Journal des débats 1994-déc-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1995 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHAMPLAIN BRIDGE

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have with me today petition cards for the Minister of Transportation from over 1,500 constituents from my riding of Ottawa West and adjacent neighbourhoods. They're opposed to any expansion of the capacity of the existing Champlain Bridge because it would significantly increase car and truck traffic through residential neighbourhoods, creating noise, pollution and safety hazards, and reduce property values.

They also oppose the expenditure of tens of millions of Ontario dollars on a project which would be detrimental to Ontario residents.

They do support a north-south commuter rail service and a bridge in the township of Cumberland which would connect to a city bypass, and urge you to reject any new bridge construction in established communities.

The minister should know that last year Ottawa-Carleton council passed a motion to pull out of a federal-provincial study examining a site for a new interprovincial bridge and also to reject car bridges at all four proposed locations. I hope he understands that his government cannot construct a new bridge where the people don't want one.

The views of these constituents, members of the Communities Before Cars Coalition, and thousands of other citizens across the region are not to be taken lightly. They will not accept unilateral decision-making on the part of the government in the way that it addresses this very important transportation planning issue.

MAGAZINES AND COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): In Ontario today, magazines are eligible for up to $70,000 in grants per year through the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, but by subsidizing magazines through these provincial grants, the NDP government in effect becomes a financial partner in helping some magazines compete for advertising revenue against community newspapers, which are not entitled to receive these grants.

I wrote to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation earlier this summer on this matter and the Ontario Community Newspapers Association also has conveyed its concerns to her. She responded by suggesting that Ontario magazines face competition from their US counterparts and require assistance from the government.

The minister fails to recognize that community newspapers also have a difficult time competing, with high taxes and with Bill 40. This situation has been exacerbated by the unequal playing field which the NDP government has created through these grants.

In a recent letter I received from Harry Stemp, executive director of the Ontario Community Newspapers Association, he states:

"While some magazines may be faced with unusual competitive situations, the same holds true for community newspapers as well. Daily newspapers, magazines and the electronic media are increasingly chasing advertising revenues from those who have traditionally used community newspapers.

"Our association does not believe that the publishing centre should be spending several millions of dollars annually in the form of grants and subsidies for items which we in the community newspaper industry would consider to fall within the realm of normal operating and capital expenditures."

I agree with Mr Stemp, and once again I urge the minister to reconsider the government's arbitrary subsidization of one segment of the print media, magazines, which directly competes against another segment, community newspapers.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to reflect on the murder of 14 women on this day five years ago at Montreal's École polytechnique. Across Canada and across Ontario, we remember this brutal and shocking event. London, Ontario, is internationally respected for its community response to women abuse. We know, sadly, that violence against women is not a minor and isolated occurrence.

Today, in Victoria Park in London, a monument designed by Leigh Raney will be dedicated to women who have died as a result of violence.

Every day for the past 10 years, the London Coordinating Committee To End Women Abuse has worked to inform and educate our community about the effect violence against women has on all of us. The statistics are clear and our federal Justice minister reported that a woman is shot to death in Canada every six days, most often at home and by someone she knows.

Taking action to end violence against women means that we take the problem seriously by developing an integrated response by our justice, medical and social service agencies. London's police services were the first in Canada to instruct officers to apply the Criminal Code to wife assault. Our police statistics continue to show a dedicated effort to ensure that violence against women is criminal behaviour which our community will not tolerate.

We must respond to the crisis of violence against women. I feel that the monument unveiled today in London's Victoria Park in commemoration of victims of violence is a solid reminder that will strengthen us in our efforts to end violence.

1340

CASA ABRUZZO HOUSING PROJECT

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I rise in the House today to share with members of this Legislature the blatant electioneering campaign undertaken by Premier Bob Rae and his comrades.

Two days ago, the NDP organized the ground-breaking of the non-profit housing complex Casa Abruzzo, located in my riding. In spite of the long hours which many community members have contributed to the project, none of their efforts were recognized. While I fully expect the NDP to completely disregard my efforts to ensure this project was successful, I'm upset that the NDP failed to recognize the efforts of the community.

I would like to formally recognize the hard work of the Keele-Falstaff Ratepayers Association for their contributions, along with Metro Councillor Judy Sgro, Mayor Mel Lastman and members of North York city council.

I must also correct the Minister of Housing, who attended this NDP re-election roadshow and displayed just how misinformed he is of the Liberal position on non-profit housing. I guess he must have been asleep in the Legislature on the numerous occasions when I and my leader, Lyn McLeod, spoke of non-profit housing.

I called for the moratorium on the construction of new non-profit housing units in June 1993 after the Provincial Auditor's scathing report on the mismanagement and misallocations uncovered at the Ministry of Housing. What we are taking issue with is the fact that the NDP mismanagement of the program is threatening its very viability. It is precisely because we know that there is a need for non-profit housing that we want to see the program assessed and adapted to the economic realities of the 1990s.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Last December, this House voted 51 to 4 in favour of my private member's resolution calling for reform in how we support persons with developmental disabilities. A year later, it is time to review our progress in this regard.

I called for a change in how support is funded. Developmentally disabled persons and their families should receive funding directly. Community agencies would help their clients develop individual support plans and would deliver the supports that their clients request. The Minister of Community and Social Services has promised that the policy framework for developmental services will emphasize this new approach, but when will he deliver the framework?

One area of progress is the ministry's use of the community innovation fund for pilot projects in individualized funding, including a project in Mississauga. It is important that the ministry communicate the results of these projects to help communities understand how this new approach to funding would work.

