizens on fixed incomes. Currently, unless a needy tenant receives welfare or family benefits, there is no help until a unit becomes available in a social housing project.

An additional benefit to shelter allowances is that they would allow tenants -- like senior citizens -- to remain in their own homes if they chose, where they are close to family, services and shopping facilities.

As well, shelter allowances avoid the development of low-income ghettos which can occur in social housing projects that do not have a mix of incomes.

As an interesting aside, it should be noted that when the member for Scarborough North was questioning an appointee to the East Niagara Housing Authority before the standing committee on government agencies on October 6, 1994, he appeared to support the PC caucus's call for a reform of government housing. Mr Curling, former Liberal Housing minister, said there is a glut of housing on the market and that subsidizing the individual is a much more human way to help an individual live where he or she wants to live.

Well, that's exactly what we are saying in The Common Sense Revolution: By spending money on people instead of bricks and mortar, we can end the public housing boondoggle that profits only the large property developers. We can return to a shelter subsidy program for all Ontarians who need help in finding decent, affordable housing.

As I said earlier, I will be supporting this bill, which protects senior citizens on fixed incomes from hurtful increases in rent. I am fully aware that everything we enjoy so much in this province today is a direct result of the hard work, dedication and contributions of our senior citizens so many years ago.

Our senior citizens continue to contribute and have a great deal to offer society today. They have a store of wisdom, energy, expertise and the time to use that energy to teach, learn, create and enjoy life to the fullest. They are also the people who are largely responsible for teaching the rest of us that anything is truly attainable and that opportunity really is ageless.

I urge the government side of this Legislature to support private member's Bill 189. Give something back to the senior citizens rather than taking it away.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate. The honourable member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Try Kingston and The Islands, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Kingston and The Islands, sorry.

Mr Gary Wilson: Thank you very much.

As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing, I'm pleased to rise to respond to Bill 189, the proposed Publicly Funded Housing Rent Control Act. This bill relates to a decision the government took last year as a necessary administrative adjustment to rents in Ontario Housing Corp and other social housing units in Ontario. Under that decision, the share of rent paid by rent-geared-to-income tenants in Ontario's social housing would increase, from a prevailing 25% of income, by 1% every year till it reached 30% of a tenant's income over a five-year period.

Bill 189 proposes that the annual increases in rent for senior citizens in social housing should not exceed the rate of increase in their incomes.

First of all, I want to emphasize that this is not a "rent increase" in the usual sense of the term. This decision is a necessary step to bring the ratio of rent to income in line with the practice in other provincial jurisdictions in Canada. Most other provinces moved to a rent-geared-to-income ratio of 30% during the past decade. Here in Ontario, the ratio has remained untouched for over two decades.

This government has taken great care to ensure that people who can least bear the burden of this adjustment are not adversely affected. It's for this reason that we exempted people who depend almost entirely on social assistance: those whose regular source of income is from general welfare assistance, family welfare assistance or the guaranteed annual income supplement for the disabled. We recognize that without any other source of regular income to support them, people in this group simply could not have managed to bear even this small adjustment to their rent.

It's important to see this issue in the broader fiscal context. As the most severe recession in six decades took its toll on the economy, and consequently on our government's revenue base, we had to take some tough measures. We had to act to ensure that the deficit did not endanger our ability to continue to provide essential services to the people of this province.

1020

No society can throw borrowed money at every problem without having to face the reckoning at some point, and in facing up to the fiscal realities, it's important that everyone who is able to accepts a fair share of the burden.

For the government's part, we took a three-pronged approach to ensure a fair sharing of responsibility: Reduction in government spending by $4 billion; saving a further $2 billion through a social contract with the public sector; and raising another $2.8 billion in revenue through tax and non-tax measures.

But even in this effort to live within our means, we made sure that those least able to pay were not asked to bear an unfairly heavy burden. In the social contract approach, for example, those earning $30,000 or less were exempted. And since this government came to office, we've reduced income taxes for 270,000 low-income Ontarians, 200,000 of them taken off the tax roll entirely.

What this means is that in every aspect of the deficit reduction effort, we have consistently adhered to two fundamental principles: minimize the impacts on those least able to pay; and make the sharing of the burden as fair as possible.

Our goal was and continues to be to return Ontario to a prosperity that is based on responsible fiscal management, investing in jobs and maintaining quality public services. It was part of this government's balanced policy of living within our means while at the same time protecting the vulnerable and maintaining the services that people need.

We have to recognize that about 40% of the people in rent-geared-to-income units in our public housing are senior citizens, and excluding that proportion of residents from even this minimal contribution to our efforts to contain costs would only mean one thing: The other households living in rent-geared-to-income housing would be called upon to bear an even greater share of the burden. Let's remember that this includes not only other senior citizens but also thousands of others in an equally unenviable economic plight.

What this means is that a small number of people will have to bear a larger -- and unfair -- share of the burden. And to make exceptions that are based not on ability to pay but other considerations could not be considered equitable by any means. That's not the kind of equity we're talking about and I'm sure not the kind of equity this House would advocate.

It's also important to emphasize that over time, senior citizens, even those receiving rent-geared-to-income assistance, are relatively better off than those receiving other forms of social assistance. For example, between the years 1988 to 1994, the consumer price index increased by 18%, while the old age supplement, the guaranteed income supplement and the guaranteed annual income supplement for the aged have, on aggregate, increased by 20%.

For an average subsidized rent of $257 per month, as is the case in Ontario's public housing, the average increase per tenant is $10 a month.

The proposed bill would also apply to rent increases for utilities such as hydro. In the first place, we're not discussing a major cost to the tenants. For the average tenant, the change means an extra cost of $5 to $7 per month.

But it's more important to note that the increase here applies only to tenants living in buildings with a central meter where individual units do not have separate meters. In such buildings, tenants have been traditionally paying well below the real cost of the power consumed. In fact, for several years in the past, even normal increases in hydro costs have not been passed through to social housing tenants.

This is not only a matter of paying the actual cost of energy a tenant uses. What's equally important is that it would be an inequity to charge actual costs to some tenants and to go on subsidizing others year after year.

I'm also sure people understand that we can't continue to provide quality service to Ontarians if we undermine the economic base that supports these services.

Tenants in our social housing know that in the rent subsidy they receive, they have a service that gives them safe, secure, affordable and good-quality housing and that in that respect they are far better off than the average low-income household struggling in the private rental market.

The fact is that while rent-geared-to-income tenants, including seniors, would pay only up to 30% of their income as rent when the adjustment process is over, others in the private rental market continue to pay much more than that percentage of their income as rent, in some cases as much as 50%.

I think the government's position is clear. We want to continue providing vital services to the people of this province, but we want to live within our means, and the only way to balance the two objectives is to share the burden fairly. By those standards, we can't support the bill.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): It is a pleasure for me to stand today and support my colleague's bill; that is, the Publicly Funded Housing Rent Control Act. As an elected representative of the people of Ontario, I strongly believe that it is my duty to support a legislative measure whose objective is to protect the interests of the needier, vulnerable members of our society.

In this particular case, the member for Etobicoke Humber addresses serious concerns regarding the welfare of senior citizens who live in a rental unit with rent geared to income. In essence, any increases in rent and utilities should not exceed the rate of increase of the tenant's income. This is what the bill states and I agree.

Knowing the difficulties many seniors have in making ends meet, it is evident that any increase in rent and utilities could only cause additional hardship, as it would take away money that might serve for food, medical supplies not covered by the Ontario drug plan or any other necessities.

Housing itself is one of our major sources of security. Certainly we have no choice in the Canadian climate but to seek shelter. But as a developed and progressive nation, we expect a certain degree of safety and comfort. We expect, and rightly so, proper hygienic conditions. We also expect that not all of our revenues will be expended upon rent so that we may also feed and clothe ourselves appropriately and be able to participate to a certain extent in the activities of our community.

It is very distressing to imagine that some of Ontario's senior citizens may not be enjoying the security of knowing that they need not worry about next month's rent. I don't believe senior citizens, or anybody else, for that matter, should be thinking in terms of sacrificing certain needs for lack of affordable housing.

As a former minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs, I travelled across this province and visited many senior residences and communities. I had the opportunity to learn about the many challenges facing seniors. I also became aware of the incredible vitality that keeps them fit and active. Ontario has a terrific senior population, one that is very committed to its community.

Seniors have given so much to this province. If Ontario is as it is today, if it enjoys so many benefits, it is largely due to the seniors who built this province and steered it through difficult times. They were the people working out on the farms, in businesses, in the mines, in the factories. They provided the ideas and the labour that contributed to Ontario's prosperity. They invested in this province in so many ways, and the least that we can do, that the government can accomplish for them, is to ensure that they do not worry about their rent.

It is a well-documented fact that life expectancy is greater for women than it is for men. A large majority of persons more than 85 years of age are women. In Ontario, in 1992, the poverty rate for unattached men 65 years of age and older was 29.2%. The poverty rate for unattached women 65 years of age and older was 45.2%. It would appear that despite the continuing decline in poverty among seniors, the rate of poverty for elderly women remains consistently higher.

One should not conclude that the overall decline in poverty among seniors implies prosperity. A senior citizen may receive a total of $849 in federal benefits. Add to this the provincial guaranteed annual income supplement of $83, and the minimum monthly income for someone who does not have any other source of income amounts to $932. According to Canadian Pensioners Concerned, an advocacy group for the aged, 44% of persons aged 65 or more received less than $10,000 per year. This revenue hardly covers basic necessities.

1030

Seniors, as we know, suffer from a variety of ailments, whether rheumatism, hypertension, cardiac or respiratory problems. These health problems can entail additional expenses, such as purchases not considered strictly medical, yet essential to one's wellbeing and comfort.

The point in my view is that for many seniors, adding, for example, $50 to their monthly living expenses represents a hardship, and all the more so since housing and utilities are basic necessities, expenses which cannot be avoided. I do not believe that any senior citizen in the province of Ontario should be subjected to the stress or discomfort caused by undue increases in rent and utilities. As a society, we should take pride in the decent, caring treatment of the elderly and vulnerable members of our population. This is a matter of justice and a matter of responsibility, a responsibility we share as elected representatives of the people but that we all share as members of the same community.

I would like to add, before concluding, that we must prepare for the aging of our society. We must plan for the day when a greater segment of the population will reach retirement. If current trends continue, tomorrow's seniors may not enjoy the benefits that they are currently receiving. If, as it appears, we can no longer rely upon government sources for income, then we must ensure that safeguards are set up that will protect the interests of vulnerable seniors.

As it stood in 1992, unattached men and women aged 65 years and older depended upon government assistance for over 90% of their income. Couples aged 65 and older relied upon government assistance for 88% of their revenues. This bill is an attempt to provide some safeguards, and I am proud to support it and congratulate my colleague for his initiative and good work.

As I heard some speeches this morning, I strongly believe that politics, accusations of negligence, should not be part of this debate. This is a humanitarian issue. This is an issue that deals with human dignity.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I do understand and respect the concerns raised by the member for Etobicoke-Humber. I'd like to set this bill in the context of this government's policies and the seniors in this province.

I believe that seniors in Ontario, how we treat them and how they live, are a mark of the standard of our society. In the area of housing for senior citizens, we have Ontario Housing Corp, which is the largest public housing institution in Canada. It owns and manages more than 84,000 units of public housing. The province also has 17,000 units of privately owned housing through the rent supplement agreements with private owners. Senior citizens represent 44% of everyone who is housed in all of those units.

Also, we have non-profit housing which is community-owned and run, the main vehicle for all our new social housing in Ontario. In Niagara Falls, we have Fairhaven, which was started by the church that I belong to and is now looking to expand. We also have an old school on Drummond Road which was made into a seniors' complex and also a lovely new building on McLeod Road, which I just went to in October and knocked on every door. The people are very happy there.

There are almost 50,000 units of non-profit housing for seniors in Ontario today. Our government has acted to reduce the operating costs of all of this social housing through energy retrofit. As the members opposite have said, energy costs are a very important part of running this housing. We have invested $28 million for a program under Jobs Ontario Capital. This is going to mean that all of these units in the long term are much more affordable and that heating costs will be controlled. Housing for seniors, I say, is very important and it is very important that it be affordable.

I'd like to very briefly mention other aspects of seniors' lives, besides housing, which also are very important, such as the Advocacy Act. This legislation empowers vulnerable people and promotes respect for their rights and dignity. The Substitute Decisions Act provides new protection for the right to control your own life.

Second, in the area of health care our government has protected the Ontario drug benefit plan and is working to make it more efficient and effective -- and it must be. It cannot continue to escalate in cost as it did all through the 1980s. To preserve health care, we must make it more efficient.

We also have long-term care facilities. During very difficult economic times, this government has invested in long-term care. We have, during this past year, used $1 billion to operate these facilities, and more than $53 million will be used to expand and renovate.

This government has introduced rights that allow residents more say in their care and to participate in their own plan of care in their lives.

We also have the Long-Term Care Act, which has been many, many years coming. It will receive third reading next week. This bill will provide one-stop access for consumers to a broad range of community-based support services, which are so essential to the lives of seniors to try to maintain their own dignity and live in their own homes, such as providing information and referral services regarding care, making assessments and determining eligibility, developing a plan of service for eligible persons and offering a specific range of support services such as Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care and caregiver support -- because many women are at home caring for seniors and they do need support -- homemaking services, housecleaning, laundry, mending, ironing, preparing meals, personal support services, personal care and also professional services. All these things our government says are necessary and are the rights of seniors.

Have you heard of the Good Neighbours program which is aimed at reaching out in communities to support each other, especially the elderly, frail and isolated? That's what the Good Neighbours program is all about: independence for seniors to the maximum extent possible.

The quality of life is what it's all about. The right to be respected members of our society is what seniors want and it is what this government is profoundly changing this province for -- the future for all of us.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Let me say what a pleasure it is for me to speak in favour of Bill 189 as proposed by the honourable member for Etobicoke-Humber. I think that as I speak to this bill, it is necessary to read the purpose of the bill, being a bill "to ensure that the rate of rent and utility increases for tenants 65 years of age and over who pay rent for units that are publicly funded is not greater than the rate at which their incomes increase."

It is surprising to me that anyone in the Legislature can oppose a bill which carries with it that purpose. I am very much in favour of the legislation and very surprised by the opposition put forward by the government.

As you will know, my riding of Mississauga North is that part of Mississauga that lies north of Eglinton Avenue to the east, west and northerly city limits, and I, in this riding, as well as all of us in our ridings, have a number of communities.

I've had the opportunity over the last while to have a series of public meetings throughout the community, a great number of which were in seniors' housing projects or developments. I've spoken with the seniors who are located in Streetsville at 92 William Street, or 4 Caroline in Meadowvale, at the Edenwood seniors' centre in Malton, spoken at Ridgewood, as well as Etude.

The meetings carried with them a variety of issues, as I'm sure you will be aware. The people spoke about concerns they had at all different levels of government, issues that they wanted to address, whether it be municipal or federal or provincial.

Speaking at the provincial level, there were a great many questions that arose around the substitute decision-making act. But one other issue that was brought forward in each public meeting that I had dealt with the issue of housing, dealt with the issue that costs were increasing over the incomes which were fixed, and how were they going to live their lives in enjoyment and in an enjoyable fashion. Very real, very definite issues.

1040

So when the member brought forward this bill, I thought, "My goodness, this is exactly the issue that had been brought forward to me from those at Edenwood, from those in Streetsville at 4 Caroline or 92 William Street, from those in Malton at Ridgewood or on Etude Drive."

I thought, "This was their issue, this was their concern." They want no free ride. All they want is to be able to live their lives with a sense of dignity and respect, and under the current formula, costs are increasing over their particular fixed incomes. Is that not our responsibility, if not our obligation, to take a look at that particular issue and see, can it be solved? Can it be addressed? Can we meet the concerns of the good people in Mississauga and throughout the province?

This bill does that. It does it in a way which is sensitive, it does it in a way which is effective, and I believe it does it in a way which all members of this legislature should support. We know of the contribution of our senior citizens to our community. It has been said in this debate and it has been said in many debates that the seniors are in no small measure the reason for the communities in which we live, the services, the sense of feeling, the sense of emotion. The heart is found in our senior citizens and that is how our communities have been built.

It is that type of message which we have a responsibility to carry forward for other generations. This bill does that. This bill carries forward that commitment to community and commitment to person that we have received as a message from our senior citizens. We have an obligation to make certain that a bill such as this becomes the law of the land. We have an obligation to do that because of the message that we have heard from our senior citizens. We have an obligation to do that because it in many ways shapes, forms the emotion under which our communities are built.

Our communities are not just brick and mortar. Our communities are a sense of feeling, are a sense of caring, are a sense of commitment. And that's what a bill such as this does. It carries forward that type of message that we have received from our seniors. Our senior citizens are in many ways an important component of the volunteer aspect of our community. We recognize that so many services rely greatly on the volunteer component. We also recognize, and we have made speeches inside this place and outside, about how important that volunteer component is. Those speeches are right and they are proper, and we recognize that an important aspect of that volunteer component is our senior citizens. They are the people who form an integral and important part of the volunteer sector of our communities.

So if there is another reason, apart from the actual wording and purpose of the bill that this bill should become the law, then we must also recognize that the seniors not only require this protection, but they also continue to build our communities through their volunteer efforts, not only in the past, but in the present and in the future.

And so I am pleased to support this piece of legislation. I hope that members of the government, after listening to members' speeches in opposition, will change their opinion and say, "Yes, we too will support a bill which is kind, considerate and sensitive to the senior citizens of our province."

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): I am very pleased to be able to join in the debate on Bill 189 this morning. I'd like to start out by saying that the speeches which have been put forward in support of the bill, particularly by members of the Liberal Party, have tended to try and suggest that anybody who opposes this bill somehow has disrespect, lack of love, lack of concern for people who are over 65 in the population of Ontario. I want to say very categorically, that is not the case.

I should point out too that only one member of the Conservative caucus of the Legislature has chosen to speak on this bill and I can well understand why that would be, since the program of the Conservative caucus, as it's summed up in -- what's it called -- The Common Sense Revolution, is to sell the units of assisted housing that are in the portfolio of the Ontario Housing Corp and to get rid of, somehow, those social housing units which also provide assisted housing to seniors in Ontario, among other people: unemployed people, the people on social assistance and working poor people who live in the province of Ontario and people who pay market rent in those social housing units.

I'm not impressed by the reasons given for support of this bill. The Liberals have suggested that it is cold-hearted and unsympathetic to seniors to oppose this bill. Let me state the opposite case. In the province of Ontario today, a lot of senior citizens rent their housing, and they rent their housing in the private market. In fact, more senior citizens are renters than the proportion of senior citizens in the population of Ontario would warrant, which means that a lot of senior citizens probably have lower incomes than the population as a whole, so a lot of them are renters in the private market. Only a portion of those senior citizens have available housing assistance through the Ontario Housing Corp housing stock or through non-profit housing. It is a minority of seniors who receive that benefit.

What the bill before us is saying is that the minority of seniors who receive that benefit, compared to other people who receive housing assistance, should have their household income be the direct reflection of what their rent would be and what their utility costs would be. To me, that is unfairness because we know that in the private rental market, of all the hundreds of thousands of people who are renters in the private rental market, a very large portion of them already pay over 30% of household income in their rent.

To single out those seniors who live in assisted housing and say they should not be willing to pay 30% of their household income, when other people in assisted housing do and when people who rent in the private market often pay higher, seems to me to be unfair.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr McLean: I have already spoken, but I just wanted to put on the record that I have Kyle --

Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We had checked with the member for Simcoe East to see if, because no other member of his caucus was available to speak to this bill, he would be agreeable to allow us as a caucus to speak longer on the bill and we were refused that permission. I really object to his taking more time in this debate.

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

Mr McLean: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'd gladly have given my time if they hadn't taken so many shots at me. What I wanted to say is the fact that Kyle Brown is here from the riding, my constituency office, who is a co-op member, and I just wanted to welcome him to the facility today.

The Acting Speaker: That's really not a point of privilege.

Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I object to the member for Simcoe East using time which is not his to use to make points. May I make some points too on this debate?

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the member for Ottawa Centre? No.

The member for Etobicoke-Humber please, in summation.

1050

Mr Henderson: I thank the honourable members for their participation in this debate, but how can any member of this Legislature, especially a New Democrat, defend a 50%-or-more cut in disposable income of some of Ontario's senior citizens? I'm disappointed and I'm shocked.

Ontario's seniors have taken a number of hits recently from this government. We have removed 230 drugs from the Ontario drug benefit plan, including such agents as antihistamines and certain sedatives important to quality of life. Seniors are threatened with user fees, copayments, deductibles and tinkering with a list of those eligible to receive benefits.

Auto insurance legislation has denied retirement seniors the income replacement and loss-of-earnings benefits, while their premiums continue to be used to add to these benefits to the coverage of working people. Seniors with good driving records will subsidize younger, high-risk drivers. Seniors face a nearly 20% increase in auto insurance premiums and we slapped an 8% retail sales tax on top of that.

Beginning in 1992, seniors are now required to pay for day and weekend use of Ontario provincial parks.

The government is changing long-term-care legislation in Ontario, raising the daily copayment amounts and threatening, more recently, the existence of independent service providers like the Victorian Order of Nurses and Red Cross homemakers.

Since 1992, seniors no longer receive cash rebates for sales and property tax, and we have recently reduced out-of-country OHIP coverage from $400 to $100 per day at a time when hospital stay in the United States is about $2,000 a day.

These hits have been absorbed by seniors in recent years, compliments of this government, and it is surely high time that we took action to offset those hurtful changes and to restore dignity of life to senior citizens in Ontario. This bill takes a modest, small step and I urge all members of this Legislative Assembly to support it.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes the debate on ballot item number 73, second reading of Bill 189. We will further deal with this bill following the debate on ballot item number 74.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if we could move for adjournment, since nothing is happening.

The Acting Speaker: We are running slightly ahead of the normal schedule. It's my understanding that the member for Durham Centre is on his way to the Legislature. If we will just be somewhat patient for a minute or two, we will be right back in business.