In conclusion, some progress has been made since the House passed my resolution last December. However, there still is not nearly enough support for persons with developmental disabilities.

In Mississauga, we urgently need more support in four critical areas: (1) in-home support; (2) vocational day programs for adults; (3) support to persons needing a high level of care; (4) support for senior parents.

For families who need help, the situation has worsened in the past year. The government must move rapidly to give them the help they so desperately need.

ITALIAN CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Today, the National Congress of Italian Canadians has issued a press release calling upon the federal Liberal government to immediately erase the criminal record of internees of Italian origin whose civil liberties were denied during the Second World War. I add my support and urge the support of the House towards this very important venture, which would only begin to address the injustices heaped upon this community during the 1940s.

Although former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney formally apologized to internees of Italian origin in 1990, he failed to follow through with the remainder of the national congress's requests. At that time, I raised this issue at North York city council. North York, Metro council, Hamilton city council, the Toronto Board of Education and many others added their voices to the call for reparations.

Financial reparations have not been addressed. Entire family businesses were obliterated and assets seized and not returned, even after no criminal charges were laid. Our community cries out for justice.

I call upon the federal Liberal government to act with haste and erase any criminal record against the internees. Due to the advanced age of these people, we can wait no longer. For some, it is already too late.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Today, we commemorate the memory of 14 young women who were gunned down at l'École polytechnique in Montreal five years ago. As we mourn for them, let us also consider the ways in which each one of us can do our part to eliminate the violence which is so prevalent in our society today.

I was deeply concerned upon learning that several of my male colleagues have been barred from participating in events aimed at ending violence against women. One was barred from a Take Back the Night march, another was not allowed to join the mourners at a commemoration for the victims of the Montreal massacre. Why? Because they are men. They were told these events were for women only.

Violence in our society is not only a woman's issue. It is not only a men's issue. It is an issue of concern to every man, woman and child in this province and in this country.

I am convinced that the only way we can effectively curb the violence is for men and women to work together. While it is true that the majority of perpetrators of violence are men and the majority of victims are women, we must not assume that all men bear the guilt. Instead, we must harness the efforts of the many men who share our concern. Together we can help one another.

We will never erase the memories of the tragic Montreal massacre, but together we can prevent this tragedy from ever happening again.

TRUANCY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): On June 16, 1994, my private member's resolution unanimously passed second reading. Action is needed by the Minister of Education and Training concerning habitually absent students and a change to the fiscal year of school boards.

The resolution urges the Ministry of Education and Training to continue with its intent to change the school board fiscal year to coincide with the school year, September 1 to August 31. It now coincides with the calendar year, which makes it very difficult for school boards to efficiently plan their budgets.

On October 20, I received a letter from the minister stating that this change would be considered for implementation after the Royal Commission on Learning has reported.

On June 7, I asked the minister if he would make changes to the Education Act with regard to habitually absent students. As a result of the present confusion and lack of clarity in the act regarding habitual absence, judges in some jurisdictions refuse to hear truancy cases. Many attendance counsellors working throughout Ontario share our concern on behalf of parents and students. The minister responded that any amendments to the Education Act that would come forward in a comprehensive way would come after the royal commission reports.

Minister, we know hear that the royal commission is not due to report until January or even later. It was originally supposed to report this week. These are two very important issues that affect students. We have been urging the minister to make these changes for years. He now tells us that they'll be addressed in the report from the royal commission.

This government has passed on its responsibility for the last time. For this government, its time has run out.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The leader of the third party was in my community recently trying to sell the so-called Common Sense Revolution, if you can imagine. Having difficulty finding something to criticize, he took a cheap shot at one of the most respected corporate citizens in Sault Ste Marie, the Ontario Lottery Corp. It wasn't appreciated by the Ontario Lottery Corp, by me, by the citizens of the Sault or by the people of this province.

The Ontario Lottery Corp relies on a very high level of integrity for its work. As a business, they show a profit. As a corporate citizen, they are known in the community for being community-minded.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): How can't they show a profit? Remember, lotteries are a tax on the poor.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Willowdale, order.

Mr Martin: As a major employer, they have created and preserved jobs. What's more, the dollars they generate go to recreational and cultural activities and to non-profit social services and hospitals across the province.

The OLC deserves respect, not cheap criticism. I'd put my money on them any day. I can only conclude that if cheap shots like this one are what The Common Sense Revolution is about, we need to call it the Common-Two- Cents'-Worth Revolution, because that's about what it's worth. I say, cheap shot and shame on you, leader of the third party.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber and indeed to our country, seated in the Speaker's Gallery, the Honourable Licia Kokocinski, MLA, from the Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. Welcome.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Dagmara Chojecki of Amherstview and Kierin Gorlitz of Wellington are with us in the Speaker's gallery today. They are the winners of an essay contest for senior elementary students in my riding, the topic of which was, "What would you do to make Ontario a better place?" I just wanted members to know copies of their winning essays are in the east and west lobbies for them to enjoy.

The Speaker: I'm afraid the member does not have a point of order. However, his guests are most welcome in our chamber.

1350

MEMBER FOR LEEDS-GRENVILLE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Last night the member for Leeds-Grenville, Mr Bob Runciman, declared in this House statements about me personally that violated my privilege as a member of this Legislature.

I call your attention to subsection 46(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act, where it says:

"(1) The assembly has all the rights and privileges of a court of record for the purpose of summarily inquiring into and punishing, as breaches of privilege or as contempts and without affecting the liability of the offenders to prosecution and punishment criminally or otherwise according to law, independently of this act, the acts, matters and things following:

"1. Assault, insult or libel upon a member of the assembly during a session of the Legislature or during the 20 days proceeding or the 20 days following a session."