Mr Curling: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Let me exercise the privilege of speaking on the bill that has just been moved in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? No. It's not a point of anything.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Mr White moved private member's notice of motion number 52:

That, in the opinion of this House, the health and wellbeing of children, youth and young families require the active involvement of our whole province in supporting parents and communities and in moving to a better future through strategic investments in children and youth; and

We must examine the services and supports that we offer to young families in order to improve and refine the quality of life for all children and youth in Ontario, including an amelioration of child poverty and family violence; and

Goals and research measurements must be developed to measure how well and how quickly we are progressing as a community in the interests of our children and youth; and

We can enter the social security debate that the federal government is initiating with a strong set of proposals with an aim to enhance the welfare of families and to address the blight of child poverty that has worsened with federal neglect over the past two decades; and

We must build upon the high quality of our public services that have been both socially and economically accountable to the people of Ontario and which are the envy of virtually every jurisdiction.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Durham Centre has 10 minutes in which to open debate, after which every recognized party will have 15 minutes in which to debate the honourable member's motion.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Professionals and leaders in our province have led the way in the area of family and social policy. We initiated a mammoth undertaking in social welfare reform and now the federal government is following along, but its hearings are mired by fears of a cut-and-slash approach.

I am particularly interested in addressing the issue of child and family values today. I'd like to first acknowledge the work of the Premier's Council and its report, Yours, Mine and Ours. Their work created a unique and innovative report that should be seen as a beacon of wisdom and inspiration. My discourse today will highlight a few issues that have already been brought to the public's attention through their excellent work.

The resolution we're debating today will not produce nirvana nor be as broad-ranging as it deserves to be. Still, I'm struck that the federal debate of five years ago on a similar topic, child poverty, was something of a milestone. It was the swansong for Ed Broadbent, a part of whose riding I share at the provincial level.

Time and again social activists reflect upon the intent of those words, of those declarations from those federal representatives, and find that their words have not been borne out either in deeds or in any genuine commitment to the good of children and youth. They are held accountable for their pronouncements just as we should be here today.

We know how much families are changing these days. A generation ago, almost all families consisted of a dad who was the breadwinner and a mom who stayed at home with the kids. Family life was shrouded by myth. Life wasn't quite like the Father Knows Best stereotype. In fact, I remember reading about the actress who played Kathy on that show. Do you remember the button-nosed, pigtailed kid? She ended up as a drug addict and a petty thief, twice attempted suicide, and then at 40 she was born again.

We were a much more homogeneous society a generation ago. If life wasn't any easier, families were a lot less complex than they are today. Now only 12% of families are reflective of that stereotype. More families take on a greater range of forms than ever before. Single parents, step-families and childless families are far more common than in the past. Young women go through dramatically demanding role changes virtually overnight. Parents, particularly young parents, are now finding that they have only a limited amount of time for their children.

Our community is becoming increasingly diverse. We have cultural, linguistic and ethnic resources that didn't exist in the past. Consequently there are new and different attitudes to child-rearing and to family overall. These are influences upon our children's behaviour that we can do little about. Contemporary writers even speak of the end of childhood.

We aren't always pleased with these changes. There's something both comforting and nostalgic about earlier times. Still, we can't go back to the way things were nor would we really want to.

I mention these issues not because they're signs of an inevitable and intractable decay of family values. No. Families are strong and viable, but we are changing, and now more than ever before we have to find creative responses to the dilemmas that we're faced with. We have to develop resources as communities to support families and children, as we are now not as we once were.

Most of us would like to say that we can manage just fine without any supports whatsoever, but that's now rarely the case. Parents feel alone and uncertain. Working mothers often feel inadequate next to the stereotypical memories of their own mothers. I've seen middle-class moms speaking of how much they're struggling. The single mom who works full-time still expects that she by herself can provide everything that the traditional family could. Relying upon her family and upon child care providers does not make her any less of a mother; her family is simply different, and with community supports, it can be just as strong as a traditional family. Fathers, too, question their roles, as those roles are changing.

1100

As parents, we no longer have that resource of an extended family. Now we rely more upon our community and upon more formal supports. That's why a high quality of day care is so important, why junior kindergarten and creative recreational resources are vital, why a range of support services for healthy families is crucial. Families are no weaker or stronger than those of the past, only different.

The family of the 1990s should have resources for their children and their future that will make them increasingly viable. Our community as a whole should commit itself to ensuring those resources. Much more could be done if we were to redefine our family values for the 1990s to acknowledge where we are now. The alternative is unacceptable. If we do not invest in children and youth, we may be dooming ourselves both economically and socially. Social investments have just as real a positive benefit as do investments in medical research and services.

It's incumbent upon all of us to accept our responsibility for assisting parents, particularly young parents, in the vital task of preparing the future generation. Much more could be done if we were to establish clear goals as communities, as a province and as a nation, clear goals that acknowledge those changes to family structure.

The Premier's Council report speaks of a need to take a population-based approach to addressing the needs of children and youth. Through a population-based approach, we'll be targeting improvements for families in general and not just those who are the most disadvantaged. Our goals should reflect the overall health of our communities, the wellbeing of all the children and youth in our communities. We know that those are wise investments as well. Every dollar spent on early education and support for children will save some $7 being spent later on in a person's life.

Much of the treatment for children and youth is an attempt to mitigate the effects of society's most entrenched problems: family violence, racism, sexism and poverty. After a child's life has been scarred and limited by the deprivation of child poverty, our community services can only control the social outcast with criminal sanctions or attempt vainly to mediate the disease of addiction. Certainly, my experience as a child welfare worker was one of battling the results of poverty and inequity in the twisted lives of victims. I was battling a social problem on a case-by-case, individual basis.

This approach to the needs of our whole community, the population-based approach, includes the setting of goals for all of our children and youth and may sound overwhelmingly ambitious in a time of government restraint. Conversely, the challenge is too profound to ignore. By setting these goals, we're able to clarify what it is that we're doing well, and we'll be better able to target our spending.

One major result of the past debates on child poverty has been a movement of our social agenda. We're now willing to see how profoundly our community is wounded by the increase in child poverty that has been visited upon us, long-term problems such as academic and career failures, poor health and the lost potential of so many young lives, young lives foreshortened needlessly. Child poverty needs to be addressed with real political will, both provincially and federally.

Our provincial government cannot go it alone. Our initiative, the Ontario child income program, needs the support of the federal government. The federal government is supposedly reviewing this social policy, and it refuses to support poor children in our province until that review is completed. We've already thoroughly reviewed, and we're ready to go ahead with substantial reforms. So, as with child welfare reform and child care reform, we're awaiting the federal commitment. Waiting is not something that's easy for those whose lives are so seriously affected. In the meantime, a huge social deficit is being created.

When we speak of goals or outcomes, we need to measure those outcomes. We should know, community by community and throughout the province, whether we are achieving our goals. Often in the social policy arena our goals are loose or too broadly stated. As a result, we're constantly frustrated, as we have yet to reach them. When we set goals that are measurable, though, we can take some real satisfaction in achieving them.

For example, yesterday it was revealed that there was a dramatic reduction in the number and proportion of low-birth-weight babies in Canada. We know that's a reflection of the good work in health promotion from our community and provincial programs. Our children are becoming healthier.

Problems such as family violence are yielding to our concerted approach. We can compare our communities to those in neighbouring states and know that we have one half of that level of child abuse.

In order to be accountable to our communities, we need to have those measures. We need to develop a report card that tells us how much we've achieved and what we've yet to do. Research can be a little daunting, but the waste of uninformed expenditure would be much worse. We owe it to the families, youth and children of our province to subject our programs and our investments to the rigours of research and evaluation. We need to set informed goals. Our children deserve nothing less.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for opening debate. You will have a further two minutes to sum up at the end of the debate.

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): It's a pleasure to join in the debate this morning. I want, at the outset, to commend my friend and colleague for the motion that he has put forward and to indicate that I will certainly be supporting that motion. I want also to say, however, to the honourable member that I think that one of the tragedies of the last four years, during the period of this government, has been that we really have had an opportunity to move on a number of these issues and we have not done that.

It's interesting to look at a number of the documents and reports that have come forward over the course of the last five or six years. I want to make reference to Children First as well as to the Premier's Council document and would draw members' attention as well to the work of the standing committee on social development, which earlier this year produced the report Children at Risk after a series of public hearings.

A great deal in fact has been done to set out what the problems are that are facing us in terms of dealing with children and with families, but I think what we have lacked is a real sense of political will and political leadership in making sure that we organize ourselves to have a direct impact on improving the lives of children.

I'd like to, as my friend did, note some of the things that the Premier's Council has advocated, as well as to go back to Children First. The report Children First came out in the fall of 1990. The Premier's Council report, which came out this year, I think followed to a great extent much of what had begun in that Children First document. I think it's useful to look at some of the things that were said in both of those reports in terms of the kind of direction that we need now to take.

Of particular interest, and there were a number of things in the Children First report, but I think there are two things that I want to underline; one was that they set out what they called a statement of entitlements. They tried to define: What is it that all children are entitled to? What do we as a society believe the children should have?

They put forward that, in the view of their committee, all children have fundamental entitlements to, firstly, affectionate care from consistent, caring and competent parents and other caregivers; secondly, an entitlement to conditions of care that permit normal physical and emotional growth and development, freedom from family and societal violence, physical harm, sexual molestation and exploitation, neglect, emotional harm and abandonment.

1110

They added an entitlement to the support of all individuals or groups whose work and lives touched children and whose obligation is to promote the best interests of the child; an entitlement to necessary health care and treatment, adequate nutrition and housing; an entitlement to educational challenges and opportunities; an entitlement to opportunities to participate in their own cultural community, to profess and practise their own religion or to use their own language; an entitlement to opportunities to participate in the community and society as a whole; and finally, an entitlement to the protection of the above entitlements by society as a matter of substantive as well as procedural right.

In the report that the Premier's Council brought forward, an excellent report which I think all members in this Legislature support, in one of the chapters of that document the Premier's Council said that we need to set out what our beliefs are. I think that in reading the beliefs that directed their recommendations we see a great deal of similarity with the earlier report of Children First.

The beliefs that they outlined were:

First, "All children and youth must be valued for who they are now, as well as who they will become as adults. Healthy children and youth are a benefit to us all."

Second, "Parents and those who take on parental responsibilities have the primary role in raising healthy children and youth. They must be supported by their communities in that role."

Third, "All children and youth must have the opportunity to participate in their own development and decisions about their lives." How do we find the way to ensure that children and youth become involved in those decisions?

Fourth, "All children and youth must be able to grow and develop free of violence and abuse, discrimination and inequity."

Finally, "All families in all forms must have a stable and adequate standard of living to allow them to provide for the wellbeing of their children."

Those were the basic value systems, the beliefs, that the Premier's Council put forward and which I think reflect very much what has been noted in Children First, in the Better Beginnings, Better Futures program and indeed in all of the debates over the last three or four years. There is, I think, an underpinning there where we can say: "We can identify those beliefs, those principles, the directions. Now, how do we get on and do it?"

My colleague mentioned as well the concept of the report card. This was something that came through the Premier's Council report and I think is very valuable: that we need to have a report card which will tell us as a province how well we are doing in helping children and youth, and that this report card would focus on outcomes; that what we're after here is not just looking at the agencies or the services that are there, as important as they are, but we have to determine, are those agencies, are those services, really helping us? Are they doing what needs to be done? So the focus, then, is on the outcomes. If we can do that, we will be most successful in reaching our goals.

The question, then, is, how do we begin to do that? A proposal that has come both from the Children First report and from the Premier's Council has been: "Let's look at models. Let's look at, for example, the school as a hub. Can we not find better ways of bringing those services together in the community?"

What I want to say to the honourable member is that as we go about then finding how we help communities help families and help children, let's not fall into the trap that we did as we looked at long-term care of imposing one single model. I think we have to be much more specific in saying to communities, "You tell us how we can best organize to ensure that we're going to meet the needs of kids." As we go forward, let's make sure that in fact truly happens. The school as a hub is one model that can be very effective and very helpful. There may be some others as well, but if we're to have success, it's got to be done at that level.

At the provincial level the focus has to be on breaking down the barriers between the ministries. We know that Health, Community and Social Services, Education, those three, plus Housing and Recreation, have a tremendous impact on the future of children and families, and we need some real leadership at that level, at the provincial level, to break down the barriers among those different ministries so that we can ensure that the communities get the kind of help they need.

In closing, I want to just read from a pamphlet prepared by Fiona Nelson, in fact part of her pamphlet for re-election to the Toronto school board. She has been a member of the Toronto board and has spoken out greatly on issues affecting children. I think it is a good summary to what we want to do as we go forward from this day.

She says: "If we are serious about our children, if in fact we are serious about our own future, since it is today's children who will expand the economy and pay the pensions, invent, invest and probably even re-engineer the way we live, we have to start now. We can no longer divide children's needs among social agencies. The child's life is seamless. We cannot postpone it, parcel it out nor schedule it for our own convenience. We have to act now, together, mindful of the child's needs."

For this Legislature it is in a very real sense too late for us to take action. The action which I hope will flow from the debate we are having today is that all of us in this Legislature will make a commitment that the focus, one of the key priorities following the spring election, for whatever government is elected and indeed for whoever is elected to this place, must be on improving children's services and supports for families. If we can make that the focus, as we have on other issues, whether it is in terms of dealing with seniors or others, then I think we can have a profound impact. But that is going to require leadership at the provincial level in a much more effective and concentrated way than we have seen over of the course of the last four years. I think we need to resolve to make sure that happens.

It is with that sense that, again, I support the honourable member in this motion and believe that we can go forward and bring about much greater success in dealing with children and families.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I'm pleased to be able to participate in any debate in this Legislature that deals with the issue of children, children's services and children's rights. At the outset, I must advise the House that I had great difficulty in reading this motion. I'm trying to find out exactly what the member meant. I listened carefully to his opening statements, and for the governing party I would have suspected that we could have gotten some clearer indication of what he's attempting to do with this resolution.

His previous one about a social worker act for Ontario -- very clear, very specific, very focused. We had one on adoption reform -- Mr Martin is here today -- very clear, very focused, very comprehensible. I'm wondering what service is paid to this agenda when it wanders so significantly, involving everything from the definition of a family to society's responsibilities. We can enter the social security debate that the federal government has initiated with a strong set of proposals, but I haven't heard any strong sets of proposals coming out of this government.

As my colleague from the official opposition has recently referenced, I can trot out here in the House today at least a half-dozen reports that have been completed by the current government which provide a whole series of recommendations, but we can't nail down the government to determine what it is actually supporting. It's sort of like shovelling fog or nailing Jell-O to the wall to find and get some specific proposals.

It's no secret that the federal government is currently undertaking a review of social security supports for Canadians. By way of an aside, I had the pleasure of meeting with and listening to a lengthy presentation from Mike Duffy in Ottawa several weeks ago. He was quite upset because in fact what he found out was, in cross-examination in the scrum, that the federal Liberals were quick, within three days of the announcements, to indicate that, "We're going to be discussing this for a good three and a half years, and the first substantive cuts aren't going to occur until after the next federal election."

I just hope that Canadians don't get too terribly excited about the whole concept of social assistance reform in this country because, by Mr Axworthy's own announcement, the substantive cuts or changes are not going to occur until after the next federal election. Perhaps the member opposite is safe in a very general -- we can participate in a debate without anything specific because, quite frankly, it won't really be that meaningful over the course of the next four years.

In fact, Mr Axworthy is in the province today. His travelling road show is actually in the great city of Toronto at the moment, but in terms of what our government's proposals from the province of Ontario are, we have not seen any of those. I had rather hoped that something as important as how to support children shouldn't be left as an open-ended question for the government of the day, certainly not in the very last months of its full term in office.

1120

Certainly, in the beginning of the term, Zanana Akande was able to present a report Children First: Report of the Advisory Committee on Children's Services. We've not, to date, received any official response to the recommendations and a position from the government setting out its support or its indifference to any of the recommendations, and this was tabled in November 1990. I had hoped they might have gotten to some of those recommendations.

The other document that's been referenced by the member who proposes this open-ended paragraph is the reference to Yours, Mine and Ours: Ontario Children and Youth report by the Premier. I've quoted this document about four times in the House since it was distributed back in May 1994. The reason I've had the occasion to quote it is because I find very many of the proposals in here quite supportable. In fact my leader, Mike Harris, has publicly enunciated support for specific recommendations that are contained in this report, and interestingly enough, our public statements on that came prior to the completion of this report.

It's not political one-upmanship. All that means is that there is very wide support across the province of Ontario, and that can be found in a specific reference on page 10 of The Common Sense Revolution. If you compare the two documents, there are commonalities with respect to the support for children in need in both the Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution document and the Premier's council report. We suspect that the Premier's Council, albeit laid out in their report, has not necessarily indicated that its last budget or its pending budget in particular is going to target and focus on the challenge that children with special needs and children in poverty require in order to be supported adequately in the province of Ontario.

One of the areas that are of concern to me is justice. As we know, children in this province are extremely vulnerable. On several occasions we have been calling for reforms to justice that affect children. I think it's inexcusable that, depending upon what part of the province of Ontario your child is sexually assaulted in, that determines the level of justice he or she receives in our courts. I have brought case after case to the floor of this Legislature of children where the judge has indicated that he doesn't feel the proceeding to trial will sustain a conviction simply because of the age of the children and because they don't have the court resources in order to do it.

Now we have the court resources; we have them in London, Ontario. They're very individualized and they're very focused, and it should be of no surprise to the members of the House that the rate of conviction of paedophiles and sexual assaults against children is double in the London court because of these additional computerized and videotape support services to enhance and equalize the victims' opportunity to present their case in the court. But in all the other jurisdictions in Ontario they don't have that, so it's unequal justice for children who are sexually abused.

All members of the House are aware that when children who are sexually abused don't receive the necessary supports and counselling and the whole concept of empowerment from the fact that someone, an adult, believes them, that manifests itself in all sorts of problems in our schools, in their interpersonal relationships, even in conflicts with the law. We know everything about it, and yet are we doing anything about it?

For as little as $150,000 we could provide these services in each of our courts, and yet we've got $15 million for the symbolic gesture of putting bilingual road signs on our streets. The fact is that if these are the priorities for our children, then we should be doing something about them.

I raised the Frederick Metcalfe case with the minister. Here's a 2-year-old boy living in a family on social assistance and the mother's boyfriend beats this child so unmercifully that he's handicapped for the rest of his life. I've read the transcripts of the court. I've read the appeal court's decision why it's not proceeding and it is deeply, deeply disturbing because it flows from the believability and the testimony of a 2-year-old child who is handicapped for life. Actually, the Metcalfe case occurred not far from your jurisdiction, so I know the member's aware of the case.

These are the kinds of issues we have to be speaking up for. These are the kinds of issues we have to be fighting for for our children. This is not a poverty issue alone. It has a lot to do with the rights of a child, and we're not seeing the kinds of justice reform so that children aren't treated so unequally or inequitably in our courts.

The member opposite made reference to day care. I need not remind him that we have severely criticized his government's approach for putting private sector operators out of business while the total number of available day care spaces in this province dropped. The member opposite frowns, but the fact is that in the first two years, $100 million was injected into the day care configuration of this problem, but we actually saw a decline in the number of spaces.

My party doesn't support universal day care, universally accessible to anybody who walks in off the street and demands it. We can't afford it. But surely to God your political party, which has been uttering that support for all these years, clearly should have seen the folly of your interest in turning the day care debate into an ideological debate, into an economic issue involving the punishing of private operators, instead of keeping foremost what everybody in this province thought was your objective: to increase access.

I just have to quote the Toronto Star, which was very critical of the Minister of Community and Social Services, who's currently engaged in a debate with the federal government and holding up the transfer of moneys. I think the member opposite should be talking to the minister and saying, "Look, day care is important to the member opposite in his region and his minister's holding up those discussions." If that's what's implicit in your motion about entering the debate with the federal government, then I ask your government to please do different tactics than the ones you're currently employing with day care.

I want to talk about the elimination of preschool speech-language services. I've raised with the Minister of Health the fact that preschool children need speech-language services. God knows, we've got all the money in the world to teach second- and third-language instructions in our elementary schools in this province, but for children at age two or three, before they go into school, we're withdrawing support services so that they can learn at least one language to communicate in our society.

Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital is frankly about to maybe show half a million dollars to a $1 million -- I can't call it a profit; hospitals don't profit -- surplus at the end of this year, and yet they cancelled a program worth only $50,000 and threw 100 children to the mercy of the private sector out in the community to receive speech-language services. When I raised it with the minister she thought it was terrible, but nothing's been done about it. So I say, if that's our definition of what we're doing, where's the political will to respond to it?

I wish I had time to go into concerns that were expressed by the Provincial Auditor on this very sensitive issue around support for social assistance recipients, and children in particular. The auditor was extremely critical of the government's approach to collecting moneys that are owed to families. When a father refuses to make his payments under a support order, then what's been happening is that a disproportionate amount of that money has been routinely written off by another arm of the same government, and the auditor's saying that causes more money to go to those families, which is unnecessary if it's gotten from the father, who legally owes it in the first place.

The auditor went on and he had several examples of where this family support plan came up. He commented that "arrears totalled...$700 million." Just think if we had that money to free up for children's services instead of having to pay on behalf of those defaulting fathers.

The auditor went on to talk about child welfare services and found that there were still many outstanding problems with the prevention programs provided by children's aid societies. Due to cutbacks, these expenditures have been reduced by $13.4 million.

1130

I hate to bring it to the House's attention, but prevention programs are critically important for children's aid societies because they deal with protecting children who are being abused, physically and sexually abused, and the society has to maintain its legal responsibility in these matters.

I want to close by suggesting and just briefly referring to some of the concerns that have been raised by my leader, Mike Harris. There's no question that we have taken a very strong position on social assistance reform. We have indicated that we feel the group that must be protected are those sole-support families in Ontario, the mothers raising children, and we figure there are about 200,000 welfare families headed by single parents in this province.

The Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution clearly says that we should be targeting programs for children in need, community-based programs such as community nutrition programs for school-aged children, a learning and earning and parenting program, part of which has been referenced in the Premier's Council report -- Mike Harris commits specific dollars to that program; as many as 23,000 teens and young adults could be helped by this program -- homework assistance centres to assist our school boards, child support enforcement. There are thousands of children paying the emotional price for their parents' separation. Instead of arguing that case, we should be reinforcing the legislation.

I'm still trying to understand what the member opposite means with this resolution and I hope that in his summary comments he can let the House know.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I first want to thank the member for Burlington South for his usual non-partisan contribution to the debate here this morning and wonder out loud just where he's been living for the last four years or what he actually reads. He has no understanding or knowledge of the child income program that was such a vital part of the social assistance reform package that we put together and shared with this province over the last three years and in the end couldn't afford to implement because of the cutbacks that we experienced from the federal government, a program that we have now in front of the present federal government and that we're optimistically hopeful will see the light of day at some point in the not-too-distant future.

His comments re child care and child care spaces: It's got to be a joke that he's making here this morning. We've increased funding for child care by 62%, from $350 million in 1990-91 to about $565 million in 1994-95. We've expanded the child care system by adding 21,000 new fee subsidies and over 18,000 new licensed spaces. I could go on and on.

In my own community, we've had two new day cares open up and another one that we're thinking about and working on developing, and each one of those represents new spaces.

Mr Jackson: You have had five close. Be honest. You've had five close.

Mr Martin: So I don't know where the member opposite, who is continuing to chirp over there -- his 15 minutes obviously wasn't long enough to spin his web of mystique here this morning. I just want to, for the few minutes I have, though, put on the table my comments re this question.

I came to this place from having run a soup kitchen for just about 10 years. In 1983, 1984, 1985, when we first started up, one of the things that astounded us was the number of children who came every day for lunch.

It started out with 10 or 15 and by the time we were finished, we were averaging somewhere between 100 and 125 children every day coming to our place from the neighbourhood schools, three of them, to get lunch. It certainly caused a lot of us to ask questions, questions that we're still asking and I'm still asking here today in 1994 as we look ahead to a new millennium and hopefully a new way of doing business that will see us coming to terms with the question of how we deal with children, how we deal with people, how we deal with people who live in communities.

I think, as the member has suggested in his opening statement re the resolution here this morning, that we definitely do need to redefine family values, as he said, but we need to go even further than that. I think we need to redefine family, and I think we should be wanting to look at family in all of its makeup today.

For me, yes, family is the traditional mom and dad and the kids in many senses, and that can be a very healthy situation. But we all know in many of our own personal circumstances and neighbourhoods and communities that that isn't necessarily always the healthiest of conglomerations. So we need to have another look at that. I think we need to be looking at family as groups of people caring about each other and to be doing things that support that in whatever positive way we can.

I agree as well with the member from the Liberal Party who suggests from the studies that he presented here this morning that we also need to look at family within the context of community and community supports, because that's where we will get the resources to help each other and help children become all that they have the potential to become. We need to develop communities that support groups of people who care about each other. We need to respect the voice of families and groupings of people who care about each other in this exercise, and everything that we do should speak to that.

Certainly in this government we have done a tremendous amount of consulting with children and with parents. The Ministry of Community and Social Services, in trying to redefine how they do business in the communities they serve, have established children's services councils that include parents and consumers of their services. In the Ministry of Education we've established the parent council so that we might get more direct input from them re what we will do with education down the line and into the future.

I just want to in closing say that I am really happy that the member has presented this resolution here this morning and hope that everybody in this place will learn from it and be willing to support it in the end.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to join in the debate on this motion by the member for Durham Centre. Part of the resolution that he puts forward reads, "We must examine the services and supports that we offer to young families in order to improve and refine the quality of life for all children and youth in Ontario, including an amelioration of child poverty and family violence." And the resolution goes on through other paragraphs.

I have no objection and I'm supportive of this type of resolution. In so doing, however, I would like to bring forward some of the realities of the area of which I'm a member, not just in the area of Mississauga North, of the city of Mississauga, but rather the region of Peel.

The member for Durham Centre will know that there is in the region of Peel a task force called the Fair Share for Peel Task Force. This task force is made up of representatives of the United Way of Peel Region, the Social Planning Council of Peel, the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel, Family Services of Peel, Peel Children's Centre and Community Living Mississauga. They have made in the last three and four years some very serious attempts with the current government. They take it that the region of Peel does not receive its fair share of funding for social services for children, youth and families from the provincial government. As a result, the resources available to meet the growing demands of Peel's population are totally inadequate, leading to services that are increasingly unavailable and inaccessible.

I make this statement not as one that I have made up, but rather I am reading from the Fair Share for Peel Task Force report, the latest of which is October, just two months ago.

The Fair Share for Peel Task Force has as a mission statement "to promote the optimal and holistic development, growth and potential of children while supporting and strengthening the integrity of the family."

No one can debate in opposition that type of mission statement. They understand that action is required in three areas: that Peel's social services sector is inadequate to respond to the social service needs of Peel's population; secondly, that the current level of funding of Peel's social services for children, youth and their families does not reflect the proportion of Ontario's population represented by Peel; and thirdly, the pattern of current level of funding over the past several years does not reflect the dramatic rate of population growth in the region. The fact that the current government fails to reflect the growth in the region of Peel has resulted in a tremendous impact on services to children, to families in need, to women. Let me give you some facts in the region of Peel.

1140

A child in Peel region receives services in the amount of $96.52 per capita, while the Ontario per capita expenditure is $261.68. This results in Peel kids often having to go outside the region to receive the help they need. In the area of child care, the provincial government provides $200.42 in child care funding for every child aged 0 to 9 in the region of Peel, while the Ontario per capita funding is $364.35, again a tremendous impact to those in the region of Peel who require these services.

People with developmental challenges receive services funded at a per capita rate of $32.80 in Peel, while in Ontario it's $63.67. This again causes an incredible hardship, and has for many years, in the region of Peel. It can be cured, it can be solved, if one adopts a funding proposal which indeed recognizes growth in certain areas. The Peel region happens to be one of those areas.

On June 13, 1991, I brought a resolution into this Legislature speaking to the Fair Share for Peel Task Force, and the member for Durham Centre spoke to that motion. It is interesting that his opening comments talked about the Fair Share for Peel Task Force but indicated that this is a provincial House, not a regional municipal council. I take exception to the words that were said by the member at that date, because it isn't a regional matter. This is a people issue, this is a child issue, and the speech that the member has made, the resolution, of which I am in support -- let us be very clear -- has not been followed by any action of your government.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I want to thank Mr White for bringing forward this resolution about improving the lives of children. We need to think about family values. What are family values? Back in the 1950s, we could think of dad with a shirt and tie, or else his hardhat and boots, going out to work, and 2.5 kids and a white picket fence and mom in the kitchen with her apron on, maybe baking pies, making sure she had supper on the table and the clothes were ironed.

These are all the outward signs, but within this façade, all was not well. We know now that there in certain cases could be violence against women and even cases of incest. Family values are all about bringing up children who are whole, capable individuals, adults capable of reaching their full potential, young people who have self-esteem, like many young people we have here today, and also a respect for others. Isn't that what family values are all about and isn't that what a family is for, to have young people with self-esteem and also respect for others?

We used to say that behind every successful man there is a supportive woman. What about behind every successful woman there is a supportive man? Or how about beside every successful person there is a supportive partner? This means a 50-50 relationship of support, of raising children and of really equality in our society. To reach this type of society, this government can do two things: first of all, enhance women's role in our society, and secondly, eliminate family violence. How can we do these things? I'd like to list a few suggestions.

First, we must help women's opportunities in business. Recently, I went to a reception of Jobs Ontario Training employers, and these were all women, very successful women entrepreneurs in our society.

We could also help change the banks' attitudes towards dealing with women in business.

Just a few days ago on CBC radio, they were talking about young children in grades 1 or 2 in the classroom and how the boys dominated in using the computers. These types of things we have to look at. We must never allow young women to fall into the Cinderella syndrome, which is that the object of life is to meet the right man and then life will be lived happily ever after.

Day care is very important. We must turn day care into a public service, as Minister Silipo said at the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care lobby last Monday.

Let's be careful about advertising that stereotypes and objectifies and thus limits women. Fifteen-year-olds might think that all they should aim for is being a glamorous person, but obviously, as in this advertisement in the Toronto Star yesterday, there is much more for young women to do and be in our society.

Finally, let's remember December 6, 1989, the Montreal massacre of young women who were engineering students. Young women have every right to be engineers in our society, and I suggest, in closing, that our society's attitude must change in order to improve the lives of children.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I would first of all like to commend the member for Durham Centre for bringing forward this important resolution, based as it is on the fine work of the Premier's Council embodied in Yours, Mine and Ours, a non-partisan, multisectoral volunteer organization that advises the Premier on such important matters.

I really think it's important to highlight, as the member for Durham Centre did, that it's incumbent upon every one of us in society to provide the children who will shape our future generations of society with the education, the health care and the social services that they so vitally need. There's no victory, as the Premier said recently at the convention, in eliminating a budget deficit only to find we have a larger social deficit. Hungry kids are a deficit too; crime and family violence are a deficit too. One need only walk a few blocks west of the Legislature to witness homeless youth living on the streets, families with children relying on food banks, mothers and children fleeing violence to find refuge in shelters.

The demographics of our society, as the member for Durham Centre pointed out, have indeed changed dramatically as opposed to the 1950s. I'm one of those 12% of families, I guess, where my spouse works in the home, and that perhaps makes political life for me a little easier but that could change any day. Although the member for Durham Centre talked about "father knows best," certainly with the time I spend at Queen's Park, mother has to know best, and fortunately that's a sign of the changing times.

But there is not too much time remaining to me and we have a colleague who would like to speak, so I'd like to briefly touch on some of the programs that we have in London to meet the kind of community supports and services that the member for Durham Centre calls for.

Most recently, a program was established called Kids Count. It's a revolutionary new approach to helping out children most in danger of failing in school. It's based on neighbourhood groups coming up with ways to help children in their areas succeed in school, to break the cycle of hunger and despair that condemns many children to lives of poverty and despair.

The program in fact brings together the federal, provincial, municipal governments, public and separate school boards, health and social agencies, businesses and other community partners and neighbourhood groups in an unusual alliance that breaks down the kind of barriers that were addressed both in this House and also in the Yours, Mine and Ours report. That, in addition to the Children's Services Network and the Smart Snacks program in London, I think will go a long way towards mending some of the cracks in the system and helping children get a leg up in life early on when it counts the most.

1150

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I too am pleased to rise to support my colleague's resolution this morning and, I would say very clearly, to put the lie to the member from the opposition who suggested that we haven't done anything on the Children First recommendation, because one of the programs that came out of that is the Better Beginnings, Better Futures initiative.

The government is spending $5.73 million a year shared among three ministries, and I'm very pleased to say we have one of the programs in my riding called Better Beginnings for Kingston Children. It's an exciting program that is doing very good work in dealing with the kinds of issues that have been raised this morning to promote healthy child development both for the children involved and their families as well as the community.

I have some testament from the program. I'd first like to very briefly read some of the things that the program does. This comes from Suzanne Flanagan, who is a project coordinator in Kingston:

"The home visiting program focus is on child development for families with children from zero to four. The home visitors are trained to provide prenatal education, breast-feeding support for new mothers, infant care support to new parents, teaching and informing parents on ways to promote healthy growth in their child's physical, behavioral, cognitive, social and intellectual development and provide support to parents who may be facing a crisis."

I want to say too that it's understood that there would be a lot of scepticism in communities when you have demonstration projects like this, but one of the ways of overcoming that is to include many people from the community itself in the program. Suzanne writes: "Two thirds of the 19 staff are community members who have been hired and trained. In the two years that the project has been operating in north Kingston, there have been only two staff members leave." That's two thirds of 19.

I also have some testament from people using the program. One letter writer says: "I also say this for the other mothers who attend the centre," that is, that they're all getting a lot of support from each other, "especially those who feel that the centre's the only place they can turn to when they have questions or personal problems."

Another writes: "I am a mother of two young children, one three, the other one. They help me," that is the people at the centre, "with my three-year-old son. If it was not for Better Beginnings, I would have lost my mind. Better Beginnings gave me support when I was breast-feeding my one-year-old daughter."

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham Centre has two minutes in summation.

Mr White: An hour's debate is not enough time to explore the issues before us, but I think what we have done is outlined something about our beliefs and something about our commitments.

My friend from York-Mackenzie spoke of the work of the Children First report and the work that's outlined. He went on to talk about a focus on outcomes, which is a focus on how children are doing. I think that's very important.

It's not an issue of which ministry is doing what. I know that our government, and my many colleagues and ministries, have given me ample, ample catalogues of what we have done. My friends have talked about specific programs. My friends from London Centre, from Kingston and The Islands, have talked about those programs. It would be easy to get into a tit-for-tat in terms of what program is doing what, but we haven't done that. Instead we have focused on what our beliefs are, what our supports are, what our intent and commitment are.

I want to compliment my friends from Niagara Falls, from the Sault and those areas as well, because that's what the basis of these programs is, a basis of values and commitment, a commitment for the betterment of children and youth, an attack on child poverty. I mention child poverty again because in my experience, without those basics, without food and nutrition, without clothing and the wherewithal, the economic security and wellbeing, the other issues are really largely irrelevant.

I want to thank my friends, my colleagues, both within the community as a whole and within this Legislature, for their contributions to this debate, and hope that we will use some of the ideas we have shared today in our fight towards a better future for our children and our families in this province.

The Acting Speaker: This completes private members' time for this morning. Do we have unanimous consent to proceed with dealing with Mr Henderson's motion in spite of the fact that it's not quite 12 noon? Agreed.

PUBLICLY FUNDED HOUSING RENT CONTROL ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS DES LOGEMENTS DONT LE FINANCEMENT EST PUBLIC

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will be dealing with ballot item number 73, standing in the name of Mr Jim Henderson. Are there any members opposed to a vote on this ballot item? If so, will they please rise. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Henderson's motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I declare the motion lost.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We now will deal with ballot item number 74, standing in the name of Mr White. Are there any members opposed to a vote on Mr White's motion? If so, will they please rise. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr White's motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

Being almost 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1156 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): My statement today is addressed to the Minister of Health concerning the northern health travel grants. Jesse Cantlon is three and a half years old and has been travelling back and forth to Sick Kids with his parents since he was four months old and diagnosed with a malignant brain tumour.

There has never been a problem with collecting from the travel grant system until now. The July 25, 1994, visit was paid for travel as far as Timmins instead of Toronto, the reason being that your ministry said he could have seen a specialist in Timmins.

Jesse's problems vary from month to month. When his parents bring him to Sick Kids hospital he sees a wide array of specialists at one time, such as a neurosurgeon, a nephrologist and an oncologist, because other health problems have occurred due to his illness. All tests and scans are compared in relation to the past tests over a period of time, as well as looked at for the probable relation to his cancer. All these specialists are paediatric subspecialists.

Some of his visits to Toronto include the cancer clinic as well as Sick Kids. His parents never know what specialist he has to see until they get there. It all depends on the results of his examinations. He now has kidney problems that are due to his cancer. Although Jesse may see several specialists when he goes to Sick Kids, only one signs the travel grant form.

Mrs Cantlon has telephoned the ministry concerning this problem and has been told that she had to submit a list of all the specialists Jesse may see when he goes to Toronto. This is not possible because there are so many doctors at Sick Kids whom Jesse has to see. I would ask the minister please to correct this problem and all the northern health travel grant problems for children right across northern Ontario.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The net designed to catch motorists who choose to drink and drive is a lot tighter, thanks to the many police officers who are staffing the RIDE programs across Ontario.

Drinking and driving is one of the most destructive, yet one of the most preventable, causes of injury and death on our highways today. Drinking and driving costs our health care system $100 million annually. In 1992, drinking and driving resulted in 11,966 hospital admissions, 568 died in alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents, and 31,292 drivers were charged with impaired driving in Ontario.

It is a sad fact of life that warm feelings associated with this festive season often result in too much drinking and tragedy on our highways and roads.

Many people still fail to realize that a drinking-and-driving conviction could cost them as much as $20,000. A first conviction for impaired driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood is a fine of not less than $300 and a licence suspension for one year. A second conviction brings a minimum 14-day jail term and a licence suspension of two years. A third results in a 90-day jail term and a licence suspension of three years. Insurance rates skyrocket after a drunk driving offence is registered on your record.

I urge everyone to take care this holiday season and throughout the year. Please do not drink and drive.

Mr Speaker, to you and to the members in this Legislature, I wish you all a Merry Christmas. Scottish ancestry doesn't allow me to send everyone Christmas cards.

JOBS ONTARIO COMMUNITY ACTION

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I'd like to take a few minutes today to inform this House about good news for my riding.

Recently, the associate minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Irene Mathyssen, and I announced a $3-million Jobs Ontario Community Action grant to the Stratford Shakespearean Festival. This grant will enable better wheelchair accessibility through a major renovation to the theatre's front-of-house facilities. It also involves improvements to general seating and an expanded lobby.

It is always rewarding to receive funding in my riding; however, more important to me are the benefits of a good working relationship I have with one of the major employers in Stratford. Currently the festival's annual economic benefit to the area is estimated to be more than $100 million.

Last week, I also attended the official opening of Greenwood Court seniors' residence and nursing home. This was a joint project between the Avon Mennonite Church and Tri-County Mennonite Homes. While our government funded this project at approximately $4.4 million, again it was the participation of and partnerships from the community which made this a special enterprise. Teamwork between the Huron-Perth separate school board, the Perth public school board and the city of Stratford on the Stratford Education and Recreation Centre project opened the way for Tri-County Mennonite Homes to buy the land and receive the necessary approvals and funding.

I am proud to represent Perth county, a community that builds on cooperation, teamwork and partnerships.

WORLD AIDS DAY

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I rise today to talk of World AIDS Day, which was commenced approximately six years ago.

As you know, it is a debilitating and awful disease which has taken the lives of many Ontarians and in fact takes the lives now of more Ontarians under 65 than cancer does. It is an awful thing and it's a disease that we need to talk about and be open about and to rise above the fear that is out there.

I have with me today Helen Mah, MPP for a day from Jarvis Collegiate, who is, interestingly enough, quite conservative on economic matters, but on this issue is a strong proponent of action, a proponent of making sure that the government acts to provide funding for AIDS, to make sure that people don't have to go on welfare to get access to AIDS drugs and to other drugs related to catastrophic illness. She is also, despite her conservative instincts on economic matters, a proponent of same-sex rights and benefits, which is much to her credit and of course a view that I support as well.

I'd like today to honour those who are working in the field of preventing and hopefully one day curing this disease and pay, if I can, a brief tribute to a friend of mine who passed away two years ago, James Thatcher, who I think would be pleased to see that, finally, catastrophic illness drug funding will be coming.

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): True is the saying that a government is measured by how it establishes priorities.

I recently had confirmed for me just how high a spending priority young offenders are for the NDP. At the Syl Apps Youth Centre for young offenders in Oakville, a foodservice consultant recommended that a rethermalization foodservice, complete with trolleys, be implemented there. The food trolleys were imported from France at a cost to taxpayers of $14,322 each. The rationale for this expense is that, "The equipment allows staff to provide both hot and cold meals to residents at any time...and encourages positive social interaction between residents and staff."

And now for another story. On Friday last I visited M.M. Robinson High School, academic home to more than 1,500 students in north Burlington. Members of the parents' advisory committee showed me extensive and chronic structural problems that are so severe that by any standard they would be a risk to the safety and health of students and staff. How is it that during the years of extensive funding for school construction, M.M. Robinson High School was overlooked? Where was the member for Halton Centre and her Liberal government then?

In these difficult economic times, I want to remind both the current NDP and the past Liberal government of their misguided priorities. The young offenders at Syl Apps appreciate five-star meal service. However, the law-abiding students at M.M. Robinson school need to know that their government values their educational experience, and at the very least it should be a safe and healthy environment in which they can learn.

FESTIVAL OF TREES

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I want to congratulate all those who organized and contributed to the Festival of Trees recently held in Peterborough.

Founded in 1991, the festival has raised over $500,000 this year for three local health care organizations. Hospice Peterborough uses the funds to support its work with families and individuals coping with terminal illnesses. The foundations at St Joseph's General Hospital and Peterborough Civic Hospital use the funds to purchase equipment, fund building projects and enhance patient care and continuing education for staff.

The Peterborough Memorial Community Centre was transformed into a Victorian village at Christmastime, depicting Peterborough at the turn of the century. There were many activities for young and old alike, combining the creative talents of people from all walks of life. I was particularly touched by the Tribute Tree where decorations were hung in memory of loved ones.

I'm proud of the work invested in this coming together of the community and bring it to your attention as a role model for neighbourhoods throughout the province. This year, over 1,500 volunteers, 900 volunteer entertainers and hundreds of sponsors, including many local businesses, participated in the festival. I thank all those who helped organize this year's event and I congratulate them for its tremendous success. In particular, I'd like to thank Margaret-Ellen Disney, this year's chair, for honouring Peterborough with her creative and innovative energy.

1340

HIGHWAY 416

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On Monday, the Minister of Transportation made statements in this House that must not go unchallenged. In fact, when I read Hansard, I got very angry at his obvious and blatant fudging of the facts.

He says the 416 completion can't be accelerated without federal help. Whoever spoke of acceleration or fast-tracking, Minister? I was personally assured by not one but two successive NDP ministers of Transportation that the 416 would be completed on time. Ed Philip said so to me in this House on November 1, 1990. Gilles Pouliot, on October 22, 1991, in the estimates committee, made the very same promise, also to me. For the government's and the public's edification, this was done without any reference whatsoever to federal help.

Then a year later Bob Rae and Gilles Pouliot, on the sly, cancelled the completion, but they were caught red-handed by CJOH-TV and me. Completing the 416 now is no "acceleration," Minister; it's getting it off the shelves where your NDP government put it.

The new minister said to me on November 2, "When Bob Rae's government makes a promise, we keep it." Well, keep your word, Minister, even if it's unusual for you. Fulfil your double promise of November 1, 1990, and of October 22, 1991, and complete the 416 now and on time.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Sadly, we do not have a workable labour force training vehicle in Ontario. On November 23, 1992, Bill 96, which established the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, OTAB, a crown agency responsible for the promotion, funding, coordination, design and provision of programs and services for labour force training, received its first reading. Four years after the election of this NDP government, we do not have even local boards established. The bureaucracy is outrageous. The cost in dollars and human resources time is indefensible and plain irresponsible. In fact, without local boards we have no labour force training vehicle in Ontario.

A local board implementation guide was released recently as a result of the September 25, 1994, announcement by Lloyd Axworthy and David Cooke when they launched this local training board process. The very first step was launch meetings, and in London recently they were told that the purpose is "to begin discussion on an outreach strategy and a process for selection of nominees to sit on local boards."

We've spoken to a number of people who attended the November 1 meeting. Educators and trainers made up the largest group, and after a lengthy and difficult discussion between people with competing interests, they were unable to agree on a representative to sit on this temporary administrative group. They've putting ads in the newspaper. What an ineffective process. How time-consuming. How costly. We're not surprised: OTAB is a failure, and we have no vehicle for our young people or the workforce.