Mr Speaker, the quote went on like this: "Two Liberal cabinet ministers, Mr Wong and Mr Curling, attended his funeral" -- the funeral of Mr Lawson -- "the funeral of a man shot by police in a stolen car attempting to run down two Peel Regional Police officers. Two Liberal cabinet ministers attended that funeral. What kind of message does that send out to police officers right across this province? Not a very happy one, not a very encouraging one."

I have two points to raise, Mr Speaker. The first is that the statement is false. Mr Wong did not attend the funeral; he was not present. The second, which I consider more seriously, is that the member for Leeds imputed motives to me in that I attended the funeral solely with the intention to send an unhappy message and a discouraging message to the police of this province. I find these comments deliberately hurtful and vindictive. His comments were a gross violation of my privilege as a member of this Legislature. I'd like you to rule on this.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for Scarborough North, I certainly appreciate the concern which he has expressed. Unfortunately, he will know that since the matter was not dealt with at the time when the comments were made, there is no way in which the Chair can be of assistance to him today, the remarks already having been made last night and no attention paid to them at the time.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege today dealing with a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission about my attending a commission hearing on behalf of a constituent.

I was very careful in preparing for my request to attend the Ontario Human Rights Commission on behalf of a learning-disabled constituent who for seven years now has had a case before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I wrote and received permission in writing from His Honour Justice Gregory Evans, wherein he said to me, "Pursuant to section 5 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, 1988, it is my opinion that with the authorization of your constituent you are entitled to attend the meeting scheduled with Ontario Human Rights Commission staff members and represent your constituent, not only in the meeting but in any hearing which may be held."

I have now received the reply from the Ontario Human Rights Commission on my request to attend on behalf of my constituent, who no longer can afford a lawyer or any other advocate in a paid capacity. They have now denied me the opportunity to represent my constituent in the hearing of his matter before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. For that reason, I would ask you to investigate it. I feel that as a member my privileges have been breached.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Mississauga South, I certainly appreciate the concern which she has expressed. I'm not sure if the member has a point of privilege. However, I'd be quite happy to take a look at it. I will endeavour to report back to the member tomorrow and to let her know if her point is valid or not.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): In 1987, Canada signed the Montreal protocol promoting the end of substances such as chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, which attack the ozone layer.

The ozone layer is located in the upper atmosphere and shields us from the sun's ultraviolet radiation, which has been linked to skin cancer and eye cataracts.

Our government made a commitment in 1990 to take action to meet the terms of the Montreal protocol, action needed to be taken to protect human health. I'm pleased to tell the Legislature today that our government has lived up to this commitment.

With the regulations I am announcing today, Ontarians can be proud of the fact that they now have the most comprehensive program on controlling ozone-depleting substances anywhere in Canada. I know that both the official opposition and the third party will be pleased with this announcement from the statements and questions they have raised on this issue in this Legislature.

Two years after signing the Montreal protocol, Ontario became the first province to pass legislation controlling the use and production of CFCs. Earlier this year, our government took action to control halons used in fire extinguishers and fire control systems. The halon regulation followed our regulation on CFCs and HCFCs used in refrigerants and air conditioners, including those in cars and trucks.

Today, I'm pleased to report to the Legislature that our government has finalized and passed into law two new regulations to control and phase out the use of ozone-depleting solvents and sterilants. Ontario is living up to its commitment to the people of Ontario and the Montreal protocol. The two regulations set a strict timetable for phasing out those solvents and sterilants which contain ozone-depleting substances.

The solvents are used in a variety of industrial cleaning processes. Many companies have already switched over from using ozone-depleting solvents in anticipation of the requirements of the Montreal protocol. Many of these companies are now helping smaller companies make the switch to ozone-friendly alternatives.

Sterilants are used primarily by hospitals to sterilize medical instruments and devices. Alternatives already exist and many users of sterilization units have already begun to make the switch.

These regulations are practical and workable. The most damaging ozone-depleting substances, those which destroy the ozone layer more quickly and last longer, will be phased out as of 1996. Those ozone-depleting substances which are not as damaging, but still have a negative impact on the ozone layer, will be phased out as of the year 2000. All these ozone-depleting substances, however, start an ozone-destroying process which lasts from 40 to more than 500 years. That's why it's important to act now, because what we do today really does matter tomorrow.

We have met with representatives from industry, unions, professional associations and the public about these regulations, and there is strong support from all quarters.

We said we would act, and I'm pleased to tell this Legislature that we have lived up to our commitment. Ontario now has a comprehensive program to control the release of ozone-depleting substances. In fact, almost 98% of these substances are now controlled by our regulations.

We also now have in Ontario companies searching for commercially viable alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. These regulations support Ontario's green industries and create jobs, proving again that protecting the environment and creating jobs are not at odds with one another but are complementary. We can, and especially in the case of substances that attack the ozone layer, we must do both.

1400

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I don't believe there is anyone in this Legislature or outside who will oppose the announcement made today, but I think we should be clear that the announcement made by the minister only partially comes into effect in 1996 and is fully in effect in the year 2000.

This was an issue that should have been addressed in 1990. This government has allowed five years to elapse before it has taken any action in this area. The question we have to recognize and answer is: What took the government so long? We must recognize that in 1990 the action could have been taken, and the announcement that the minister makes today will only come into effect fully in the year 2000. So in effect, we are talking about almost 10 years that the government, through its own inaction, has dealt with this particular issue.