OKTOBERFEST WOMEN OF THE YEAR

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): As you know, Mr Speaker, a lot of times we get wrapped up in our business down here and we don't have to time or we fail to recognize a lot of the hard work and energy that's going on back in our ridings. Today, I'd like to recognize a few people.

On October 13, a reception was held in honour of the Oktoberfest Women of the Year recipients. These women who were recognized this year are all exceptional in their areas. The categories and recipients are as follows: advocacy, Maria Alvarez; art-history-literature, Nicole Fougere; business-entrepreneur, Tracey Johnson-Aldworth; employee, Gonda VanRoosmalen; homemaker, Janet Stevens; humanitarian, Bettye Clark; professional, Dr Josephine Naidoo; senior, Cecilia Duval; sports-recreation, Joyce Legatt; and young adult, Jill Carter.

These women were recognized by their peers, friends and families because these women have dedicated themselves to the greatest form of expression. It is a message that spills forth from them for their community, for Ontario and for Canada.

As Ontarians, we are beginning to recognize the excellence that is inherited in our province. We are beginning to stand up with pride for what we believe in and for what our province represents. Nowhere is that more evident than in these recipients and the other women who were nominated in these categories.

To all the recipients and nominees, we thank you for your commitment and expressions of yourself.

VISITORS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming the many Second World War flying veterans who are here as my guests today from my riding. They sit up there in the members' gallery. They've served Canada well, and they're here today for the first time to see how the Legislature operates. They're from the Golden Wings and from the 420 Squadron, and I ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member will know that he does not have a point of order. However, the special visitors he has now introduced are most welcome to our chamber.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORLD AIDS DAY

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that today is World AIDS Day. It's a day to acknowledge and honour both the people who are living with HIV and AIDS and their friends and families who share their pain and struggle. It's also a day to reiterate our commitment to do everything we can to prevent the spread of HIV.

In Ontario we have had almost 15,000 people infected with HIV since the beginning of the epidemic. Many who were infected in the 1980s are now getting ill.

When our government was first elected, we made a number of commitments to the HIV/AIDS community. We made AIDS a priority.

One result was the Premier's announcement yesterday that we will shortly put in place drug coverage for patients in economic need. The government's goal is to eliminate the need for patients with a catastrophic disease from having to go on welfare just to get adequate drug coverage.

We promised to establish the AIDS bureau and give it a stronger community focus. We did that, and the feedback we've had on the work of the bureau has been very positive.

It was expected that we would expand our community-based program. We have, and continue to enhance this program and build on its strength.

We made a commitment to make our advisory committees more representative of the community. With the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS, we've done that, and more than half the members are consumers, advocates and activists, and we continue to rely on their guidance and advice.

We promised to offer anonymous testing. Ontario now has 24 anonymous testing programs in place across the province. Compared to our other testing programs, a significantly higher proportion of people tested anonymously are HIV-positive. That means the program is reaching people who are at risk and counselling them so they do get care and don't spread the virus.

We promised to develop a strategic plan for AIDS in Ontario. In December 1993 we released Building on Our Strengths: Focusing Our Efforts -- Ontario's HIV/AIDS Plan to the Year 2000.

We promised to review AIDS funding. We now know where and how all the money for AIDS is spent, and we're looking at ways to ensure that it is used effectively.

Also, we established the HIV observational database program to monitor the disease to gain a better understanding of how it progresses and the factors that affect long-term survival.

With regard to the aboriginal community, a steering committee made up of representatives of off-reserve and urban aboriginal organizations will very shortly distribute a strategy to the community for consultation.

We promised to assess the network of outpatient clinics and their ability to meet needs. That project led to a comprehensive needs assessment that is now helping us refine existing programs and plan for the future.

This morning I was pleased to attend the official opening of the new Wellesley Health Centre. A major component of the centre is HIV care. Each year more than 1,000 people with HIV and AIDS will be able to get one-stop access to medical and to non-medical resources.

I was also pleased to announce the establishment of a new, joint HIV social-behavioural-epidemiological studies unit. This will be run in collaboration with the University of Toronto at a total cost of approximately $300,000 a year. Its studies will help us better understand risky behaviours and prevent the transmission of the virus.

In closing, I would like to encourage members of the House to wear a red ribbon. Red ribbons have been used for a number of years to symbolize awareness of issues related to AIDS, support for those who have it and remembrance of those who have died. Wear them proudly, but wear them with respect.

1350

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I am very pleased to be able to rise and join with the minister in marking international World AIDS Day. I believe the red ribbon has become a symbol of our compassionate awareness of the toll that this tragic disease takes and of our common commitment to doing something about it.

In this regard, we have welcomed the government's indication that it is prepared to extend drug coverage to those who are needing prohibitively expensive medication. We believe that is a necessary step for government to be taking.

But let me also commend the tremendous efforts of individuals, whether family members or friends or volunteers, people who are in communities across this province who provide that essential support needed by AIDS victims. They are truly in the forefront in responding to the challenges and they reaffirm our faith in a caring society.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I too want to commemorate World AIDS Day and to share in the views expressed by the Minister of Health and my leader and to acknowledge that in many ways we as legislators and all of us in Parliament have been pushed to respond by the work of people in the community. It's activists and advocates and consumers who have forced all of us to respond.

I can think, for example, of my friend James Thatcher, who died just a little under two years ago, who was a friend of mine for a long time and died of AIDS and who was an activist and chained himself to the door, I think, of the former Minister of Health. Today, wherever he is, I think he's probably smiling that some of what he fought for is starting to come. I think the grin will hopefully get wider on April 1 when we see the details of the program.

I want to acknowledge many of the other volunteers, activists in my community and others who have pushed all of us so hard: in the AIDS Committee of Toronto, Bill Flanagan, who's been a friend of mine for 10 or more years, and Carol Yaworski, the executive director, and in AIDS Action Now, Glen Brown, who has been a very strong and vigorous advocate, the many people in the From All Walks of Life fund-raising campaign, people like Rod Kelly, George Smitherman, Markus Wilson, Max Beck, the husband of the new mayor of the city of Toronto.

There's Canfar. There's a new group called Aid for AIDS, which is a charity for children who have HIV and AIDS. There are many other community activists with the Casey House hospice, June Callwood, the PWA Foundation -- the list goes on and on, and they have all pushed us to act.

I want to talk briefly about the toll this has taken, and the minister mentioned the 15,000 people who we believe have become infected with HIV. I believe as many as 7,200 people have died in the last 10 years, and that's a tragic, tragic toll.

I know that the intention is in the next six weeks to work out the details of the program, and I hope we do see very positive details. I know there was a mention of a floor and a sliding scale of contribution. What I have said to the activists is that in fact they have a bit of a hammer in the negotiation because the details have to be worked out before the election is called, and so I suspect they might get a better deal than they might otherwise have had.

My hope is that it will be a deal that recognizes that many individuals can't afford the incredible price that the drugs for catastrophic illness cost, thousands and thousands of dollars a month, and that it will be of benefit to the individuals not to have to quit their jobs and go on welfare, that it will improve their personal health and their ability to survive in better health for longer to be able to continue working while getting the drugs.

I do hope that the details of the program include and recognize the concern for the privacy issues around being infected with HIV. I'm sure that the minister will be sensitive to those issues.

I was pleased also to be at the opening of the Wellesley Health Centre today, which I think is the kind of model that we all agree on in the long term, that health care should be provided in a setting that deals with the community, that comes from the community, and also shows some flexibility in how remuneration is paid to the people who provide care. It is a credit to the people at the hospital, the community, the staff, the doctors, the executive, the kind of efforts that the Wellesley Hospital has made in the last five years.

I thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to seeing the details of the program.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): It is a pleasure to join with my colleagues in recognizing World AIDS Day. I note that the Minister of Health today is following up on an announcement made by the Premier yesterday with respect to the government's intention to expand the catastrophic drug program. I guess, on a somewhat disappointing note, I would simply ask the minister what took her and her government so long.

On April 27, 1994, the leader of the Ontario PC Party, Mike Harris, specifically asked Ms Grier, the Minister of Health, a question about when she would get around to expanding the catastrophic drug program for a number of illnesses, but in particular for those people living with HIV and AIDS.

Mr Harris said on April 27:

"Your inaction, for example, on health card fraud alone costs 10 times more in waste than AIDS Action Now and others are requesting for treatment of catastrophic illness...Minister, will you tell Mr Farlinger" -- at that time Mr Bill Farlinger had joined us in the gallery from AIDS Action Now -- "and others if drug funding for catastrophic illnesses will be a health care priority in the budget to come down next week?"

At that time, the Minister of Health skirted the issue and simply replied that she couldn't tell us what was in the budget, and there was no commitment.

My party has made the commitment. We've consistently told the Minister of Health that the ministry and her government must set priorities within the health care funding envelope clearly when thousands and thousands of Ontarians are forced to go on welfare or forced to do without drug coverage because of the government's inability to set priorities and to extend catastrophic drug coverage.

Now the minister and the Premier have announced that the program will be extended. However, I'll believe it when I see it. The minister has announced money with respect to funding for cancer and dialysis and many other priorities of the health care system, and yet we know that much of that money won't flow till after the next provincial election.

Minister, I encourage you to meet your April 1 deadline, which we read about in a newspaper column today, and to get the expansion of the catastrophic drug program, the new universal program, up and running, and to inform this House as quickly as possible how you're going to pay for that program so that whichever party may inherit the government side of this House after the next election is able to continue that program and know where the funding is coming from, because for too long now we've had announcements where funding will flow in 1997, 1998, 1999, by the year 2000.

This government is good at meeting the needs of communities out there by simply announcing intentions. Minister, we encourage you to live up to this intention and to actually have the program up and running.

1400

We're reminded on World AIDS Day that indeed over 11,000 Canadians are living with AIDS, a staggering 14 million people suffer from this disease worldwide, and by the year 2000 there will be 30 million to 40 million infections of the HIV virus on this planet.

What the World Health Organization is doing, and many of the AIDS groups, in recognizing and encouraging all of us to recognize World AIDS Day, is making us aware that AIDS affects each and every one of us. We must redouble our efforts to combat this lethal killer by both beefing up our educational efforts and finding a cure for a disease that does not discriminate between sexes or age. The warning signs indicate that we must not continue to hide from the reality of AIDS.

Of global AIDS cases, members should know that 70% involve heterosexuals, and the World Health Organization states that 50% of those infected with HIV have become infected while they were between the ages of 15 and 24 years. So there's a lot to be done.

A colleague of mine, Mr Sterling, heard on the radio this morning that Canada spends 1/200th per capita on research as compared to the United States, so we also need to do more in terms of AIDS research.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Mr Speaker, as you're aware, the government has had four major bills before this Legislature in this session and they have rammed every one of them through by shutting down debate. The next bill that is going to be forced through the Legislature is the bill on long-term care.

This bill is being forced through this Legislature despite the fact that long-standing organizations and people who have been dedicated to serving their communities have raised very serious concerns with the bill. I don't believe the government ever wanted to really hear from these people, and it's clear now that they had no intention of listening to the concerns that have been raised.

But I ask the minister today: You argued that the approach that you're taking as you force this legislation through is necessary in order to reduce the cost of the system. In fact, there is no reliable evidence, no evidence that we've seen at all, that there are going to be cost savings. There was one study, the Price Waterhouse study which you touted as being your evidence of cost savings with this approach, and it has now been pulled by Price Waterhouse itself to re-evaluate their methodology.

My question, Minister, as you are on the eve of forcing through this new approach, is what evidence you have that your model is actually going to reduce costs and on what basis you are proceeding with a program that is going to wipe out long-standing community organizations and replace them with a new government bureaucracy.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I find it difficult when the Leader of the Opposition accuses us of ramming through something where many of us in this place began discussions about reorganizing and creating a long-term-care system 10, 12, 15 years ago.

In the five years that she was part of the Peterson government, no action was taken to create a long-term-care system. We have been consulting, working and designing to prepare for the reorganization of long-term care since the day we took office in September 1990, and we're tremendously proud of the fact that long-term care is going to become a reality before the end of this year.

In response to the question, long-term care is a growth industry in this province. We're all getting older. We're all costing more to have our health care. So the additional funding our government has put into long-term care is already close to half a billion dollars and will be $600 million a year before the end of 1997. The savings that the member refers to are due to the reorganization and the simplified administration that lets seniors have one-stop shopping for the care they need. That's what they've asked us to do.

Mrs McLeod: That is pure, absolute rhetoric. On the eve of this minister forcing through legislation which will significantly change the way in which long-term care is provided to seniors and to others in this province, will shut down organizations that have been providing that care literally for generations, we're asking this minister for something besides rhetoric and ideology to tell us why she has taken all the work that has been done on long-term care over all those years -- and you're right, Minister, a great deal of work from a great many people committed to coordinating the system, to providing one-stop access, to making sure that we were getting the best possible use of every dollar that was going into long-term care.

You've taken all that work and you have totally turned that on its head by putting in place this new bureaucratic approach and absolutely refuse to tell us again today whether that whole new bureaucratic approach is actually going to save any dollars in administrative costs at all. Again today that's your whole defence: It's going to save dollars. But there's no evidence, and that's one side of the ledger.

On the other side of the ledger is the fact that there are new costs that are built into your legislation. The model is clearly going to force agencies like the Victorian Order of Nurses, St Elizabeth visiting nurses and the Red Cross Society to close their doors. They're telling us that in communities across this province, and that means that everything those agencies have built up over the years is going to disappear. It's going to be taxpayers that have to pay for it, those same taxpayers that are going to somehow have to meet the increased demand you've talked about.

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

Mrs McLeod: Minister, it includes technology, office spaces, leases, even cars for visiting clients. Will you tell us where the funding to replace all of those capital costs is going to come from? How much additional spending is going to be required to establish this new system of delivering services?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me make it very clear once again to the Leader of the Opposition: Long-term care is about providing services to seniors and the disabled. Long-term care is about creating services for people and for communities where there has not been service. Long-term care reorganization is filling in those cracks through which too many people have fallen when they needed care, whether it be in an institution or whether it be in their own community. It is about providing more care in communities than in institutions, because if people are in their own homes, if people are in their own communities, they're healthier and they get better care.

Let's talk about funding. In 1990-91, when we became the government, the ministry spent less than $1.5 billion on long-term care. In 1994-95, we'll spend $2.1 billion. Our funding for community services has increased by 54%.

She asks where the money comes from. It comes from better management of the entire health care system. Within that $17 billion, almost $2,000 per capita that we spend on health care, we have found enormous efficiencies and administrative savings, and we have redirected those to fill the gaps in service that existed under your government and under the government that preceded it.

Mrs McLeod: I just don't know how to get this minister to respond to any of the concerns that are being raised about this legislation. She's not prepared to respond to any of the concerns that are raised by those who deliver the care, not prepared to listen to the concerns of any of those who receive the care. We thought today maybe she would answer some very specific questions about costs: where she sees the costs being saved and what evidence she has, where she sees the new costs being managed, whether she has any information about what it will cost to replace all of those capital needs that are now being met by the existing agencies.

Let me give you another cost that's built into your legislation that you've refused to address. The acting director of long-term care has made a clear commitment that government will pay for the severances of people who get laid off as a result of this legislation. You refuse to acknowledge that there are going to be any people laid off, which is why you won't give us any kind of cost, but it is absolutely clear from all of the evidence that has been given at committees that the bill will result in layoffs at the Red Cross, at the VON, at Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses, and the list goes on. There will be a cost to severance.

Just to sum it up then, you have no estimate of what you're going to save; you have no estimate of what it's going to cost to rebuild the system; you refuse to give an estimate of the cost of severances. Minister, this is another issue on which you have clearly not done your homework. How do you know that this is not going to cost more and provide less service to seniors and to others who need long-term care?

Hon Mrs Grier: Because we're not starting the reorganization of long-term care on January 1, 1995. We've been doing it for four years and we've been investing new money in it. We've added home care by 53%, integrated homemaker program increased expenditures, 65%; home support services, 37%; and attendant care programs, 36%. I'm sorry if that upsets the opposition, but that's the reality of long-term care.

1410

She talks about severances and layoffs. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that our government, through its administrative changes which have been many within the public service, has achieved a significant downsizing in the public service with no layoffs. In long-term care, we're doing an increasing in service. I think the spectre she raises of severance payments and layoffs is, as with so many of the misdescriptions of long-term care that her party, in its bitterness at the fact that the scheme it put forward was soundly rejected by every senior citizen in this province, contributes to misunderstanding and misapprehensions about this program.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Everybody else is wrong, everybody else has misunderstood, nobody else cares except the Minister of Health. I thought that question deserved at least a specific answer.

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also to the Minister of Health. Perhaps on this issue, Minister, you will give us a very direct answer to a very direct and, I believe, important question. We are very concerned about this government's continuing failure to take the steps that would help to keep violent sexual offenders off the streets of the communities of this province.

It has now been two years since the Christopher Stephenson inquest recommended changes to the province's Mental Health Act. Two weeks ago, Minister, you told this House that you had indeed established a group to talk about policy. You said that lots of meetings had been taking place. But I suggest, Minister, that the public doesn't really care about how many meetings you've had on the issue. They want some action to keep violent sexual offenders off the streets, and you have failed to take that action.

Minister, time is running out in this session to deal with this very important issue and in fact, time is running out on the mandate of your government. Can you tell us today what is your timetable for making changes to the Ontario Mental Health Act to keep violent sexual offenders off the street?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): This is not the first time the opposition has raised the question of changes to the Mental Health Act. In fact, the member from Mississauga North has a bill before this House with respect to changes in the Mental Health Act. I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition and to her caucus that the existing provisions of the Mental Health Act ensure that persons who meet the criteria for involuntary committal are in fact actually committed.

People who are part of the criminal justice system are dealt with under the Criminal Code and I am sure, if she has conversations with her colleagues in Ottawa, she will get them to understand that there is a criminal element that is the federal responsibility and there is a mental health element which is our responsibility, which the Mental Health Act covers and which gives us sufficient provisions to ensure that people who ought to be involuntarily committed can be committed.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not sure who the Minister of Health is getting her legal advice from on this issue, because in fact the director of legal services for the Ministry of Health, Mr Gilbert Sharpe, testified at the Stephenson inquest. Mr Sharpe told the inquest that the way to deal with violent sexual offenders was through the province's Mental Health Act. The former Deputy Attorney General for the New Democratic Party government has also very clearly stated that this issue can be addressed by making changes to the Mental Health Act.

Minister, Christopher Stephenson was murdered three years ago. The report of the coroner's inquest is now two years old and we have to wonder what your government is waiting for. You're quite right; the member for Mississauga North has a private member's bill on the order paper right now to address this very issue. If you were really prepared to take action on it, you would agree to send this bill to committee over the winter so that it could be passed in the spring. That would allow some public input, it would allow amendments to be offered by all three parties and the bill could proceed.

Will you agree to send this bill to committee so that we can get legislation on the books that will in fact keep violent sexual predators off our streets? Will you pass the bill or are you satisfied to do nothing but meet?

Hon Mrs Grier: As so often happens, the Leader of the Opposition is relying on information and submissions that are significantly out of date. Let me quote to the Leader of the Opposition a decision that was released by the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) in June 1994, considerably updated from the Stephenson inquest. In the case, which was the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre v Stock, the court found:

"The Criminal Code of Canada and the Mental Health Act have different objectives. The former is a penal statute, while the latter is a protective statute designed to protect persons who pose a danger to themselves and others. As such, it seems to me that one must simply look at the criteria in the Mental Health Act to determine whether or not involuntary detention is justified, and it matters not where the person has been resident, provided the required criteria are met."

This finding was confirmed in another case. The Mental Health Act gives the power to commit somebody where there is a finding that they need to be committed.

Mrs McLeod: I don't know why we have to be debating something that surely we all care about. There is surely a common purpose here, and that's to ensure the public safety by keeping the most violent sexual offenders off the streets. There is a general agreement that there is a place for the Criminal Code and that there is also action that can be taken under the Mental Health Act, and the Mental Health Act now is too restrictive to allow your government to take the action that is necessary.

The former Deputy Attorney General, more recently, as I understand it, than the statement you've just read, has indicated that the Mental Health Act of the province can be changed in a way that would be helpful.

Minister, the government House leader has indicated that the House is going to prorogue next week, and if that happens, all of the bills that are on the order paper would simply die. But as you also know and as the House leader knows, the government does have the power to carry bills over to a new session. I don't believe that this is an issue on which we need to start from scratch. I don't believe we need to keep debating it in the Legislature. We need to agree to send the private member's bill to committee so that we can have the public debate and resolve what action can be taken so that we can pass legislation when this House resumes and so that we can take the steps that are needed to keep violent sexual offenders off the streets and out of the shopping malls of communities across the province.

Will you ask your colleague the government House leader to allow this bill at least to be carried into committee and over to the next session?

Hon Mrs Grier: Nobody has greater concern about the safety of children, of women, of people on the streets of this province than I do, than the House leader does or than my colleague the Attorney General does, and the actions that she has taken I think demonstrate that.

What the Leader of the Opposition fails to realize is that we have in this country a criminal justice system and a mental health system. They have roles. They interact, they need to be consultative and they need to be coordinated, but they have two very different roles. The courts have confirmed that. We also have in this country a Charter of Rights. The concerns of the criminal justice offenders are dealt with by the federal jurisdiction under the Criminal Code. Every advice and every court ruling that we have assures us that if somebody is insane, the Mental Health Act gives us the jurisdiction and the powers to keep that person off the streets. That is what we do and that is what we will continue to do.

1420

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, lawyers have advised Toronto Blue Jays owners not to use replacement workers next season if the major league strike continues because it would violate your labour legislation; ie, the most recent world championship team would be the only team of 28 in the league not playing next year should the strike continue.

Minister, does this not tell you something? When we look at 28 other teams in the major leagues inside and outside of Canada, doesn't this send off a little alarm bell that maybe your Bill 40 labour legislation is out of step with the rest of the world?

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): The Toronto Blue Jays and the players' association have met the requirements for a strike but neither one has applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

I do not believe Bill 40 in any way has harmed this province at all. We only have to look at communities like Cambridge where Toyota is now investing millions and millions of dollars. This is a good place to work, to do business, and Bill 40 is not hurting that.

When we talk about Bill 40 in relation to the strike that is going on with the Blue Jays, we have to remember that that piece of legislation relates to the province of Ontario. This is an international league with players from all over Canada and the United States. Our legislation is only mandated in this province and has no effect on other countries.

Mr Harris: Strike one.

Every time there is a Blue Jays game in Toronto, over 2,300 people are directly employed. That doesn't take into account the thousands of indirect jobs that are generated. If the major league strike continues, these jobs may be lost as a result of Bill 40, your labour legislation.

I'm asking you this: As the Minister of Labour, how can you defend your legislation when the potential situation here is that Bill 40 is protecting the rights of millionaire ball players while risking the jobs of thousands of ordinary working Ontarians? How can you justify that?

Hon Mrs Coppen: Living in Toronto four days a week, I go by the stadium and I do feel very sad that it is closed down. I can imagine the business people in that area, the impact that this strike is having on them. I would encourage the member to speak to his friends the owners and help resolve this strike. You have to remember, whether they make $1 or $1 million, the baseball players are professionals and it's not our place in this House to judge whether they make too much money at all.

Mr Harris: Strike two.

Aside from the fact of how sad you are on December 1 as you drive by, when there is no baseball played anyway, which really tells you how much you know about baseball and the thousands and thousands of jobs and millions of dollars we're talking about, the Metropolitan Toronto Convention and Visitors Association estimates that approximately 7,500 out-of-town fans attend each Blue Jays game. These fans alone generate approximately $1.7 million for Toronto businesses at each and every home game. This in turn of course creates thousands more jobs. These jobs may be lost as a result of your legislation.

The major league ball strike once again proves what we've been saying to you all along: Bill 40 kills jobs for Ontario workers. That's why we will repeal Bill 40, so we can have more jobs for Ontario workers in Ontario.

I would ask you today, as the new Minister of Labour, rather than have to wait and have even more jobs destroyed in this province, will you stand in your place today and announce that you will repeal Bill 40 so we can get Ontarians back to work?

Hon Mrs Coppen: Before you strike me out, I think you're totally foul on this matter. I cannot stand in my place every day and ask you: Why are you so against working people in this province? Why do you hate those people? You keep talking as if you're going to be the Premier. Sir, you will represent all people, and I'm proud I'm a New Democrat and I care about working people. You have struck out on that.

Mr Harris: Strike three. You're out, gone, out of the game. Why wait for an election? You're out of the game.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The leader of the third party with his next pitch.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the deputy deputy Deputy Premier for the day. Last Saturday evening, many residents of the village of Appleton in the Ottawa area were forced to leave their homes when a fire broke out in an abandoned mill. Minister, this mill contains toxic PCBs. Fortunately, due to the efforts of local firefighters, the blaze did not reach those containers and a tragedy was averted.

Given the potential safety risks of this situation, can you tell us what has been done by your government since Saturday to ensure the future safety of the residents of Appleton?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I appreciate the importance of the question. I don't have full knowledge of the incident to be able to share with the member opposite. I can tell him that the Ministry of Environment and Energy staff were involved, that they ensured that proper security measures were put in place at the site.

When they were informed of the fire, they immediately contacted the local health unit, the municipality's local fire and police, who were involved in the supervision then of the fire. The health unit officials have done a first-phase investigation and have assured us that there are not any identified public health concerns related to the fire. The issue of the continued safe storage of the PCBs is currently being investigated and will be acted on by Ministry of Environment staff. But I'm afraid that's about as much detail as I can give the member today.

Mr Harris: I'm sure, when a serious situation and a threat like this takes place -- it must have been discussed in cabinet yesterday. Our understanding is that these PCBs have been sitting in the abandoned mill without any fencing or any measure to guard them. As recently as Monday, officials in the Ministry of Environment said, and I quote from the Ottawa Citizen, "We're still looking at options." The ministry response, "We're still looking at options."

We've been contacted by Anne Mirabelli, who lives seven houses down from the mill. She says residents have been pleading for action for years. Minister, what does your government intend to do with the PCBs still in Appleton?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member opposite will know that there has been a long-standing involvement in the Ministry of Environment with respect to the private investors on this site, and there are current court cases that are proceeding and appeals of court decisions. So there is a longer history than the events of the last few days. But I can tell you immediately, with respect to the events of the last few days, that the Minister of Environment has ordered his staff to investigate the need for either removal of the PCBs or providing safer storage if that's necessary.

I want to assure members opposite and members of the public that the investigators from the Ministry of Environment and the public health unit who have looked at the storage site have indicated that there is no public health danger at this time.

1430

Mr Harris: Last week, plans for a toxic waste plant in the Niagara area were rejected. At that time, the Minister of Environment could not provide us with your contingency plan for toxic waste in Ontario, but he said: "Everything's under control. Don't worry." And now Appleton. Families in Appleton were put at risk. The ministry acknowledges there is a risk there and is still studying what to do about it. Lawyers are arguing about who has jurisdiction, who should pay.

Minister, would you not agree with me that we should go in there, the Ontario government, clean up those PCBs, ultimately dispose of them, and then, after the risk has been averted, you can fight the court battle about who's going to pay? You have the power, you have the authority when people are put at risk. Will you go back to the Minister of Environment and to the Premier and the Deputy Premier and whoever else is going to be deputy deputy Deputy Premier in the cabinet and say, "Look, common sense says let's go in there and clean this up," and then the lawyers can decide later who will clean it up? Will you commit to do that today?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think I already gave the answer to the member that in fact the ministry is currently looking at the issue of whether there are safer security measures that need to be taken or the PCBs need to be removed immediately. The ministry investigators and the public health unit have looked at this and have said there is not any kind of immediate danger to the public health. The minister has already taken the step of directing his staff to take whatever measures are necessary and, quite frankly, the court case does continue and the ministry is fighting on behalf of the people of Appleton with respect to this issue. They've taken a very responsible public policy position.

The member refers to the assessment decision a week ago and says that the minister did not have a contingency plan. I sat here and listened to the answer from the Minister of Environment last week. That is not what he said. He made it very clear that there is obviously a period of appeal with respect to that decision that he had to respect and see if any appellants came forward. If that does not occur, he will then be in a position to move forward with the next steps. He made that very clear.

What is important to convey to the public here is that there was immediate action taken, that there is no threat to the public health, and that the minister has directed his staff to either ensure a safer secure site if that is necessary, or complete removal if that is necessary, and that will be determined in the next couple of days. The minister has acted appropriately and quickly in the interests of the people of Appleton.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Attorney General, the minister responsible for women's issues. Yesterday many men in the province wore white ribbons to demonstrate their concern and support for the effort to eliminate violence committed by men against women in our society, and that was most appropriate. Today we were provided again with the buttons to wear indicating opposition to wife assault and informed about the new television commercials dealing with this issue.

The informational and educational programs and the visible symbols we wear are all important, but there's also a need to fund the front-line programs. This week, through the Minister of Community and Social Services, your government refused to give a commitment for core funding for Redwood Shelter.

Today I am asking if you will now agree to provide the necessary funding to the Design for a New Tomorrow agency to meet its request for resources for counselling for men who have been involved in violence against their spouses.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I want to say first of all how pleased I am that so many men in this House are wearing white ribbons and are supportive of the White Ribbon Campaign, because it is important for men to assume their share of the responsibility around this issue and it's really pleasing to me to see so many colleagues who are doing that.

The member is quite right that the outward and visible signs of support for prevention of violence against women are one thing and the issue of the delivery of services is another. The member is also aware, I think, that there is certainly a demand for additional services that far outreaches our ability to meet all of those demands as quickly as our communities would like to. That's an issue of real sadness to us because we know how dedicated and committed the people are out in our communities, trying to work with this.

In terms of Design for a New Tomorrow and other programs for men, the service community is well aware that there has been a long-standing issue around the effectiveness and the accountability of programs which aim to change the behaviour of battering men. We have entered into a very lengthy consultation with our communities and have developed a set of accountability standards for programs. Those accountability standards are now being measured and evaluated to see how they in fact deliver those services.

Until that evaluation is complete, until we know what services are going to be most effective in terms of ending the behaviours that cause violence against women -- we have made it very clear to the service communities that we will not be expanding funding until we are sure that those accountability measures are in place.

Mr Bradley: The symbols are important, the television commercials are important, the speeches that all of us make on this issue are important, and indeed the studies are important as well. But successful preventive programs are, in my view and I think the view of a lot of people in the province, equally important.

The executive director of Design for a New Tomorrow, Lisa Whaley, revealed that about 200 men charged or convicted of abusing women are not getting counselling directly because of a lack of provincial funding. I recognize that with any program one always wants to evaluate and study it, but the government has an opportunity to translate what I think are very good intentions, and some very good words that have been said in this Legislature and elsewhere, into some action that could be of some help.

Will you now agree that having looked at this problem on at least a partial basis, having done some study of it, you will now be prepared to provide that funding which obviously the people from the program and the agency known as Design for a New Tomorrow believe would be very useful? Would you now give consideration, even at least on a pilot basis, to providing funding to determine through direct action whether the program will work, to providing the funding to this agency for the 200 people who are waiting for it?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I know the program Design for a New Tomorrow. I know the services they have delivered in the St Catharines area for some time, and they are certainly very well thought of in the service delivery field. There is no question about that.

But the issue around the effectiveness and accountability of these programs is a very serious one. The standards that have been developed through community work, that have been developed through a very, very concerted effort on the part of both men's programs and women's programs and the ministries involved in this province were very well thought through. The standards were delivered to the programs by the three ministers -- the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and our own women's directorate -- earlier this year. We then agreed that we would evaluate whether programs were measuring up to those standards before we expanded.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General, in conjunction with the federal Justice ministry and the rest of our service ministries, is in the process, with a request for proposals, of going out to do that evaluation. Until that evaluation is complete --

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- we have been very clear that, no, we will not be expanding funding until we are sure those standards are being met by all the programs.

1440

ACCESS TO COMMUNITY OF SKERRYVORE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On June 1, the Shawanaga Road leading to the community of Skerryvore was closed. Today is December 1, some six months later. The residents of Skerryvore subdivision, many of them seniors, have been advised that the only winter access that's going to be provided to their homes, to essential medical services and the necessities of life, is a one-day-a-week helicopter service. Is that the position of your government?

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

Mr Eves: I have a letter signed by the minister himself which talks about the helicopter service as being the only viable alternative that his government is prepared to offer to these residents.

Minister, how can you rationalize the fact that in seven months your government was able to announce a casino site, waive an environmental assessment, pave proposed parkland for a parking lot and open the Windsor casino, yet in six months you are not able to provide these residents of Skerryvore subdivision with the essentials of life, including essential health care? Why is that?

Hon Mr Philip: I don't know why the honourable member --

Mr Eves: It's great if you're making a million bucks a day for the government. If it comes to somebody's life, you don't care.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable member doesn't want an answer to the question because he would rather spread mistruths to his own constituents. That's why.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat. The language isn't helpful, but on the other hand the member for Parry Sound did ask a serious and important question and it's reasonable to assume that he would like to have a reply to his question.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it would be in order to request the minister to withdraw his accusation that our House leader is spreading mistruths.

The Speaker: In terms of the decorum of the House and in order to provide a reasonable question period, it would be helpful if the minister would withdraw the remark he made. It has offended the member for Parry Sound.

Hon Mr Philip: I'm sorry. It wasn't the member for Parry Sound who was upset; it was the member from Mississauga whatever, who had to put down her American flag in order to ask a question.

The Speaker: Order. I didn't hear the minister withdraw the remark.

Hon Mr Philip: Yes, Mr Speaker, since you requested it.

The honourable member has said I wrote a letter. The letter was based on an agreement we reached with the reeve and with members and representatives of the community, having looked at a variety of possible solutions. They agreed that the helicopter solution was not only the most economical solution but also the best solution. There is no person who is in any way in danger for health reasons because of course there's an emergency air ambulance service that serves that community as well as other communities.

I suggest that if he is opposed to the solution which was praised by the reeve and by the council and by the residents who are constituents of his, he doesn't have very much contact with his own constituents in that community.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure the minister would want to correct the record. I have in my hand a copy of a reply that he knows full well he has, dated November 23, sent by one of the councillors, that said --

The Speaker: No. The honourable House leader, order. Would the member please take his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Parry Sound please take his seat.

Mr Eves: That is an absolute fabrication.

The Speaker: I must caution the member for Parry Sound that he is out of order.

The government House leader has a reply to a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Mississauga South.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I do have a response to a question that was raised by the member for Mississauga South on November 1. I apologize for the delay in delivering this response here in the House, but on each occasion that I've been on the list to deliver this response the member hasn't been here.

The member raised a question with me about the use by the Advocacy Commission of a room in, as she described it, "a luxurious hotel," the Harbour Castle, and whether the expenditure on a room in the Harbour Castle was condoned by this minister when in fact there were rooms available in the Macdonald Block.

The very simple answer to the member is that the hotel offered the room to the Advocacy Commission at a rate lower than a room in the Macdonald Block was available for.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): First of all, we do have a policy in this House that members do not rise and comment on the attendance of other members.

I would like to advise the government House leader, who said he has not been able to respond to my question because I haven't been in the House, that I asked the question on November 1, I believe, and now it's December 1. I have missed one question period, I would like to advise the government House leader.

In any case, in response to this reply, I would like to ask the government House leader to table, for the information of all members, the expenditures in terms of the renting of rooms in the Macdonald Block versus the cost, whatever it was, at the Harbour Castle, because if you are standing in this House today and telling us that it is cheaper to rent a room for a meeting in a luxury hotel in this city, it says a great deal about the mismanagement of government of buildings it owns.

I would suggest that if you rent rooms in a building the government owns and it costs more, that is just a confirmation of how out of control and mismanaged the government totally is.

Hon Mr Charlton: The comments in the supplementary question from the member for Mississauga South, from a party that professes to understand how business works, are just a pathetic example of the fact that there's no understanding at all over there of how business works.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: The government does not have a hotel attached to the Macdonald Block. We do not provide accommodation. It is very common business practice in many hotels to give rooms for free or for very low rates when they also get the accommodation business of the people involved in an event. My ministry and every ministry of this government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oakville South is out of order.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- are directed to get the most cost-effective delivery of their service that they can get, and that's what we've done.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West is out of order. I ask him to come to order. Similarly, the member for Oakville South is asked to come to order.

New question, the member for Essex South.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Now, the member for Essex South with his question.

1450

WAGE PROTECTION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Minister of Labour.

Minister, when your government established the Ontario wage protection program, you heralded it as a measure that would help ensure workers receive what is entitled to them under the statute when companies go bankrupt and are unable to pay.

Minister, in Wallaceburg at the now defunct Libbey-St Clair plant, which has gone bankrupt like so many other plants in Ontario since September 6, 1990, there are some 500 workers who are entitled to $1.4 million in back vacation pay. This money has been owed to them for over a year now and because of delays has not been paid.

Your ministry and the local MPP, who is a member of your government, have done nothing but make promises to these workers, rather than ensuring that they get what they are owed. Minister, what will you do to end the delays and get these 500 workers their $1.4 million, and I would ask the minister to answer the question, not the member.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister of Labour): Excuse me, Mr Speaker. I was planning on answering the question to the member. I was just looking back at him to confirm the day he brought this to my attention. Then he brought a delegation in so they could speak to me directly and to ministry staff so that we can get this problem solved.

As you said, it's been going on for a year. There has been some problem with funding. We are working on it together, because he does care about his constituents, and as soon as I became minister he came to me personally to make sure that this problem would be taken care of. I don't need you to bring it to my attention. He is a good member to take care of his own constituents.

Mr Crozier: Obviously someone needs to bring it to your attention, because it was a year ago -- a year ago -- December 3, 1993, that that member said in a release, "A decision will be made within a few days." Now, Minister, since July 1993, your government has done nothing for them. It would seem to me that the ministry has only led them on, because officials of the Ministry of Labour were in attendance at negotiations under these circumstances in 1993.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): No, no, no. The consultant was there. Get the facts straight.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Member for Chatham-Kent, order.

Mr Crozier: The union and these workers were told by ministry officials that they should file a claim under the wage protection program.

Minister, this has dragged on for too long. I ask the minister today, notwithstanding what's happened in the past, will you simply stop the delays and see that these workers get the money that's coming to them before Christmas?

Hon Mrs Coppen: We're very fortunate that we have three members in this House, myself and the other two members, so worried about these workers, and they know that if it wasn't for this government, these workers would have no protection at all and no wage protection fund. The member is also aware that there is the issue of successor rights.

We are working together. I thank the member from Chatham for bringing it to my attention, and we are working on it as quickly as possible.

WETLANDS

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I just want to state that we all agree that wetlands are significant and their preservation must be encouraged, so I don't intend to get into a debate about the benefits of wetlands. Our party's clearly on the record, with our new report on economic development in rural Ontario, on the value of wetlands. However, I do want to address the way in which this government's implementing its policy to preserve wetlands and the impact your policy is having on people.

Mr Minister, are you that determined to expropriate land without compensation that you'd trample all over private property rights? That's my question.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The Conservative Party may want to, for its own rhetorical and electoral purposes, create a certain image out there in rural Ontario. I can tell you that I have had meetings with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and that in many places in the province the OFA is working with the Ministry of Natural Resources to point out to people living in rural Ontario the fact that it is possible, especially in southern Ontario where wetlands for many years have been threatened and lost, to protect wetlands and it is possible, at the same time, to practise sustainable agriculture and sustainable forestry. That may not suit the Progressive Conservative Party-Reform Party electoral agenda, but that is the truth.

Mr Hodgson: It might be truth for the spin doctors on the government side, but I would like to give you a concrete example of how your policies are affecting people in rural Ontario.

I received a letter which was sent to the Premier, and from the Premier's office sent on to the Minister of Natural Resources, from a couple who retired to the village of Fenelon Falls. The Pattes write that they've worked all their lives to provide for a secure retirement, and part of this plan was many hours of work to pay for 155 acres of farm land, including approximately 5,000 feet of marshy shoreline.

Their plan was completed until the ministry designated 75 acres of their property, nearly 50%, as class 2 wetland. Now it's useless to them. They don't want to fill in the wetland; they don't want to bulldoze it; they don't even want to build a house on it. They just want to have one dock.

In their letter, Mr and Mrs Patte asked, "Why isn't the Minister of Natural Resources instructed to use commonsense flexibility whereby the owner of the land might have the right to controlled use...for lake access?"

So, Minister, I put the question to you: Why is there no commonsense flexibility in the implementation of your wetland policy so that at least one dock could be put on 5,000 feet of privately owned shoreline which they still have to pay taxes on?

Hon Mr Hampton: If the member wants to bring individual cases to the House for discussion, I'd be happy to do that. However, I would appreciate it if he would bring all of the facts and information.

The reality is that the wetland policy that we've arrived at in Ontario was begun by a Progressive Conservative government. In fact it was a Progressive Conservative government that started the consensual back-and-forth discussions about wetland policy that was continued by five years of a Liberal government, where more of a consensus was developed, and finally, under a New Democratic Party government, that almost-10-year process has been brought to fruition.

The reality is that the province is mainly concerned with provincially significant wetlands in southern Ontario. The Ministry of Natural Resources does not in effect identify and then draw the boundaries around. That is something that there is a significant municipal --

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): You don't have a clue what you're doing.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Simcoe West come to order.

Hon Mr Hampton: The province provides the expertise in helping local bodies come to some sort of identification. If the member wants to provide me with some more facts about the instant case, I'd be happy to take them, I'd be happy to have them referred to people who are looking at actual significant wetlands and also refer them back to the municipality that's involved as well.

1500

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Minister of Health, congratulations on the proclamation today of the Tobacco Control Act. As we have heard a lot on the news lately about students at school smoking and the impact of this on the adjacent neighbourhoods, it is important that young people not start to smoke, but as a former high school teacher I know that there are many high school students who are already hooked. Minister, how are we going to help these students quit smoking?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I think we do it in two ways. One way is that through the Tobacco Control Act in fact we make it more difficult for young people to obtain tobacco. That is part of the strategy that we have, which is focused on trying to help young people quit if they've started, but better still, to not start.

In addition, there are a number of programs to help students quit smoking. The non-profit health groups like the Lung Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and almost every public health department have information about group support programs and self-help materials on quitting smoking.

Self-help quit tips should be readily available for both students and staff, and we have informed school boards of what is available. In addition, students who want help in quitting can call 1-800-363-3537, and what they will get is a free quit-for-life smoking cessation kit packaged like a compact disc. That is available to anyone who calls.

Ms Harrington: I'd like to ask the minister how we can help the schools become totally smoke-free, because of course there are some teachers who are also smokers.

Hon Mrs Grier: We have helped schools become smoke-free, because under our Tobacco Control Act it is non-smoking in schools or on school property. So that has been achieved.

I think what we have to then look at is working with the boards of education and the public health units in order to ensure that that is complied with and that for students who insist on smoking it is made clear that smoking on school property is no longer tolerated and that they have to begin to think about what they can do in order to quit the addiction, because it is an addiction. It's an addiction that causes illness and causes death, and we want to and have made the resources available to help young people deal with that addiction.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday the member for Waterloo North raised a question with the Minister of Labour about press releases being couriered, and I just thought the Minister of Labour would like to know that it's happening again today after she said she'd look into it yesterday.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Parry Sound will know that he does not have a point of order. However, he has provided information to the House.

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition that comes from my constituents, and it reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition to the Honourable Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and 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 Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' 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 costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

I've signed that petition.

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a petition to the Legislature of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas there is a dearth of therapeutic/educational programs for hundreds of children in the province of Ontario who have autism spectrum disorder; and

"Whereas 'Giant Steps Centre' for neuro-integrative disorders will provide the needed treatment and programming for these children and their families; and

"Whereas the 'Giant Steps' model has been presented to the triministry committee, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and Training, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and the Premier's office;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for help in bringing this project to fruition so that the needs of these children can be addressed."

I affix my signature.

ST COLUMBAN'S CEMETERY

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): In his absence, the member for Cornwall has asked me to read a petition on his behalf that is signed by 274 people from his riding. It reads as follows:

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

"St Columban's Cemetery is not keeping their cemetery drained and dry as per section 19, regulation 130 of the Cemeteries Act."

I'm pleased to sign this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I too would like to present a petition on behalf of my colleague from Cornwall. It reads as follows:

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

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

"Whereas we believe that we should not have to take the time or pay the 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 as follows:

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Daigeler from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 171, An Act to revise the Crown Timber Act to provide for the sustainability of Crown Forests in Ontario / Projet de loi 171, Loi révisant la Loi sur le bois de la Couronne en vue de prévoir la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne en Ontario.