Now when one listens to the minister's statement, there are certain areas that I believe still must be asked about. The first is, why is the phase-in period the length that the minister has announced today? Why is the phase-in period to 1996 and why is a secondary phase-in period to the year 2000?

Secondly, we must recognize that in no small measure, private industry, the private sector, has taken the lead in this area. The minister's own statement has clearly indicated that the private sector in the area of solvents in the industrial cleaning process has already switched over from using ozone-depleting solvents. As well, in the area of sterilants, many users of sterilization units have already begun to make the switch, and those I believe are fairly in the words of the minister's statement today. So we must recognize and applaud the work done by the private sector in dragging government into action, which has been announced today.

I believe there is a third area that we want to take a look at and that deals with what happens in January 1998. I think the regulation has to be looked at. What is going to happen with the existing material that is not caught with this particular regulation? What we have to do is ask, how is the existing material going to be disposed of? What is the strategy of the government in dealing with the information, and the solvents and the sterilants that are already being stored and how is it that they are going to be disposed of in a safe, effective manner? And is the regulation -- I do not know -- clear on that particular issue? The minister's statement today did not allude to that particular area.

Now it is also very strange that the minister's statement today speaks of the word "commitment" on, I think, four separate occasions. I wanted to take a look at this document that was delivered to me. It was almost in a brown envelope, but it was called the Agenda for People of August 18, 1990. I thought, my goodness, maybe we should take a look at that and see how the words of the minister are transformed into action. The minister has, I think, on four occasions, minimum, spoken about his commitment, maintaining his commitment.

Well, let's take a look in the area of the environment. What does the Agenda for People say? New Democrats would pass the safe drinking water act right away. What action have they done? Nothing. They have redefined the phrase "right away." New Democrats would look at the issue of pop sold in refillable containers. What have they done to date? Nothing. Oh, there's one other: New Democrats would overhaul the air pollution laws. What have they done? Nothing.

The minister's own inaction is clear testimony to the fact that the Friends of the Earth has ranked Ontario and his government eighth out of 10 provinces for his efforts.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Time has expired.

Mr Offer: Though we have no opposition to the announcement, it is clear --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Offer: -- that you have not met the commitment that you made to the people of this province.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I congratulate the minister for bringing forward these regulations. I think all of us on all sides of the House, all representatives of industry and the general population approve of what you are doing.

I do echo some of the comments from my colleague the Liberal critic, as you can well expect. There is a little bit of cynicism when you make comments in your statement that we must act now, notwithstanding the fact that Canada signed the Montreal protocol in 1987, which was almost eight years ago, that the government made a commitment in 1990, your statement states, which was almost five years ago, and the fact that it's going to be phased out as of 1996 and the year 2000.

I guess our major criticism is, what have you been doing so long? Why have you taken so long to take action? As good as it may be, the question is, why have you taken so long, particularly when you have stated how serious these ozone-depleting substances are? And I think we all agree with that.

I think the problem is that you have utterly consumed yourself, perhaps you and your predecessor before you, with respect to waste management, with respect to the three dumps --

Hon Mr Wildman: With MISA.

Mr Tilson: You mention MISA, and of course MISA is another story. The Provincial Auditor's report made it quite clear two years ago that we have water quality problems in this province.

Hon Mr Wildman: No, he didn't.

Mr Tilson: He certainly did. He said that the MISA program is beyond the capabilities of municipalities. We definitely have a water problem in this province, because this year, then, he started talking about water quality, and you expressed your frustration and your inability to deal with the criticism of the Provincial Auditor when he made it quite clear that there are municipalities in this province that may have bad water and they don't even know it, because it takes all that period of time to determine whether or not there's bad water in this province.

The question is that the ministry simply isn't testing our water in this province satisfactorily, to the requirements of the Provincial Auditor and the people of this province.

When you start making statements like that, I think that gets back to my initial comment, which is that your whole issue that you've been consumed with is with respect to dumps. You will not recognize the gases that emit from dumps and that indeed, whether it's methane or any other types of gas, have an effect on the ozone. I think we all admit that, yet there have been no steps by your government to study that.

There have been great strides across Europe, across the United States, to talk about the gases that have escaped from energy-from-waste facilities, from incineration, and there have been great strides to improve that. There have been no strides with respect to dumps, particularly by this province. You have ruled out energy-from-waste facilities. You have ruled out long rail-haul to other, willing host communities. You have committed yourself to putting three superdumps surrounding Toronto which are going to have serious health problems for the people of this province, which are going to affect the water of this province and which are going to affect the overall wellbeing of this province, whether it be sociological or otherwise.

I think that's been your problem. That's why it has taken you all this time to come up with this very important policy. There's a whole slew of issues that you have ignored, and this is one of them.

I do congratulate you when you come forward with something like this, but I get concerned with the contradictory aspect of your waste management policy, and I zero in specifically with respect to dumps.

You can talk about the tire tax. The tire tax is another issue that was raised. The Liberals imposed this tire tax. You and our party fought that. But what did you do?

Hon Mr Wildman: We got rid of it.

Mr Tilson: You did get rid of it, but it took you all that time and still you have not devised a means of getting rid of tires in this province, which in turn is going to have an effect --

Hon Mr Wildman: There's 40% recycling.

Mr Tilson: What you're doing is a lot of these tires are being shipped to the United States and being burned. You have no plan with respect to the disposition of tires, so you take the tax off and yet you haven't come forward with another alternative.

Mr Speaker, I congratulate them. How can one not congratulate the minister with respect to this policy? I think we all do that. But I tell you, to take 10 years to come up with this solution is simply not satisfactory, particularly with many of the other problems that you've omitted.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent for all-party statements on the provincial Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

1410

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I am rising today to remember and commemorate the 14 young women who were murdered in Montreal five years ago. Today is the fourth annual provincial Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. This is an important day of remembrance for all of us.

It is a time to reflect on the talent and potential of the women who were murdered in the Montreal massacre, their lives destroyed at the hands of a violent killer, and it's a time to remember the families of these women. It is also a time to remember the thousands of other Canadian women who have been and who continue to be physically and emotionally abused, sexually assaulted and murdered. Today we mourn the women killed in Montreal and we grieve the violence against women that continues each and every day.

More than half of the women in this country have been physically or sexually assaulted, using the Criminal Code definition of these crimes, at least once in their adult lives. One in four of us is sexually assaulted during her lifetime, and more than half of women in the workplace have experienced sexual harassment or threats.

Tragically, violence against women is an everyday occurrence in our society. This violence also knows no social or economic boundaries, and its victims are our family members and friends, our neighbours and our colleagues. This is the sad reality we must remember this December 6, this day of remembrance. But this is a day of action too. It is a day to consider and to take real steps to stop the crime of violence against women.

All of us can attend a vigil today to make our voices heard. We can wear a meaningful symbol like a button or a white ribbon to signify our commitment to stopping violence against women. We can also volunteer our time with women's groups, shelters and other organizations working towards a safe and equal society for women.

As parents, we can raise our children without stereotypes. We can teach our children to solve their problems and express their feelings without resorting to violence.

As employers, we can make sure our workplaces are free of sexual harassment and that they are safe environments which encourage all employees to relate to one another in healthy, non-power-based ways.

As individuals within our families and our communities, all of us, men and women alike, can support a woman who has been abused by talking to her, by offering her our support. We must call for help when we see or hear of a woman being hurt, and we must provide our support for community services like the police, shelters and counselling agencies.

We can and we must continue to chip away at attitudes that allow violence against women to continue. These attitudes are rooted in gender-based concepts of power and control. We must learn to share power with one another if we are to attain an equal, supportive and non-violent community.

There are many things that all of us, as individuals and as groups, can work on to help end this terrible crime of violence against women. Today we must remember, we must never forget, and we must resolve among ourselves that the tragedy of December 6 in Montreal in 1989 will never happen again.

I would ask that my colleagues in the government caucus and all those across the floor join me now in a moment of silence as we remember the 14 young women who were so tragically lost to us five years ago today and all the women who have been victims of violence before and since.

I will read out the names of the victims of the Montreal massacre so that we can think of each woman as we remember and pledge ourselves to renewed action to end violence against women. The 14 women were Sonia Pelletier, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Michèle Richard, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Geneviève Bergeron, Barbara Maria Klucznik, Annie Turcotte, Annie St-Arneault and Maud Haviernick.

Mr Speaker, would you ask for a moment of silence.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could the other parties please participate before the moment's silence?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It will be agreeable that the other parties speak, and the leader of the official opposition.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I participated a little earlier in a very moving memorial to the 14 women who were killed at l'École polytechnique in Montreal on that tragic night of December 6, 1989. I was equally moved by a tribute that I saw on television on Sunday night with pictures of each of these beautiful, vital young women, any one of whom could have been one of my daughters. I cannot imagine being one of the parents who received those terrible phone calls that day and I can only begin to imagine the grieving that will still be only too real for the families and the friends.

There are so many unexpected tragedies that can suddenly strike, but we are particularly shocked by senseless random killing because it is so deliberate, because we know that it should not have happened and because we feel somehow that we should have been able to prevent it. Random killings shock us too in the realization that the victims died just because they happened to be there. At l'École polytechnique, they died because they happened to be there and because they were women, and that's the focus today of our remembered horror and our grief and of our determination to do everything possible to ensure that it never happens again.

I do not believe that we can or that we should draw broad and sweeping generalizations from the murders at l'École polytechnique, but we can, and I believe we must, ask why a twisted mind expresses itself in crimes of violence against women and why we tolerate the slasher and the snuff films and the serial-killer cards that feed that kind of sickness.

We need to acknowledge that while this is the extreme, there is much other disturbing evidence of violence directed against women, statistics that suggest that one out of eight women in Canada each year is assaulted by her spouse or partner, statistics that one out of every four women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

What does that statistic say to a mother of four daughters? Last year in Canada, 164 women were murdered by their spouses. Last weekend, three women were murdered very close to where we all live.

We still have a long way to go to make women safe and free from hurt, but too many tragedies have certainly heightened awareness of the need for action, and people are acting. Men and women are acting. They're banding together to take back the night, taking steps to make our neighbourhood safer, acting to control access to the weapons of violence and to get tough on those who commit violent crimes.

There is more that must be done. We must not simply accept a justice system which allows drunkenness as a defence for rape. We must be prepared to deal with violent sexual offenders, we must not tolerate abuse in any form, but we must focus our concerns not solely on the tragic outcomes of violence but on its root causes.

We must be ready to take the next necessary steps if we are truly committed to doing all that we can to end the violence, if we want to do all that we can to ensure that our daughters are not afraid to walk alone at night, that they are not vulnerable at home or at school or in the workplace, not just because they are there but because they are women. Only if we pledge ourselves to this goal can we draw anything but tragedy from what happened at l'École polytechnique.