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated 29 November 1994 the bill is ordered for third reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Just before I call the first order, as has been our habit for the last couple of weeks the House leaders have had some discussions and have reached some agreements which I'll seek the consent of the House to approve before we start into the orders.

Essentially, the three House leaders have agreed that between the time we start the first order and 6 o'clock, if there are divisions they will occur at that point and any divisions which occur after 6 o'clock will be deferred until the first order of the next day, so on Monday would be the deferral. That includes any motions that are technically not to be deferred as a result of time allocation motions. By consent, we will defer all votes after 6 o'clock until the next day.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

1510

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

Mrs Boyd moved third reading of the following bill:

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

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Opening remarks, Attorney General.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): It really has been quite a lengthy time since we first put Bill 175 before the House. We've had a lot of discussion about it and we've been through the committee of the whole. I think that the debate on the bill has expressly recognized the utility of this kind of omnibus legislation to keep Ontario's statute law up to date in non-controversial ways. I look forward to such amendments becoming part of the legislative landscape in Ontario in future years.

I would like to thank the members of the opposition parties for their constructive approach to the admittedly complex bill that was put before them. Through a good deal of consultation, and flexibility on all sides, we have been able to agree to very useful changes to Ontario's laws, with a minimum of distraction from the more contentious issues that occasionally divide this House.

Much of Bill 175 will come into force upon royal assent. Where proclamation is needed, the government will be advising or consulting with affected interests in the near future to determine how best to bring those changes into force.

Once again, I would like to congratulate all those who contributed to the passage of this worthwhile act.

The Speaker: I thank the Attorney General for her contribution and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate?

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I don't plan to speak too long. I had originally intended to speak on second reading, but I had to be in my riding when it was called. In fact, I did start for a few minutes and then it was 6 o'clock and we adjourned for the next day.

In any case, I want just to make a few remarks to put them on the record with regard to some aspects of the transportation side that are in this very thick Bill 175. As the Attorney General I think rightfully just said, this is a very complex bill. There are a lot of details in it, and frankly I think this must be sort of a feast for lawyers. I think only they can get their teeth into it, because essentially, from what I could see -- and I must admit I certainly have not read the whole bill; I've read the section that relates to transportation. But it is basically what's called in the terminology of this House "housekeeping." In other words, there are some certain omissions that, even with the quality lawyers that the Ontario government has at its disposal, were omitted at the time, or it requires some sharpening of language.

It should be certainly also mentioned that at the urging of the member for Oriole the government has withdrawn some sections that were controversial. I think that was appreciated by all sides of the House. When there is obvious disagreement I think there ought to be more debate and there ought to be better discussion than is found in an omnibus bill of the nature that we have in front of us, Bill 175.

Why I did want to address the House specifically is for two reasons. One of them has to do with something that hopefully is still dear to the member for Lincoln, if he would pay attention for a second, because he had moved in the last session a provision that is, I think, supported by all three parties of the House; certainly by myself and my party. It's the shared shipper-and-driver responsibility for axle-weight violations. Frankly, that also is a change to the Highway Traffic Act that could have been included in this Bill 175 and probably would have been non-controversial and would have been passed with this bill as an initiative. In fact, as I indicated, the member for Lincoln has a private member's bill outstanding and I think it would have been smart on the part of the government to include this in this Bill 175.

Unfortunately, they haven't chosen to do that, and this provision that the Ontario Trucking Association in particular has been asking for for some time, and provision that would be very helpful to the trucking industry in this province, is not there, and it certainly does not look as though we will be able to get to it before the House adjourns. This is unfortunate, but I guess that's the way it goes. But I did want to indicate that, certainly from our side, we would have been prepared to agree to have this provision in the bill and to have it passed.

The other point that frankly I'm quite supportive of and I was very pleased to see in there is a provision that had been pushed for by the regional municipality in Ottawa-Carleton -- at least, that's what I know of; probably it was pushed by other regions as well. It's a provision that comes out of apparently the social contract discussions and the negotiations that the government did at the time. One of the conditions under which the municipal level of government agreed to participate in the social contract was that the receipt of the transit subsidies from the province would be coming in stages during the year and not just, as it were, in a one-shot deal at the end of the year.

Now, this was brought to my attention by the OC Transpo commissioner -- Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission; that's what this stands for -- and he asked me to remind the government that it made this commitment, a commitment that would in fact be of significant benefit to the Ottawa-Carleton taxpayers because, as you can appreciate, the operation of a public transit is quite an expensive undertaking. In order to pay all the bus drivers and all the other costs that are associated with it, obviously somebody has to advance the money if the province only pays at the end of the year.

With that advancement of moneys, which usually comes from banks, there is an interest cost associated with it, and obviously the municipal level had to carry these interest costs. As I say, as part of the negotiations -- I guess I wasn't part of these confidential negotiations. Nevertheless, I was told, as part of these negotiations, that this agreement was made that the province would advance the subsidies in instalments and therefore significantly reduce the requirement of the municipalities to go to the banks for some money.

I wrote to Mr Pouliot at the time, because this falls under the Ministry of Transportation, and that was in fact about a year ago, November 25, 1993, that I wrote to the minister. He did write me back -- the usual time. I always say to my staff, "I give the ministers four to six weeks." That's what I consider a normal and a reasonable waiting time.

He wrote me back at the end of January, which I thought was a reasonable response time, and he said:

"I can assure you that the Ministry of Transportation has already prepared the necessary legislative amendments to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, which would see three advance payments to municipalities as follows: May 1, 40% of the subsidies; July 1, another 40%; and November 1, another 10%.

"With this method of payment in place, you are quite correct in saying that it will eliminate most interest costs associated to the delay in receipt of subsidy payments. Please be assured the government is working on this legislative amendment."

I must say that I was pleased and I was reassured when I received this letter from the minister. I thought, "Well, here's one commitment that the NDP government seems to have made that they do want to honour."

1520

I was looking forward with great anticipation to these legislative amendments. I must say that I did have to wait for quite a while, but I don't want to be too nitpicky on it. We do have the amendments in front of us and they are contained in this thick volume here of Bill 175.

As I said, if you weren't too familiar with this, you probably wouldn't find this out, and if you weren't advised by people who are obviously interested in it, you wouldn't realize that there are in fact some significant money considerations, and for a change some good-news money considerations, contained in this bill.

I was certainly glad that the municipal officials in my area brought this to my attention so that I could remind the government of its promise. I'm glad to say that the government did keep its word on this one and this provision is now in the bill. I've read it through and it reflects as to what has been brought to my attention as a promise by the government.

I must say that the re-elected chair of the region was thankful to me and certainly is going to be thankful to the government for having pushed this matter, which is going to save the taxpayers in the Ottawa-Carleton area dollar figures that are certainly in the hundred thousand range. I'm not sure of the exact figure, but it's certainly somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300,000 to $400,000 a year. That's not to be laughed at. It's not something that is going to absolve us from all other obligations, but nevertheless, in these times of fiscal difficulties and restraint, these kinds of amounts are always good news if they're picked up by the provincial government and don't have to come out of the property tax base which supports the region in our area and of course all other municipal governments across the province.

I wanted to put on the record that I'm glad to see this provision in the bill. I'm glad that it's finally passed. I'm glad for the taxpayers, certainly of Ottawa-Carleton, but this provision applies to all municipalities across the province, so the same kind of benefit will accrue to all other people in the province who have a public transit system the way we have in Ottawa-Carleton, certainly for Toronto, certainly for London, Windsor, I guess, and so on. For the larger municipalities, this can be a significant benefit. I appreciate that and I support it since I have been pushing for it.

However, to say again, I was looking for this shared shipper-and-driver responsibility for axle-weight obligations. Unfortunately I can't be as supportive of that because it's not in here. I would have liked to see that there. That's unfortunate. We may have to wait either until the session resumes in the spring or who knows, until a new government comes in.

With those comments, I am glad to support this bill even though it has some limitations.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Nepean for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Just very quickly in the short period of time I have, I would like to raise an issue which I have raised on numerous occasions. I hope it will be helpful to the Attorney General and others. This is offered in a spirit of cooperation. I've raised it with the Clerk in the past as well.

We have an act here, which is an act to amend the statutes of Ontario, and when you have an omnibus bill like this -- I concur with my friend that it's been put together by our legal staff here in Ontario who are quite good -- it would be helpful if on one side of the page you had the amendment and on the other side of the page you had the section it was amending, so that someone in the House, someone in the Legislature, would be able to look at the amendment and read it into the new provision in order to have some idea of what it means. I think too often we get bills in this House, we debate them, and without the benefit of having the text that's being amended with the amending section it's very difficult for people, particularly people who are non-legal, and even for legal people, to be able to intelligently understand what is passing through this Legislature.

Although I rely on the legal expertise of the lawyers we have in this province, I think it's incumbent upon every member of this Legislature to be able to pick up a bill and determine exactly what we're addressing, what we're voting for and what we're speaking to. So I urge, perhaps through your good offices, Mr Speaker -- we have certainly the technology to do it. With word processors and computers, I would think we could do it very easily.

I simply raise that comment when we're dealing with an issue of a bill that's going to amend the statutes of Ontario because I think it will make our discussions in here perhaps more meaningful, more understandable, and I would feel more comfortable in terms of debating and also voting on bills if I had that information.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If not, the honourable member for Nepean has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Daigeler: I think the member for Brampton South makes a very good point, certainly for those who are non-lawyers such as myself. But I guess even for legal experts such as the member for Brampton South this would be useful because you certainly don't always have the old bill in front of you, and especially for something as complex as Bill 175 it would be very, very nice to see exactly what we're doing. In fact, often enough I get confused, I must admit, as to having to look up all the amendments and the old formulation and the new formulation.

Whatever can be done through modern means of technology to facilitate the understanding would certainly be appreciated. I think it's wise counsel the member has put forward and I certainly would like to support him in that request.

The Speaker: Is there further debate?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I am happy to take part in the third reading of Bill 175. I'm somewhat pleased that the ministry has made certain amendments to make this bill a little more palatable.

I still have some concerns. I'm concerned about certain amendments to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and in particular I'm concerned about the issues of electronic hearings. It's an issue that I think the government to a very large degree has ignored, in the sense that they've been told by people who have to make use of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act before administrative tribunals that the act and the electronic hearings are of some controversy.

I'm concerned because the minister prefaced her remarks, when the bill was first called, and indicated that she would be amenable to withdrawing anything in this piece of legislation that was controversial.

The Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario, on subsection 56(10), which is the new sections 5.1 and 5.2, entitled "Electronic Hearings," has provided a brief that indicates:

"This provision is the subject of controversy. It provides tribunals with the power to hold electronic hearings, unless a party satisfies the tribunal that an electronic hearing rather than an oral hearing is likely to cause the party 'significant prejudice.' The 'significant prejudice' exception does not apply if the only purpose of the hearing is to deal with procedural matters.

"The municipal law and the environmental law sections are opposed to these proposed amendments, at least as they are presently drafted. Their view is that while the use of electronic telecommunication may be appropriate for procedural motions or similar matters, electronic hearings are not appropriate for hearings on the merits that involve the presentation of evidence and cross-examination."

1530

Anyone who practises before tribunals would know that this is in fact obvious. It's obvious that there are times when credibility is an issue, that there are times when the demeanour of a witness indicates something about credibility, and electronic hearings are a detriment in terms of the trier of fact making decisions. The trier of fact perhaps misses, in effect, a lot of the important indicators of what determinations should be made in order to determine a particular issue.

"The administrative law section...agrees that the provision for electronic hearings is controversial." Again that word "controversy." The minister prefaced her remarks by indicating that nothing of controversy was in this bill. Here we have an issue of controversy and yet it remains in the bill. "Others feel the amendments restrict the existing ability of tribunals as masters of their own procedure, while others view them as expanding the discretion of tribunals unduly" in terms of how they will receive evidence.

The Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario, CBAO, says:

"The provisions of the legislation dealing with written and electronic hearings require fine-tuning.

"If adopted, the significant prejudice test should not be restricted to substantive matters and not apply to procedural ones. If a party is able to show prejudice, the fact that the matter is procedural is irrelevant. New subsection 5.2(3) should be deleted in any event.

"Parties to an electronic hearing should have the same access to documents in the position of the tribunal as in the case of written hearings.

"A hearing may be considered to be the hearing on the substantive issues, where evidence is presented and cross-examination permitted, akin to a trial, as distinct from a motion in a proceeding to deal with procedural or interlocutory matters. The amendments recognize that some procedural events may occur before a hearing -- eg the provision for a 'pre-hearing' conference. As worded, the legislation provides that only 'hearings' may be conducted by written or electronic means, thereby possibly removing the ability of tribunals to hear and determine procedural and preliminary motions by means of written material or electronic means. The definition of 'hearing' should be expanded to include 'any aspect of a proceeding' so as to include events such as procedural and interlocutory motions.

"Sections 5.1 and 5.2 suggest the whole hearing must be by written or electronic means. Provisions should be made for the hearing to be held in part by means other than an oral hearing so that a combination of the various means is possible. Consideration should be given to a new section: 'Subject to sections 5.1 and 5.2, a tribunal may hold a hearing in whole or in part by oral hearing, written hearing or electronic hearing, or any combination thereof.'

"Electronic hearings should be open to the public and be closed only if the tests set out in the current subsection 9.1(1) of the SPPA" -- Statutory Powers Procedure Act -- "are met. Proposed new subsection 9(1.2), subsection 56(17), may be appropriate on interlocutory or procedural motions but is not appropriate for hearings on substantive issues.

"In any event, tribunals should be required or encouraged to clearly articulate in their rules the general conditions under which electronic hearings will be held."

Then they go on to say that under subsection 56(11), which is the new subsection 5.3(1), "Provision should be made for the pre-hearing conference to be held by electronic means."

Then generally, in terms of these amendments to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, they say:

"The amendments assume familiarity with rule-making by tribunals, and condition important procedural reforms upon rule-making for which some tribunals may not be functionally equipped. Considerable care and effort must be taken to ensure that all tribunals subject to the SPPA receive appropriate advice and guidance on rule-making, and consult with affected constituencies before promulgating rules, to ensure fairness to the parties and to ensure that the discretion of the tribunal to deal with the individual merits of a particular case is not fettered by rigid rules admitting of no exception."

They have some very grave concerns, and it appears that they have not been consulted about possible amendments to this section or have been ignored in terms of the recommendations they've made in terms of amendments to the section. As for having some input or discussion in terms of the implementation of these changes, it appears that has been non-existent.

It is of some interest that the Attorney General has made absolutely no reference that I am aware of as to the implementation procedures that will be applied so that tribunals will be prepared to promulgate rules to implement the provisions contained in Bill 175. It's of particular note that those most familiar with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act are lawyers. Lawyers are the people who go before tribunals. They are the ones who have to ensure that their clients, the public, are receiving a fair opportunity to introduce a case before a tribunal, before a government board. It is quite apparent that their wishes, when they say something is controversial, have been totally ignored by the minister of justice in this province.

That has been at the forefront of the total administration of justice in this province since the NDP government was elected in September 1990. There has been a concerted effort by the administration of justice to ignore what those who use the system, those who act on behalf of the public, say has to be done to keep the justice system running efficiently and doing the job the public expects it to do. Unfortunately, the wishes of those who know about the system better than the Attorney General and better than most of the people who work in her department, because these are people who appear in the courts as opposed to people who implement the policy of the Attorney General of the day, are ignored. Their expertise in terms of what should be going into the justice system in this province is being ignored.

We have before us this controversy that has been raging, and it's a controversy little known by the public until they get caught up in it and have to use the justice system for civil purposes as opposed to criminal purposes.

The perfect example is the example of masters. We have a situation in this province where we now have in the city of Toronto a reduction in the complement of masters available to serve the public, down to about five masters. I don't know who is able to do the work that the original 15 masters used to do in assisting the judges with preliminary proceedings, with procedural matters.

I have asked the minister of justice repeatedly, what are your plans? For four years now, as a result of the former Liberal Attorney General's decision to get rid of masters, this problem was dumped on the NDP government, and it has not been able to make a decision about what to do with it. The mistake was made when Mr Scott was the Attorney General and he decided to reform the courts. The court system, as a result, has suffered, the administration of justice has suffered, the access of the public to justice in this province has suffered as a result of that misguided attempt at court reform.

1540

Now the NDP government takes over this problem and compounds it by not making any decisions. For four years I've been asking, what are you going to do with masters? A few months ago a body was set up to review civil justice in the province of Ontario, permitting the Attorney General to again not make a decision, and we're now down to five masters.

I did hear a story that after the Attorney General had been Attorney General for a couple of years, she was finally going out to visit her courts and visit her court personnel. It's astounding that it took two years for the Attorney General to see the inside of a courtroom in the province of Ontario, but I understand she's actually made a few visits.

I'd like her to go down to 145 Queen Street tomorrow morning and take a look at the lists that the masters have to deal with, the four or five who are left, and I'd like the Attorney General to come back here and say, when there are no masters, who she's going to get to do all that work.

She's going to tell you, "I'm waiting for the committee that I've set up to come back and report." Well, I've got news for the Attorney General: The committee might come back to report, but she's not going to be the Attorney General and her party's not going to be the government when the decisions ultimately are going to be made.

What we've had was four wasted years, to go with the five years before that, of destruction of our courts by misguided decisions and principles that were entered into. I feel sorry for the Attorney General, because she inherited a big problem. She inherited a system that could have worked with some streamlining, but the system was wrecked by the Liberal government.

Now what has happened is that she has come along and in the face of that hasn't made the decisions she needs to make to repair the system. That is the crux of the problem with the administration of justice: Decisions that should have been made to rectify the problems that were created by the previous Liberal government have not been made, and that's the problem we're into.

I wait every day for the Attorney General to come in and say, "The Liberal Attorney General was wrong in getting rid of masters, and I'm reinstituting them." I wait every day for her to tell me who is going to look after in excess of 100 or so matters every day before the masters' chambers. I wonder who's going to do that when the five masters who are left are no longer there. I wait daily for the Attorney General to come in to answer that question. For four years she has ducked it, her predecessors ducked it, and we've had absolutely no answer.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the legal profession, which has to use the courts on behalf of the public, is livid. They are absolutely livid. The member for London South was with me about half an hour ago at a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association where one of the counsel members of the Canadian Bar Association, a senior member at the bar, one who has been around a lot longer than the Attorney General, one who is a lot more knowledgeable about the justice system than the Attorney General, a former president of the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario, got up and said how livid he was at the fact that the administration of justice in this province will not listen. He said he was as upset as he could be about the fact that masters were being taken out of the system and that no one was listening to what the bar association was saying. That's what he said.

The Attorney General could do us a great favour if she would listen to what people more knowledgeable than she were telling her, particularly about the civil justice system in the province of Ontario.

I notice that the Chief Justice of the province today has talked about masters. He too says that, "While other provinces are expanding the use of such judicial officers and recognize the effectiveness of such specialists to complement the superior court, Ontario in its wisdom continues to phase out the master's office and, if this continues, it will only intensify the backlog crisis in the areas where masters now provide such an important service."

But does the Attorney General listen? No, because the Attorney General knows more than anybody else about this, even though she hasn't set foot in a courtroom in an advocacy role in her life -- in her life. But does she listen? Absolutely not. And when you ask her for answers and solutions, do you get them? You don't get them. You get a committee, a committee that's going to run around and come up with the same conclusions.

What do we have in Bill 175 that deals with masters of the High Court of Justice? What we have is a provision dealing with masters that says that for the purpose of construction liens, parties can pick an arbitrator, set up their own private court and carry on with a private construction lien case at the expense of the parties. That's really consistent coming from a socialist government that wants to make access to justice an important issue.

Let me tell you, Attorney General, in the city of Toronto, in Metropolitan Toronto, probably where the vast majority of construction lien cases are, masters have always dealt with these cases. They've tried them as the triers of fact because there aren't enough judges to do it, and they have done so with distinction and they have done so being available to parties who don't have to opt out and hire their own arbitrator and pay for it.

If access to justice means anything to you, you will not implement things like that in Bill 175.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Please direct your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Harnick: You will reconsider the position of masters and you will reconsider implementing a full complement of masters so that the public will have access to justice without waiting and without paying out of their pocket for private courts. Attorney General, if you don't know this already, only rich people can afford to do that or only people on legal aid. People who have to work for a living and who don't qualify for legal aid and people who aren't independently wealthy can't afford to purchase a court for a day so they can get their own private justice, and that's what Bill 175 permits.

What about the person who owns a home and has renovations done to their home, and there's a dispute that arises over extras that might exist in terms of additional items to the contract? This poor individual might have a spouse and children and is living in a house and maybe did some renovations to it because it was an older house, maybe wanted to expand it by putting in a family room or a bigger kitchen or a bigger dining room, and now all of a sudden there's a dispute over the validity of those extra charges.

You know what the Attorney General's done for that person if they live in Metropolitan Toronto? She's told them that by Bill 175, they can go out and rent an arbitrator and rent a courtroom and pay all the costs associated with that because: "We don't want masters any more to solve these problems. You go out and pay for it."

Do you know what I say to that, Madam Speaker? If that's the direction this Attorney General is moving in, then she is making a bad mistake if access to justice and quality of justice and cost of justice is to mean anything in terms of this government and what its philosophy has always been. If that's the basis of their philosophy, then I don't want any part of it.

1550

I think that's yet another reason to throw this government out. It's yet another reason to indicate to the people of Ontario that they've abandoned all their principles. They've abandoned their principles. What was that document called that they --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The Agenda for Suckers.

Mr Harnick: The Agenda for People. Do you remember the Agenda for People, all of those things that they were going to do? Well, this is yet another abandonment of their principles. This is another abandonment of principle, and it's contained in Bill 175, this non-controversial act that says volumes. It speaks volumes about where the justice system in this province is going. I have some very, very grave misgivings about where this administration of justice is taking us. I can't abide, quite frankly, by the direction that we're going in; I can't abide by the belittling of the system; I can't abide by the fact that cases are still getting tossed out of court because of undue delay.

We heard of one just recently where, after 35 months of waiting to get a courtroom, a case of sexual assault was tossed out of court because it took too long. It amazes me, because I've heard from crown attorneys repeatedly that they're trying cases of sexual assault because they are a priority of this minister and this government. Even though they don't have a chance to win those cases, they still have to try them, even if the evidence isn't there. It's such a priority that here is a case that a judge described as a simple straightforward case, where in all likelihood they had a very good chance to put in the necessary evidence to go to a jury, to have a jury make a decision, and that case, in a priority government area, couldn't find a courtroom for 35 months. That is indicative of what the system of justice is coming to.