1420

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Today at noon I also participated in the Women's College Hospital candlelight vigil to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the Montreal massacre. It was five years ago today that 14 young, beautiful women were senselessly murdered, and since that time millions have gathered each year at vigils such as this to share their shock, anger and sorrow and make a commitment to make a difference.

This vigil today was a powerful and moving event which reminded all of us not only of the tragedy and horror of that day but also of the fact that violence against women and children continues to escalate in our society. It also reminded us that we treat our daughters very differently from our sons, and I want to just quote from Stevie Cameron when she says:

"When they are born we see their futures as unlimited, and as they grow and learn we try so hard to protect them: This is how we cross the street, hold my hand, wear your boots, don't talk to strangers, run to the neighbours if a man tries to get you in his car."

"But as they grow and learn, with aching hearts we have to start dealing with their bewilderment about injustice."

"And as they grow and learn we have to go on trying to protect them: We'll pick you up at the subway, we'll fetch you from the movie, stay with the group, make sure the parents drive you home from babysitting, don't walk across the park alone," lock the door if we're not at home.

"It's not fair, they say. Boys can walk where they want, come in when they want, work where they want. Not really, we say; boys get attacked too. But boys are not targets for men the way girls are, so girls have to be more careful."

As they grow up we still warn them: "Park close to the movie, get a deadbolt for your apartment, check your windows, tell your roommates where you are. Call me."

Yes, as the mother of a daughter, I know that I treat her differently than my son.

Today we were urged by author Judy Steed to deal with the horror of the Montreal massacre and to break out of our collective trance and to make a genuine commitment to take action against the violence.

Ms Steed also said that it is time to acknowledge that the abuse of young children is one of the root causes of violence against women and children, since it is these abused children who later become those who are the batterers.

We in this House can do something about that. We must recognize this and we must take collective action and responsibility to help those children who are abused so that they do not repeat the vicious cycle of abuse. We must support children's counselling and support services, school abuse screening, child mental health programs, child care services and recreational programs for children which can offer affirmation and guidance.

We must also reject sexist language and behaviour which, no matter how casual or seemingly innocent, does contribute to the continuation of violent and abusive behaviour.

We must acknowledge and deal with the influence of media violence which we see in video games, movies and in the printed press. If we object to this media violence, we in this House and people across this province and country can write or call the TV station, the movie theatre and the program sponsors. We can boycott the products of people who pay for this violence.

Yes, there is much that we can do; however, if we are ever going to create a culture of safety, equality and justice for women, it is absolutely imperative that both men and women work cooperatively together in order that the day may come when no one, whether man, woman or child, will ever again need to feel the fear of being abused.

Today, let each one of us personally consider what we can do to ensure that the tragedy of five years ago is never repeated and that no more women and children are abused.

The Speaker: I invite all members and our visitors in the galleries to please stand and bow your heads for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

The Speaker: Please be seated.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today, and a question of concern to many people in the gallery, I believe, is directed to the Minister of Health. I believe she is expected. May I have some understanding from the government House leader as to whether she will be arriving?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I see her coming through the door, I think. The door opened.

Mrs McLeod: Shall I --

Mr Bradley: The door is open, I see. She must be on her way in.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would you wish to stand down your first question?

Mrs McLeod: If the Minister of Health is not to arrive momentarily, Mr Speaker, I'll stand down the first question.

Mr Bradley: She is here. Ms Boyd said she'll be right in here.

Mrs McLeod: Ah, yes.

Mr Bradley: Here she is here. Here she comes.

Mrs McLeod: If I may, Mr Speaker, in deference to the concern of many people who are in the gallery, I will await the arrival of the Minister of Health so I can place my first question to the minister.

Mr Speaker, as you have gathered, my first question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will note as she arrives that once again the galleries are filled, and they are filled with people who would rather be out working in their communities than protesting today. They're filled with people who have spent years delivering care to seniors and the disabled in communities across this province.

Minister, these people are here to protest the passage of your long-term-care bill. Throughout this debate, the minister has insisted that we on this side of the House are manufacturing the opposition to this bill. I want today to read to the minister from just one of the thousands of letters my colleagues and I have received.

This is a letter from the WoodGreen Community Centre, a multiservice, neighbourhood-based agency that's been serving seniors and families in Riverdale since 1937, and I quote the concern expressed in their letter:

"Innovation and flexibility will be lost in the multiservice agencies proposed by the Ontario government through Bill 173. Instead, seniors and people with disabilities will be served by bureaucratic, highly regulated and costly agencies without any choice."

Minister, can you explain to the people at WoodGreen centre why you're proceeding with Bill 173 despite the fact that people at this centre and hundreds of people like them have told you that this is the wrong thing to do?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The Leader of the Opposition and I and members on the other side of the floor have been having this debate now for quite some time.

I was a volunteer in my community when I think the Conservative government and then the Liberals began to recognize that we had in this province a first-class group of people providing long-term care but that it was fragmented, that not everybody could get the care they needed and that the professional work that was done by the people in the system, many of whom I know are here today, was undervalued, in many cases underpaid and was in fact excellent where it happened but not happening consistently across this province. So the changes that are proposed and that are going to produce a system that is integrated, that does provide one-stop shopping, are a replica of the agencies that are represented here today.

WoodGreen I know well. My colleague from Riverdale knows it well, worked with it, created it, supported it. It is a voluntary agency with a voluntary board, and voluntary agencies with voluntary boards will continue to deliver long-term care in this province. That's what reforming the system is all about, creating in neighbourhoods the same kind of agencies that have been providing bits of long-term care and making sure --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that they provide coordinated, holistic care for the seniors and the consumers who are also here today to show their support for Bill 173.