It's of some interest, as we debate Bill 175, that in the Law Times legal newspaper I received yesterday, here's a headline: "NDP Government Irresponsible. McMurtry Critical of Plan to Cut Court Resources." I can't conceive, in years past, that you would ever hear a Chief Justice of the province of Ontario reaching the point where they've had to comment on the ability of this government to run the justice system. The late Chief Justice Callaghan did the same thing. He talked in very frank terms about how indifferent this government has been to the system of justice in the province of Ontario. So I appreciate having the opportunity to put a few things on the record in that regard.

Just to conclude, this bill is a bill that I quite frankly think is an abuse of process. It's an affront to every member of this Legislature because it's what we call an omnibus bill, and it contains proposals from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; from the Ministry of the Attorney General; from the Ministry of Citizenship; from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations; from Culture, Tourism and Recreation; Education and Training; Environment and Energy; Labour; Municipal Affairs; Natural Resources; Northern Development and Mines; the Solicitor General and Correctional Services; and Transportation.

I can well imagine the party of Bob Rae in opposition receiving an omnibus bill that deals with 12 or 14 or 15 ministries and saying that this is really the right way to develop legislation is the province of Ontario, just put everything together in one bill. I don't know why this government just didn't do that at the beginning of its mandate, pass one bill with everything in it, and we could have gone away four and a half years ago and watched the province deteriorate. This has been almost more agony because they've done it slowly. They've made us agonize, and I quite frankly can't abide by a piece of legislation developed in this way.

It seems to me that if a ministry such as the Ministry of the Attorney General wants to amend the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, you amend the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. You don't go ahead and amend that act and combine it with the Agricultural Committees Act -- let me give you a few names -- or the Mining Act -- I don't want to be seen to be picking on any one ministry -- or the Mortgage Brokers Act. It just doesn't make sense to amend the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in the same bill as amending the Mining Act or an agricultural act. It is an abuse.

It's not as though it was a small act dealing with a matter of "clearing the path" or whatever the government calls these kinds of efficiency measures. This bill is, for the benefit of the public watching, 148 pages long. It is just chock-full of amendments from soup to nuts in almost every ministry the government has. I think that, quite frankly, good public administration dictates that you don't legislate the way this government legislates. But then again, they've probably done everything else wrong. Why should they do this right?

I appreciate having had the opportunity to participate in this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Now we have time for questions or comments to the member for Willowdale.

Mr David Winninger (London South): The member for Willowdale has raised a number of his own concerns and those of others. I point out that the administrative law section of the Canadian Bar Association recently has conveyed its concerns around the provision for electronic hearings. I think the Canadian Bar Association, which always provides valuable advice in these areas, can be assured that no tribunal will be able to hold electronic hearings until it has developed the rules to govern them, including the circumstances in which they will be held. If the credibility of witnesses is an issue, clearly the tribunal can preclude electronic hearings in those cases.

But the Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators, a group that unites members of tribunals, is counting on this provision to save a great deal of time by not having to have parties and counsels show up for procedural matters in person for what are usually minor formalities.

The Attorney General, in her opening remarks, had said that much of Bill 175 will come into force on royal assent, and where proclamation is needed the government will be advising or consulting with affected interests in the near future to determine how best to bring these changes into force.

I think the willingness has been expressed to continue to consult at all levels with the Canadian Bar Association and other interested parties, just as we've done in the past, to ensure that these laws are workable and continue to reflect the best interests of the public.

1600

I also note the remarks of the member for Willowdale in relation to the important role that masters have played in the past, and the Civil Justice Review, a partnership of this government and the judiciary, has conducted a rather sweeping consultation across the province --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Winninger: -- to determine how best they can deal with pressures on the court, including the issue of the masters.

Mr Callahan: The member for Willowdale actually spoke beyond the bill, and I'd like to address some of those comments.

I concur with him. I think the elimination of masters certainly is a mistake. Masters, for those of the people who don't understand them, are people who serve two functions. First of all, they serve a function of having matters referred to them by a judge to allow mathematical calculations to take place and so on. In essence, by eliminating them or reducing them, you're actually using valuable judicial time requiring a judge, of whatever the provincial level or the federal level, to have to make these calculations. That's an inefficient use of judicial time.

Secondarily, there's equally a grave problem with registrars in bankruptcy, who are being virtually eliminated, the net result being that they're now going to put people there with "life experience" to do this, and this is going to cause very serious difficulties in terms of the bankruptcy bar.

Finally, in the short time I have, he talks about 145 Queen Street. He should go to 361 University Avenue or many of the areas around this province and just try to file a document. You could become a senior citizen waiting to do it. There are people who arrive there at 8 o'clock in the morning with an attempt to do that and perhaps get the document filed, if they're lucky, by about 2 or 3 in the afternoon.

The net result of that is that people who look for legal services are going to be required to pay more, because obviously if time is spent in that ill fashion of waiting to just file documents -- forget about the question of trying to get on with litigation -- in fact every minute that they are there, even if it's a paralegal, that costs that litigant. I suggest that we are slowly getting to the point where the barriers and actually the ignoring of the justice system are going to result in a lack of justice for a lot of people in this jurisdiction simply because of the matter of costs.

Mr Turnbull: I certainly enjoyed listening to the discourse of my colleague the member for Willowdale. Indeed, he pointed to the very serious problem that the NDP hasn't addressed with respect to masters.

It's rather good to hear the member for Brampton South commenting on this being a serious problem, but it seems to me that it was in fact the government of which he was a member that got rid of masters, which started the problem in the first place. I presume from his statement now with respect to my colleague's discourse that he is now admitting it was a mistake that his government made, one of many that the NDP inherited. But the fact is, the NDP did inherit them four and half years ago and they have had time to address it, but like so many others things, they haven't come to terms with it.

I was particularly distressed when the Attorney General walked out during the presentation of my colleague when he was speaking about the urgent needs within this omnibus bill to address the judicial system that they have failed in a meaningful way to do. Indeed, my colleague is recognized even by the front bench of the NDP as being one of the leading lawyers in this province in his field, and so he does know of what he speaks. Yet the Attorney General, who has no legal training, walked out in the middle of the presentation by the member.

Mr Winninger: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: First of all, it's inappropriate to comment on whether a member is present or not. The member well knows the standing rules. But I think it's important that the member know that the Attorney General was obliged to attend the opening of the renovated Metro East courthouse along with members of the judiciary and the bar, all celebrating this most important initiative.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I would like to allow the member 20 seconds to complete his question or comment.

Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, I would like to withdraw the fact that the Attorney General walked out in the middle of his comments, which were soon over.

The government has failed to address the question of access by the middle class to the court system. It is now a court system which is only available to the very rich and to the poor, and that indeed makes our province the poorer for it.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Willowdale has two minutes to respond.

Mr Harnick: I'm obliged to those who responded, and particularly for the kind remarks. I do think it's significant that the member for Brampton South indicates that the decision to get rid of masters to help facilitate the process of our civil courts was a mistake, because it was his government that did that. I think that is a bold and correct admission that he made and I admire his courage for standing up and making that admission.

I also think he made another very interesting comment, and that's that people who go to 361 University Avenue, which is the site of the Metropolitan Toronto civil courthouse, often have to get there at 8 o'clock in the morning to file documents. I can tell him that in fact it's 6 o'clock in the morning that they go there to get in line to file documents, and it never used to be that way when we had our own district court. We had a district court here, as every county in the province of Ontario had, and we had a High Court, and you didn't have to get there at 6 o'clock in the morning to file your documents or to get in line to file your documents.

It's very interesting to note that it was the Liberal government that created that monstrosity that has never worked since the day it was proclaimed by the Liberal Attorney General. Every county and every community in this province has been the poorer for the fact that they lost their own identity with the courts, their own district or county court, as it was originally called.

I think we have got to now make the best of a very difficult situation, but decisions have to be made, and unfortunately we've wasted almost five years now watching decisions being deferred.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I will be brief in my remarks. I spoke quite extensively on Bill 175 during second reading, as the critic responsible for Bill 175. I said that I believe omnibus bills can be used very effectively if they are indeed for housekeeping and non-controversial amendments to statutes that in fact do cross a number of statutes and a number of ministries and policy areas of government, and I asked for a commitment from the government that there would be substantial consensus for the amendments that were proposed in Bill 175 and that anything that was controversial would be removed from this bill, which was presented to this House as a non-controversial, housekeeping omnibus bill.

I said in this House over the last four years that if we had an omnibus bill brought before us that was housekeeping and non-controversial, I would cooperate with the government. I know my constituents in the riding of Oriole and people across this province want to see this House work in a way which will achieve the public interest and serve the public interest. They want to see the kind of cooperation that will lead to that efficient use of House time, but they want to make sure there is proper debate on those things which are controversial and which need the kind of full public debate that this House is supposed to permit.

Section 65, part III, of this act was removed after, I must admit, some pushing. The government did concede to that, and I'm pleased with the role that I played in seeing that that part was removed because I believe it did not fit with the government's commitment. It was a controversial amendment to the Advocacy Act, and I'm pleased to say that section 65 was removed during the committee of the whole process. I told the government House leader and the minister responsible for the carriage of this bill that if they removed section 65, my party would see that this bill was passed without any of the kind of tactics that we can use to delay passage of properly contentious legislation and bills that require the kind of public debate that is necessary.

That has been done, and I am a person who believes that if you say you're going to do something, you should do it, and so, because I'm proud of my record of doing what I say I will do, I will now take my seat and watch the government House leader as he passes this bill in third reading.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Oriole for her contribution. Are there any questions or comments to her remarks?

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I believe that it would be appropriate perhaps if there was a quorum here to hear these remarks.

The Acting Speaker: Would 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.

1610

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

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I had asked if there were questions or comments to the member for Oriole.

Mr Harnick: I think that the member for Oriole was very astute when, on second reading, she pointed out in the strongest of terms that section 65 of this bill should be deleted. Section 65 deals with the provisions that empower the Advocacy Act to really be implemented. That, in and of itself, would indicate that this bill was a lot more than a bill dealing with housecleaning, dealing with getting rid of duplication or procedural problems.

This bill, in fact, had a number of these little things snuck into it, and we've all tried, in the opportunity that we've had on second and third reading, to point out those substantive parts of this bill, and this in fact was a very substantive issue, and as a result of the comments of the member for Oriole, I'm happy to see that the government has removed section 65 from the bill. They would not have done that but for the fact that the opposition, and in particular the member for Oriole, got up and said that this was wrong.

But again, it goes back to the adage that we have to check everything that the government says because oftentimes it isn't accurate. There are issues in this bill that were controversial, there are issues of substance in this bill as opposed to just streamlining procedure, and they should not be in here because the government gave us its assurance that they weren't. So the fact that section 65 has been removed is of great significance.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments to the member for Oriole's remarks? Seeing none, if the member for Oriole would like to reply, she may.

Mrs Caplan: I believe that this NDP government has established a very significant precedent in this House, this Legislature, whose traditions are founded on precedents, for the use of omnibus bills. This is the first one that we've seen from this government which has been presented as a housekeeping piece of legislation, one that was designed to amend over 100 statutes in numerous policy areas and which was presented as a non-controversial housekeeping omnibus bill.

It's my view that it is appropriate to use omnibus bills for the purpose of housekeeping and updating legislation which you just don't have House time for. I was concerned that the government said that it was non-controversial housekeeping. Then, when we took a closer look at it, particularly section 65, there were concerns that there was a very controversial item contained in this bill.

It's important for people watching this debate to know that while omnibus bills have been used by past governments, this is really the first time that we have seen the kind of omnibus bills that have crossed and had multiple ministries and multiple statutes, with policies which really bore no relationship one to the other. I've expressed concerns about the opportunity for the public to fully debate those important issues, which may not be related, in the same piece of legislation and have in this House attempted to separate out those issues for full and proper debate.

As I see the passage of this bill, I'd like to state that I am convinced, given the opportunity to have the kind of scrutiny I've had, that at this point in time Bill 175 is an example of a consensus document. I don't believe there's full unanimity on all the provisions, but I believe that it is housekeeping and that it is substantially non-controversial.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 175?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I want to put some comments on the record with regard to Bill 175, especially as they relate to our education system. There are a number of implications for schools in this omnibus bill. I certainly concur with all of the members who have made note that this is not the first precedent-setting bill, of course, but that it has been a precedent-setting government when it comes to omnibus bills and time for the public to be properly consulted.

This bill was introduced in June, I understand, and some of these changes were meant to take place -- and if the government could have gotten our support some time in the middle of June, other changes of course would have occurred that would have affected the more recent municipal elections. I think that really was the intent.

The first piece that relates to Bill 175 in the schools has to do with subsections 109 (1), (5), (8) and (9) and section 112 with regard to combined financial reporting. I won't go into detail, but there is an agreement with regard to this section of the bill in that the Ontario Public School Boards' Association does support that part.

Subsections 109(6) and (7), regarding school board employee benefits payments, I will speak to because that is not something that has the support of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association.

With regard to Bill 175, section 110, municipal ward changes in election years, you can imagine what this would have meant if we had had this debate last June. Obviously it wasn't pushed because the government decided, probably fairly early, not to come back to begin the fall sitting until long after the agreed-to date. At this point in time, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association does support that.

1620

The provision of extracts from enumeration lists, Bill 175, subsection 111(1): At this point in time again, with regard to the Municipal Elections Act there wasn't enough time for discussion and consultation. There has been an election and there will be time for the boards to plan for the results of this particular legislation in this regard for the next municipal election, so it's supported at this time.

The filling of unfilled school board positions, Bill 175, section 111, subsections (2) to (4): Again, there's time now, so the boards have had time to consider it and the Ontario Public School Boards' Association supports it.

But I do want to speak to the two parts where there is no support on behalf of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association on Bill 175. The first has to do with part II, section 40, Ministry of the Attorney General, with regard to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and I will talk to the legislation in this regard. There are extensive amendments to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and two in particular are of great concern to the public boards.

This act of course governs many tribunal procedures before which a school board could appear, such as boards of reference, the Education Relations Commission, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Ontario Special Education Tribunals and the human rights board of inquiry. It also impacts some school boards' hearings, such as pupil expulsion hearings.

Under Bill 175, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act would be amended to order the exchange of documents, the exchange of witness documents and other forms of disclosure prior to or during the hearing. It could also authorize a full pre-hearing for examination for discovery.

Secondly, Bill 175 could empower the act to make interim awards, which are frequently used as a mechanism to require employers to maintain the status quo until resolution by the tribunal.

The Ontario Public School Boards' Association did get what I felt to be a very interesting legal opinion on this particular part of the legislation. If anybody wants it, I think they could call the public school boards themselves. But the end results of this amendment, according to the legal opinion that the boards have, is that Bill 175 will result in a significant increase in the cost and administration of proceedings and will formalize the administrational process. It will have a significant impact on school board costs and decision-making.

I think the other part that I would like to read into the record, if I can find it here, has to do with the interim orders:

"Interim orders" -- and I'm reading from the legal opinion, because many of us can relate to this -- "are also frequently used as a mechanism to require an employer or decision-maker to continue an undesirable 'status quo' pending resolution by the tribunal, ie, interim reinstatement of an employee who has been dismissed."

There are other interim arrangements that the school boards will have to deal with, according to this legislation and according to their legal opinion. Obviously, the Ontario public school boards do not support that particular change.

There is another piece that the school boards do not support. It has to do with part VII, the Ministry of Education and Training, with specific regard to the school board employee benefits payments. I'll read into the record the concerns of the boards here:

"Currently the Municipal Act permits municipalities and local boards, including school boards, to pay all or some of the costs of supplementary health and hospital benefits for employees and retired employees. The Education Act (section 177) states that a retired employee can receive these group benefits until the age of 65 only if the employee pays the premium. The amendments in Bill 175 clarify that the board or the employee can pay the premium for group benefits up to the age of 65."

The Ontario Public School Boards' Association states, "As a result of this amendment, federations and unions will be pressuring boards to cover the costs of this coverage."

I think at this time we all agree that this is not the time to be giving more benefits that cost the public money to any particular group. What we're trying to do is hold the line here, and this arrangement, to the best of our knowledge, is one that has been certainly not one of any concern that's been raised in any public way on behalf of the school boards in the past.

Many boards have used their own discretion in how they do deal with their employees after the age of 65. The fact that the employee is being asked to pay the premium I think is fair. To now get this undue pressure, time, which means human resource time -- that all comes out of the public education dollar. Every time you hire another lawyer or have another employee at the table or add to the scope of negotiations, it's time, and time right now I think is very expensive. We're talking about people who are representing the boards as we protract our labour relations negotiations. It just opens another door, which I think is very untimely at this particular crossroad in the challenges that our governments and our province face.

So the premiums for retired employees can be very expensive, and of course we have another pressure point for school boards and unions and I think raised expectations on behalf of employees and that's unfair. We're facing that in other deliberations in this House with regard to other bills in committee, at least that I was involved in this week.

Boards of reference is another particular concern here with regard to the Ministry of Education and Training and certainly the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. "Boards of reference are a judicial process that adjudicate disagreements between teachers and school boards regarding dismissals and contract terminations. To streamline the judicial process, the amendments in Bill 175 will permit retired judges to chair these boards as well as active judges."

The Ontario Public School Boards' Association position is this: "OPSBA has taken the position that boards of reference are not required, since there is adequate protection under collective agreements. The appointment of neutral judges could expedite the process. However, there is little advantage for a school board if this were to happen." That's their position, and I think it's worth taking into consideration.

So there are two very strong recommendations with regard to this legislation if the government would take these into consideration. I know the time is late. I'm not certain that they've had any public hearings around this legislation, but I can tell you right now that these recommendations should be strongly considered by the government.

"OPSBA recommends that sections 109(6) and (7) of Bill 175 regarding changes to the Education Act to permit school boards to pay insurance premiums and benefits to retired employees under the age of 65 years be deleted from Bill 175." It's an added cost that we don't need at this time. It's a raised expectation that will only be met through collective bargaining, and I can't imagine anybody having the kind of money to throw into more benefits.

The second recommendation is this: "OPSBA recommends that sections 56, 57, 59, 60 and 61 of Bill 175 regarding changes to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act be deleted from the bill." I definitely would concur with the concerns of school boards.

I feel that this omnibus bill that is supposed to be just housekeeping is much more than that. Certainly the municipal bodies such as school boards once again are being dictated to by the province. These would have been simple amendments that have not been seriously considered by the government in any way. Both of them have impacts on school boards. They raise the cost of them doing business.

It won't be a surprise to the government of the day that I add this to my own personal list during the next election campaign as another example of the Bob Rae government asking school boards to add to their costs through legislation; an omnibus bill, a housekeeping bill that adds costs to education that have absolutely no impact in the classroom for teachers or for students.

This will not affect the quality of education and this adds time to the collective bargaining process, perhaps raises expectations. I speak today on behalf of students and parents and taxpayers in that these recommendations should be seriously considered and acted upon by the government.

1630

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Winninger: I'm surprised that the member for London North would suggest to this assembly that these amendments will result in added costs to school boards. The examples she gives I feel are much likelier to reduce the costs that school boards will experience.

For example, she raises the issue of disclosure of documents that will be permitted under this omnibus legislation. In court proceedings already, parties benefit from disclosure and discovery of documents ahead of time so that the issues in dispute can be properly framed and narrowed, and quite frequently this will expedite and reduce the costs to the parties rather than increase them.

The experience in the court, I would suggest, will be no different from the experience that tribunal proceedings will have. In other words, it will be of benefit to parties appearing before tribunals because they will be able to disclose documents and therefore reduce the time and costs involved.

Second, the issue with respect to the power to pay benefit premiums for employees who take early retirement suggests to me that we'd be fettering school boards if we didn't allow these kinds of generous retirement options. The fact is that this legislation is permissive, not mandatory: It allows school boards to offer these kinds of packages. As school boards are facing ever-increasing constraints -- and I don't only speak to the social contract and the expenditure control plan but constraints that school boards face locally -- they'll want to avail themselves of as many options as they can for reducing their costs. One is to offer attractive early retirement packages, and this is exactly the kind of instrument we're placing in the hands of school boards from which they can benefit.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs Cunningham: I find myself, because of the member for London South's statement, in a position to read into the record the legal opinion, which of course gives examples of why this would cost more money.

"...under Bill 175, any tribunal governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act would be empowered to order exchange of documents, exchange of witness statements and expert reports, provision of particulars, or any other form of disclosure prior to or at any time during a hearing. Even more significantly, any SPPA tribunal would be authorized to order full pre-hearing examination for discovery, as currently occurs in civil litigation. These amendments will result in a significant increase in the cost and duration of administrative proceedings and will also formalize the administrative process."

That's where I'm getting my information. It's their legal opinion as opposed to that of the member for London South.

"Second, Bill 175 would confer upon SPPA tribunals the power to make interim orders. The Ontario Labour Relations Board has had a statutory power to make interim orders since Bill 40 was passed in January 1993" -- here's the key sentence -- "and our experience with interim applications before the board has not been positive. Interim applications require considerable preparation at a very early stage of the proceeding, and therefore result in a significant increase in costs. The parties will be required to map out the merits of their position immediately following the commencement of proceedings and on very short notice, in order to provide the factual legal basis for the interim relief application. Interim orders are also frequently used as a mechanism to require an employer or decision-maker to continue an undesirable 'status quo' pending resolution by the tribunal...."

I just want to say that he has given two examples to the boards that asked his opinion of where costs are greater. That's the opinion of the legal adviser to the school boards.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Callahan: I want to address a few items here, and it goes back to what I said earlier to --

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Do you ever talk to your caucus whip?

Mr Callahan: I don't know what the House leader is talking about. Yes, I did talk to them, okay? I have permission. Is that what you're inquiring about?

In addressing this matter to the Speaker himself, I suggested that particularly in cases such as the omnibus bill that has been placed before this House, it becomes very difficult for any member of this Legislature to intelligently understand what the legislation is, because what we get is simply the amendments and references to them in the earlier part of it.

What I'd suggested, Mr Speaker, and have been suggesting for some considerable time to the Clerk's office, is that with the technology we have today, we might be able to have a statute before this Legislature set up in such a way that the text it's amending from the particular act is on one side of the page and the amendment is on the other side of the page so that a person who cares to read the bill and understand it before they debate it or vote on it in this House would be able to understand exactly what the terminology or the change makes in the particular piece of legislation. Otherwise, I suggest to you that all we're debating in this House is people saying, "Yes, I vote for it," and they have absolutely no idea what the bill's all about.