1430

Mrs McLeod: If the volunteers and the staff at a community centre that's been around for almost 60 years tell me that something won't work, then I think they are worth listening to. I know that you know the WoodGreen Community Centre well. That's why I chose to read excerpts from their letter, to express on their behalf to you their concerns in the hope that you would listen to the concerns of a group of people that you do know well.

Minister, let me read you a little more from their letter, another of their concerns:

"While the Ontario government is pushing the bill through the Legislature, the bureaucrats behind the scene are writing a policy manual that will dictate every single operation of the MSAs down to minute details. The policy manual that is being developed governs assessment tools, case management, even the square footage required for day programs. Not only are these rules culturally biased, they also stifle community development. It is a shame for the government to promise a consumer-driven system when the real control lies with the government and the bureaucracy." These are not my words, these are the words of the WoodGreen Community Centre.

Minister, for months now volunteers at community groups just like this one have been appearing at committees, they've been writing to you, they've been signing petitions, they've been doing anything to try and get your attention. Can you explain to them why you want to destroy community services that have been built by the people of this province over decades? Can you explain why you need to put in place a single monolithic bureaucracy to replace a truly community-based system?

Hon Mrs Grier: The long-term-care system that we have now and those 1,200 agencies that are so frequently mentioned range from agencies such as the VON and the Red Cross, which run across the whole province or in fact across the whole country, to very small neighbourhood agencies that provide home support services, services such as cleaning the oven and cleaning the windows for seniors who can no longer do that themselves.

As we ensure that no matter where you live and no matter what your needs are you get the services you need in a seamless fashion, it is precisely all of those agencies that are coming together to say, "Here's the minimum level of service that needs to be provided, and the province has a responsibility to see us provide it." But we have not done what your government wanted to do, which is to create coordinating agencies of bureaucrats run by the ministry of either Community and Social Services or Health. We have decentralized and we have said to the district health councils, "You tell us how many multiservice agencies there should be in the district that you cover." We have then said to the volunteers on the district health councils --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and to the volunteers on the long-term-care committees, "You design the system for your area and, within that, help to develop the voluntary boards and the volunteers who will run those agencies."

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her reply.

Hon Mrs Grier: That's the big difference between how you were going to do it and how we're doing it.

Mrs McLeod: In one respect the minister is right. The concerns that we've heard have come from community groups as widely ranging as the Victorian Order of Nurses and the Red Cross and Meals on Wheels to the very small, community-based organizations that simply have devoted a lot of their lives to providing service to people in communities. These organizations all believe, Minister, that the very people you claim you want to serve with your legislative changes are not going to be served at all.

You have tended to defend this legislation by saying that this is a way of saving money and that in saving money with this restructuring, you will be able to devote more money to service for seniors. The WoodGreen Community Centre people are ready to challenge your claim that this will save money in organization that can be used for service, and they write in their letter: "It is also irresponsible" -- "irresponsible," Minister -- "to use cost savings to sell the reform to the public when no cost analysis has ever been done by the Ministry of Health or by the district health councils."

The letter also says that you told community groups to look at the experience in Victoria, BC, as a good example of a jurisdiction where services have been consolidated, so let me tell you what they found when they did. Nursing services in that consolidated model are $55 per hour. Presently, for Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association of Ontario -- I take this from the WoodGreen Community Centre -- their cost is $39 per hour.

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

Mrs McLeod: In Victoria, service was lost. Seniors there have to wait three months for a call from their case manager.

Minister, you have no evidence that shutting down community agencies and setting up a new bureaucracy will reduce costs. In fact, it is likely to do exactly the opposite: increase costs and reduce service. Tell us why you are doing this. Tell us why you are deliberately ignoring and dismissing the pleas of volunteers and community organizations right across this province.

Hon Mrs Grier: The Leader of the Opposition keeps saying that we have not listened to people in making the changes. I would remind her that when we became the government and the proposal for bureaucracies that her government had put forward was out there for discussion, we had the broadest consultation that I think had ever been held in this province, with about 75,000 people participating.

What the seniors and the disabled said was, "Don't patronize us"; they said, "Don't tell us what you think is good for us; listen to us"; and they said, "Let us design the kinds of services we want." They said, "Put more money into the system," and we have. We have put $400 million more per year into the system.

We've listened to the providers. They are part of all of the work that has been going on, but when it comes right down to it, one of the criticisms of what we're doing that was in a local paper I think puts it very succinctly. They criticized me, because they said, "You've listened to the consumers and not to the providers." I make no apologies for that.

Mrs McLeod: We will return to this issue, but I want to direct a second question to the Minister of Energy.

ONTARIO HYDRO INVESTMENTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We are reminded again today that Ontario Hydro has clearly launched itself into the international marketplace and that it seems determined to behave as if it was a private corporation.

Clearly, Ontario Hydro is not a private corporation. Its shareholders are the people of this province who pay their hydro bills every month. I think that the people of this province need to know where you, as Minister of Energy, stand today on risky speculative investments on behalf of Ontario Hydro. Will you tell us exactly what you are prepared to do to ensure that Ontario Hydro ratepayers' interests are protected?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): The former Minister of Energy knows full well that the public corporation, the utility in this province, is appearing before the Ontario Energy Board at my request to deal with these very issues. We await the advice of the Ontario Energy Board in order to be able to come forward with a comprehensive position with regard to these very matters. It would be quite premature for me to make a statement in the House today prejudging what the Ontario Energy Board's recommendations might be.