That's certainly not very safe democracy. The Speaker sent me a note saying he would discuss that with the Clerk. I think it's a very important fact that we have to have in this House so all of us understand exactly what we're doing when we vote on a bill, or we may very well be voting on a bill that may have diabolical or inappropriate consequences for the citizens of this province who elected us.

Having said that, I'd like to deal with a few of the provisions of the bill, which I find that even on third reading perhaps give me some cause for concern.

Under subsections 48(1), (2) and (6) of the bill, subsection 3(1), paragraph 7, of the Juries Act is deleted. What that paragraph says -- and it would be helpful if we had the bill set up in the way I've suggested to you and the Speaker, if we had on one side the section that shows what it's all about and then on the other side the amendment. I've had to drag out three copies of the Revised Statutes of Ontario in order to explain my concerns about the particular issue.

This deals with the Juries Act. Under the Juries Act, certain people are not able to sit as jurors, and the list is there. It's elected members of the Privy Council, members of the Senate and House of Commons, every judge and every justice of the peace, every barrister and solicitor, every student-at-law, every legally qualified medical practitioner and veterinary surgeon engaged in practice, and every coroner. Then it also goes on to say: "Every person engaged in the enforcement of law including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, sheriffs, wardens...superintendents, jailers or keepers of prisons, correctional institutions or lockups, sheriff's officers, police officers, and officers of a court of justice."

Section 7 of that act also prevented their wives or persons they lived with in a conjugal relationship from sitting as jurors. I suggest that's being eliminated by this so-called housekeeping amendment, and I suggest that if the Legislature of the day, in enacting the Juries Act, decided it was inappropriate to have people who were so closely related to the justice system sit on a jury for fear they would use that expertise in an effort perhaps to persuade other jurors to come in with a particular result, if the Legislature of the day thought that was a problem, I would suggest the same problem exists, if not in actual fact at least for the appearance of justice, if a person is a spouse or lives in a conjugal relationship with one or more of those people.

I'm suggesting that is an amendment that is ill-conceived. Certainly to me it's more than a housekeeping matter. In fact, I suggest it has a significant impact on the administration of justice. I simply raise that for the purposes of the House, and perhaps the Attorney General or whoever might look at that and decide that's not appropriate.

Perhaps it's being done because in this day and age we feel that to deprive these people of their right to sit on a jury because they happen to be the wife of or in a conjugal relationship with one of those precluded people is being sexist. It's not being sexist at all. It is a safeguard to ensure that the person whose liberty is at stake is going to be judged by an impartial jury whose members do not proclaim to have special expertise.

I'll give you an example. If the wife of a lawyer or a police officer or any of those other people is selected for a jury and has previous knowledge from talking to their spouse or the person they're living in a conjugal relationship with, in terms of selecting that jury, if that person gets into the jury room and on the basis of that information persuades other members to change their verdict to either guilty or not guilty, I suggest that's unfair. At the very least it has, if not actual detriment to a person whose liberty is at stake, the appearance of that, and justice isn't as much a fact as an appearance of justice. So I suggest that's an ill-conceived amendment, and it's certainly not housekeeping.

1640

I refer also to a further amendment which is being made to repeal Section 5 of the Sale of Goods Act -- I don't have a problem with that -- and section 4 of the Statute of Frauds, which in a nutshell says you can't bring a lawsuit against somebody on a contract that is going to not be performed within a period of one year, unless there's something in writing to show that the person you're suing in fact entered into that contract. I think that's eminently a wise provision. It was put into the Statute of Frauds for the very reason of the definition of a Statute of Frauds, because people's memories of what's gone on in a year can be very difficult to reconstruct. If you've got something in writing, if somebody tries to sue you, you can demonstrate the piece of writing and you can eliminate responsibility.

Eliminating that section is also, I submit, more than a housekeeping provision, and it's one that could have significant impacts in terms of, if nothing less, protracting litigation. Certainly, in this day and age, one of the things we don't need is encouragement or provisions being of such an uncertain nature that litigation will ensue. We've got too many lawsuits in the courts already and our courts are jammed and overworked. I suggest that is more than a housekeeping amendment and is one that perhaps is ill-conceived.

Section 68 is the amendment that says: "Under the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act, members of the Social Assistance Review Board will be able to be reappointed for a term of up to three years. Now, the term for such reappointment is fixed at three years." That is, they can only serve three years, and now we are giving them the right to be reappointed for a further three years. I ask the question, why? Is there something special in that, or is it an opportunity to keep these people on for a further three years? I'm suggesting that doesn't have to be enshrined in legislation and it shouldn't be. There should be opportunities opened up for a fresh body of people to serve on that most important board.

One further item is that under sections 72, 73, 79, 80, 83 and 88 there is an amendment being made, and I'm referring most specifically to item 8 where in the case of a business operation, an incorporated body, we now "Eliminate the requirement that a corporation advertise its intention to dissolve."

I suggest that is an ill-advised amendment and it's certainly not a housekeeping amendment. What that means is that if you're dealing with a corporation in whatever way, shape or form, that corporation can enter into a dissolution of itself without any notice to its creditors, any notice to any interested parties. "Eliminate the requirement that the corporation advertise its intention to dissolve" is substantive, and it was a safeguard put in there specifically to protect people, through our mass media, in terms of being able to know when a corporation is being dissolved. I suggest that's not housekeeping either.

Having said that, I just want to make a few final comments in a general way.

I think I have just indicated to you, Mr Speaker, and to anyone viewing the books in front of me, just how antiquated our system is when we provide, particularly as has been done today, one of the largest bills I've seen, and presented as an omnibus bill, and all it has is meaningless phrases in it; there's nothing to tell you what the original act says.

In our day and age, with the technology we have, in the case of the first suggestion I made to you about the question of the Juries Act, you could have simply reproduced the section that is about to be amended; put the amendment on one side of the page and the pre-amended legislation on the other side. That allows people not to have to hunt back and go through the RSOs, which is difficult enough even for a person who is trained legally, but for many of us who are not trained legally it's an impossibility. What in effect it means is that many of us have absolutely no idea what the legislation is that's before this House that we're called upon to vote on.

We rely to a large degree, if not totally, on the legal people in the bureaucracy to satisfy us that the legislation is appropriate. We also have the benefit of going out to committees and hearing from various bodies in terms of what they think of it, but again we're relying on outside bodies.

I think it's important that the members of this Legislature pursue and carry out the function for which they were elected, ie, to scrutinize legislation and to attempt to understand it as best they can in order to make a reasoned and intelligent decision about whether they should vote yes or no for a particular piece of legislation. Otherwise, I suggest that the 130 members in this House become nothing more than warm bodies that are called upon to vote when a particular piece of legislation is put forward. Certainly, that is not satisfying or carrying out the responsibility of a parliamentarian who has been entrusted with the right to make these decisions on behalf of the citizens of his riding.

I suggest we could go a long way by entertaining and putting into place the first suggestion I made about how we set up our bills. It's long overdue. I spoke to people about that at least over three or four years ago and nothing has been done in that respect. I don't believe it's impossible. I believe it's quite practical and quite easy to do.

Finally, this act deals with certain elements of the administration of justice. I would hope to see housekeeping or perhaps substantive pieces of legislation that would deal with the very serious problem we are having, which is growing worse every day, in terms of the application by parliamentarians to the concerns about the administration of justice. For some reason, justice doesn't seem to be a terribly exciting issue to anybody in elected office, I guess because it doesn't carry the political sexiness of something like gaming rules or business rules or whatever.

But in fact -- and I make a statement today which I hope will never happen, but I suspect it's going to happen very shortly -- our justice system is going to explode. We are going to have to deal with that issue in a very quick and ill-planned way, and as always, when you don't anticipate and plan for something as sensitive and as important as our civil and criminal justice system, when you have to deal with it in an explosive situation you'll deal with it inappropriately and it will be expensive for the taxpayers of this province.

There are court cases in this province -- and the Attorney General should read this -- that are going to have people released to the streets, who are going to have the charges stayed against them, that are going to make Askov look like a picnic. That's going to happen all over this province.

I have asked the auditor of Ontario, as an independent person, to investigate the state of our justice system in terms of cases that are over a year old, cases that are over two years old, cases that are in significant danger of being stayed in this province, because I think it's going to be a sad day for the province of Ontario, and for Canada for that matter, if we don't get our act together in terms of ensuring that the justice system receives the respect, the funding, the resources and the amendments to the legislation that are required to ensure speedy and effective justice both civilly and provincially for people in this province.

1650

Mr Winninger: The member for Brampton raised quite a number of different issues and two minutes doesn't permit me to respond to all of them. Just briefly, there was extensive consultation regarding the amendments to the Juries Act. While the member from Brampton may criticize the provision that prevents a spouse of a lawyer, judge etc from sitting on a jury, it was found through a rather broad consultation that it was appropriate.

I remind the member, and I know he knows this phrase well, that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. If an observer happened to see a trial take place and expressed concern that a member of the jury might be unduly influenced by his or her relationship with a member of the bar or the judiciary, then perhaps justice might not be seen to be done, so it's important to have that safeguard.

As far as the Statute of Frauds is concerned, there has been considerable pressure for many years to amend this section. I think the concern of the member for Brampton is not a concern well taken. What this amendment attempts to do is keep step with progress, keep step with the fact that nowadays many contracts are entered into by electronic transmission. There is in fact a record of that transaction. It may not be a conventional one, but it's done electronically. What this legislation does is respond to technological advances that we all need to keep abreast of.

Changes to the corporations law: Quite frankly, this again was a product of extensive, broad consultation with the business community and in fact these changes enjoy widespread support that I think the member for Brampton could test if he really chose to do so.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Brampton South, you have two minutes.

Mr Callahan: I thank the member for London for responding to it. I didn't quite catch what his comment was about my suggestion about the Juries Act. He rolled it right into the next one. I hope he wasn't saying that's keeping up with the order of the day and I hope he was following up on his initial comments that the appearance of justice is as important as justice.

If a person were to see a lawyer's wife, a judge's wife, a police officer's wife, a sheriff's wife, a prison warden's wife on a jury, I would think that would cause at least concern in terms of the appearance of justice. I'm sure they're fine, capable people, but I suggest to you that this does in fact give me concerns about the appearance of justice.

Finally, I guess, as I said in my opening remarks, the concern I would have is that those people may very well have what you'd call pillow talk. I hope that's not going to get me in trouble in terms of being not politically correct. Some of that information that is supposed to be kept secret and to themselves may very well influence the person who is sitting on that jury.

I think that's the very reason why when the Juries Act was originally set up these people I listed before were listed. That's why they specifically listed their spouses, and it's been enlarged over the years to keep up, I guess, with the times; it's the people who are living in a conjugal relationship. I suggest to you that it does in fact create a problem and it creates a problem not just from the standpoint of the appearance of justice but perhaps actual justice.

In the final analysis it may wind up as a case being set aside, a jury verdict being set aside because of some comment that's made that this in fact lacked the appearance of justice and thereby was a bad jury. We've seen that already. We've seen jury panels challenged for many other reasons such as that.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Boyd has moved third reading of Bill 175, An Act to amend the Statutes of Ontario with respect to the provision of services to the public, the administration of government programs and the management of government resources.

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

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

BUSINESS REGULATION REFORM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ENTREPRISES

Ms Churley moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 187, An Act to reform the Law regulating Businesses / Projet de loi 187, Loi portant réforme du droit réglementant les entreprises.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'll just say a few words here and start by thanking members of all three parties for the input and suggestions, notwithstanding at times the misunderstanding of the bill. I particularly want to thank my parliamentary assistant and the staff from the ministry and the Ministry of Finance who worked so hard to get this up and running on time and within budget. It was quite a feat and I think goes to show that government can be very efficient.

Each year there are about 90,000 new businesses that start up in Ontario that have to deal with between seven and 10 ministries just to fill in forms. We want to see business doing what they do best, and that is growing and creating jobs. That is why we launched this Clearing the Path initiative with some of the startup workstations that are in place, and more to come in the spring. Over time, by 1995, businesses will be able to register electronically, be able to do all sorts of innovative things much more quickly due to this bill. So this really does revolutionize how government relates to business, and I expect and will appreciate the full support of all members in the House. I thank you for your time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments? Further debate?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I will be very brief on speaking to this bill on third reading. The other day, when I spoke to it on second reading, about a minute before I rose to debate this I learned that the government was in fact putting another of its closure motions through to hobble the business of this House.

The government has spent some length of time studying, apparently, the impediments to business, and it's laboured and put forward a mouse. They come forward with this measure which in essence is going to combine four forms. That's a great idea, to combine four forms, and nobody denies that's a good idea, but the fact is that we have some 43,000 forms that the government has, and in combining four forms I would suggest that there's absolutely no reason to bring legislation forward. They could easily do this by a stroke of the pen.

But it is basically to make up for the lack of agenda that this government has. The government brought us back some five weeks late. We're rising at the end of next week, a week earlier than we should be rising. It's really a death watch, and frankly, in commenting about the government, it's like kicking a corpse.

Nevertheless, it bears comment that the government hasn't listened to the concerns of business, the concerns of the people who create jobs for the vast majority of people in this province, and that is small business. We have learned from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that as many as 25% of their members, and they have a rather large membership, spend one day per week on compliance with government red tape and regulation.

1700

As I said when I rose on second reading, nobody denies the fact that there are important reporting functions to government and there are tax forms to fill in and there must be some compliance. There's absolutely no argument from my party on that. But the government has failed to come to grips with the fundamental problems of business.

My own party, the Progressive Conservative Party, held hearings throughout this province over an extensive period of time. The Mike Harris task force on small business heard from the business people of this province, and there was a great consistency to what they had to say. They said, "Compliance dates are choking us," which is exactly in line with what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey indicated. They've told us that the labour laws are very restrictive and act as a drag on their ability to create new jobs. They have told us that the tax system in this province is so excessive that it is an unattractive place to either create a new business or to expand business.

In fact, I have spent the last day and a half at a conference, titled Hitting the Wall, which was put on by the Fraser Institute. It was suggested that in fact this country may already have hit the wall. We haven't hit a hard brick wall, we have hit a soft foam wall, but we're probably running out of foam.

This government has been borrowing massively overseas. That's the sad thing, the fact that the citizens of this province and this country don't have confidence in buying the bonds of this government, so this government has been forced, with its massive borrowing, to go overseas and has been borrowing, on average, about $1 billion a month, about $12 billion a year. Indeed, when the government was finally forced to the wall of changing its accounting methods, it had to tacitly admit that its deficits were significantly greater than the amount it had been reporting year over year.

The ability to attract businesses to Ontario is significantly reduced by a regime which is unfriendly to business and is not listening to the needs of business. Business is concerned about the potential liabilities of the unfunded liability within the Workers' Compensation Board, and the government has failed in any meaningful way to address that. They have ignored the cries for lower taxes.

My party has come forward with a document called The Common Sense Revolution, which anybody watching can get by calling 1-800-903-MIKE. This document results from an extensive consultation with the people of Ontario. It is the most extensive consultation that any political party in Canada has undertaken. We have spent some three years in developing this document and it has been endorsed by economists.

It was very interesting. In the conference on hitting the wall that I attended, international economists, politicians and people from senior positions in the national banks of all of the countries that had hit the wall, all outlined a system by which they believed countries -- and they weren't talking about Ontario. They didn't know about our document. They just simply said that you have to get government out of the lives of people to a great extent, you have to reduce taxes, you have to reduce the reliance of the public on government handouts and you must give an incentive for business to stay and do business and pay taxes.

There have been some significant examples of governments around the world that have reduced taxes in the face of very difficult situations, and at the end of the day, after very large tax decreases, they have had higher revenue and businesses have found it more attractive to locate in those countries. These countries have got every conceivable political system. You have New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Sweden, Britain -- the list goes on. These countries all have one thing in common, and that is that they hit the wall because borrowing became so massive.

Now in fact in Canada we have proportionately a higher amount of borrowing than those countries have had when they hit the wall, and yet my colleagues across the floor still stick their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that we have a serious problem. It isn't all of your making, and I and my party are not suggesting that. We are just saying it is high time that you came to terms with marketplace solutions that have been tried and successful in countries around the world under every political banner. If you did this, you would have a much-improved economy.

I am not a pessimist. I believe that we can turn things around, but this government has raised the amount of debt of this province to some $90 billion. When you combine that with federal debt, when you combine all of the provincial and all of the federal debt all across this country, we have staggering amounts of debt. In addition to that, there is the unfunded liability of pension plans at both the provincial and federal levels which are considered by the international bond raters, and they are concerned. They are concerned because we are at a significantly higher level of debt than Mexico was, which we always considered to be a Third World country, a banana republic. But indeed, they hit the wall at a lower level and they have had to come to terms with very harsh realities.

I will say to you that it is much better for you to come to terms with it and that the government of the day of whatever political stripe deal with it in a rational way rather than to allow the international bankers to be making the decisions which undoubtedly will have to be made.

One thing that was abundantly clear in this conference is that you can't escape these changes. It doesn't matter what political persuasion you are; it doesn't matter what your rhetoric has been in the past. You will have to make these changes because you cannot continue to keep on adding to the mortgage of the family home. It doesn't work, and unless we realize this and come to some sensible solutions, we're doomed.

That is why Mike Harris put forward the document The Common Sense Revolution, in which he proposes to reduce the provincial portion of income tax by some 30%, which is the equivalent of a $4-billion reduction in revenue. He is proposing to reduce expenditures of the government in non-priority areas by some 20%, which is the equivalent of $6 billion. So at the end of the day we will be $2 billion to the good.

We are ensuring and we are guaranteeing in this document that we will protect three essential areas of government which we believe the people of Ontario want us to protect. We will not touch the health care envelope and we commit in writing to this. We will not touch the classroom portion of education spending. We commit to that in writing. In addition to that, we will address the serious problems of government, of fat in government. We will also protect the law-enforcement budget, which is dear to all the people of Ontario with all of the rising stories of crime on our streets, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto. I know the constituents of my own riding, York Mills, are concerned with this phenomenon.

Indeed, we have guaranteed that we will protect those budgets, so we've taken those parts of the budget out and we will not touch those. We obviously cannot touch the part of the budget which is attributable to debt service. So the balance of the budget will be reduced by 20%, and that is the equivalent of $6 billion.

1710

I see my good friend the Speaker is pointing to the bill at hand. Indeed, Bill 187 has everything to do with this because the government calls this bill, through the ministry of clever names for bills, Clearing the Path. If you want to clear the path, then please listen to what the people of Ontario are saying. Listening to what the economists are saying is essential; that is, we must have reduced government spending. We are proposing, with our document The Common Sense Revolution, to reduce spending. We're going to reduce it by $6 billion. The current budget is some $55 billion.

We will --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I wish you would only speak to the bill, please, Bill 187. It says An Act to reform the Law regulating Businesses, and that's what you have to speak on, please.

Mr Turnbull: I believe it goes to the heart of this bill that the government isn't really clearing the path; it is paying lip-service to it. It is combining four business forms and bringing forward a bill which is totally unnecessary as window dressing because they have run out of an agenda. They don't know what they're doing. So, because I don't want to kick the corpse of the NDP any further, I will leave with that thought. Please listen to what the taxpayers of Ontario are saying: "Get off our backs. Reduce spending."

We are proposing to reduce spending to some $49 billion, which is still, on an inflation-adjusted basis, significantly higher than the last Tory budget in this province of $26 billion. Inflation-adjusted, it is still significantly more. This is how we are contributing towards clearing the path in our party. I wish the government, in putting forward this bill, would consider what the real concerns are of business instead of paying lip-service to it.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Hon Ms Churley: Just for a moment. I might not even take up my two minutes here. I don't believe that the member for York Mills was talking to this bill whatsoever. It was just another opportunity to go on the hobby-horse about how this government doesn't understand business and the Tories do.

I just want to reiterate once again what this bill is all about as opposed to what the member for York Mills said. It has nothing or very little to do with, as he keeps saying, opening up four workstations in the province of Ontario. He said that could be done with the stroke of a pen. In fact, it was, and the 50 that will be up by the spring will be done, as he put it, with the stroke of a pen, although I would say that the people who have worked very hard to get the software system in place in these stations set up might not say it's the stroke of a pen. He's right. We did not need legislation to do that, but somehow he keeps repeating that this is what this legislation is all about.

This legislation is very clearly about clearing the path. The legislation that we are putting in place today, which I know he's going to support at the end of the day, is all about cutting red tape. We had to have legislation in place to allow us to continue the programs we're now starting which didn't need legislation. This allows us to go ahead with uniform reporting and, as I said earlier, electronic filing, all kinds of innovative ideas that we are putting in place so that we can use the new technology that exists.

Small business out there, which we have consulted with and which worked with us to come up with this program, has told us very clearly that it wants red tape cut. It's other governments that have developed this red tape over time, and we are the government that is responding and doing something about it.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for York Mills, you have two minutes.

Mr Turnbull: Indeed, the minister adequately illustrates what I'm saying. The fact that they don't need legislation and that they say, oh, they've consulted with business -- I would suggest that businesses, as am I, are supporting the idea of combining four forms, and a few electronic stations -- big deal.

Why don't you get on? You created so much paperwork and the previous Liberal government created so much paperwork. The previous Liberal government in fact created 9,000 extra civil servants when it was around, at the very time that business was going in the opposite direction of making business more efficient.

Now at least the government today is trying to do some things, but unfortunately many of the things it's doing are very transitory in their nature. They've brought forward the social contract, in which they said they were going to change the way government operated. At the end of the social contract, it's back to the status quo. They haven't made the fundamental changes.

Instead of making the changes and reducing the size of the bureaucracy, they have continued with the same level of bureaucracy. Admittedly, they say they're not hiring any new people, except of course if they happen to be political staff who are on ministers' staff and then they get a job at preferential terms to people from the outside who are not allowed to apply for jobs in the civil service.

This is the fact: that all of the hangers-on of the NDP are being stacked into the civil service so that future governments are going to have this rats' nest of socialists to have to fight with in order to get legislation through. Well, I'll tell you, future governments will not just allow themselves to go into that trap. They will take the measures that are necessary.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Churley has moved third reading of Bill 187, An Act to reform the Law regulating Businesses.

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

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Report continues in volume B.

1 décembre 1994