Mrs McLeod: I'm interested in knowing the minister's policy and the government's policy on the specific issues of speculative investments on the part of Ontario Hydro. I think that people in this province were shocked when they realized that Ontario Hydro had already spent $108 million buying into a utility in Peru. Minister, this was a deal that you approved, even though you acknowledged that the ratepayers would be put at risk through this deal.

Now we learn that Ontario Hydro is looking at spending some $92 million more on six different projects in seven foreign countries, and what we hear today is that the chairman of Ontario Hydro wants -- in fact, I think it's fair to say the chairman of Ontario Hydro demands -- permission to go ahead with these investments without having cabinet approval on each project.

Minister, are you prepared to pick up the telephone today and tell the chairman of Ontario Hydro that he does not have free rein?

1440

Hon Mr Wildman: It takes a bit of chutzpah for the former Minister of Energy to talk about this government, which has frozen electricity rates two years running, and for the first time in 30 years lowered industrial rates somewhat. To have this member, who put all of the ratepayers at risk in this province by deciding to proceed with Darlington, which wasn't needed in this province -- it really is ridiculous for this member to have the gall to get up and ask that question.

The member asked me if I will pick up the telephone and phone Mr Strong. I will be happy to do that at any time.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, just a moment to set the record straight: I was a former Minister of Energy. I was Minister of Energy from 1989 to 1990. Darlington was a project approved in 1978. I was Minister of Energy at a time when we were preparing to put Ontario Hydro's plans before an environmental assessment, which this government abandoned.

I also remind the current Minister of Energy that the Ontario Hydro rate freeze came after a 40% increase in hydro rates, and that Hydro never before has risked Ontario Hydro ratepayers' moneys with the kinds of risky investments that he approved on the investment in Peru. That's why this question is before this House today, and that's why this Minister of Energy --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Perth.

Mrs McLeod: -- today has got to give a clear answer to the people of this province as to what he is prepared to do with Ontario Hydro --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: The question of Ontario Hydro making speculative investments internationally, where they have absolutely no track record in making the investments, and yet they are looking for a free rein -- Hydro apparently overbid the Peru investment by some millions of dollars. There is no guaranteed return on the investment.

I ask the minister, based on that track record, do you have any confidence in the kinds of investment decisions that Ontario Hydro is making? And tell us once again: What are you prepared to do to make sure that Ontario Hydro ratepayers don't end up paying for Ontario Hydro's roll of the dice?

Hon Mr Wildman: I guess the honourable member opposite doesn't really understand arithmetic. She is concerned, and I think rightly --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: I think that she is rightly concerned about the possible risk to the ratepayers in investments related to millions of dollars. But it is interesting that she believes that is a greater risk than the risk she put the ratepayers at by agreeing to spend up to $14 billion on a plant that their party said was not needed. It is interesting that this member can ignore the expenditure -- unwise, unwanted, improper expenditure -- of billions of dollars but raise concerns about the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars.

This government and this minister are indeed concerned about the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is for that very reason that the chair of the board of Ontario Hydro is putting evidence before the Ontario Energy Board. All interested groups will be able to put forward their positions and then the government will consider the recommendations based on all of the evidence as it relates to the risks facing the ratepayers of Ontario.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, I want to begin by saying that my party and caucus are firmly committed to better access and more coordination of services in the long-term-care sector. However, we have come to believe that Bill 173 is not about helping seniors.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Oxford, come to order.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's about cutting deals with Sid Ryan and unions. According to Toronto's Eye magazine, your last-minute amendments that gave preference to the hiring of unionized workers in the home health care sector were tabled and passed so that Sid Ryan would keep his mouth shut at your party's convention two weeks ago in Hamilton. While Mr Ryan kept quiet during your convention and you delivered your Bill 173 labour amendments, seniors, the disabled and providers are left wondering what effect this backroom deal will have on the long-term-care system of this province.

Minister, now that Sid Ryan is once again loosening his lips, do you think it was worth it to gamble away the future of seniors, the disabled and home health care provider agencies in order to gain a couple of weeks of silence from CUPE?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): It's hard not to get as angry as the member opposite sometimes gets when that kind of allegation is made, because nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, had the member been here yesterday, he might have heard Mr Ryan in the galleries not being at all silent about anything this government does. We do not do things because we think somebody will be quiet. In fact, if that had been the reason for everything we had done as a government, perhaps we wouldn't have achieved as much as we have done.

If you're going to protect our health care system, if you're going to plan for the future, a future that is going to have a great many more seniors than we have even today, and if you're going to make some changes that can assure the people this system is designed to serve that it will be here to protect them in the future, you do what you think is right and you consult and you listen and then you have the courage and the leadership to make the changes that are required.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Minister, you talk about consultation, but this is not the model for long-term-care reform that Frances Lankin talked to Judith Leon and Senior Link about for years. It is not the model that Evelyn Gigantes, the other Health minister for your government, was discussing with seniors in this province. This is something you've developed since June. My colleague has indicated clearly, with evidence, that the labour unions have had a huge impact on this bill.

Here are the facts. Sid Ryan came before our very committee and openly said that the activities of the $37 million worth of human resources in volunteers daily going on in this province should be curtailed because they should only be doing recreational work. According to your bill, in the deal you made with Sid Ryan, you're going to have a laid-off registered nurse from a hospital out there driving Meals on Wheels. Now, that's not the system that's done efficiently, economically and in the best interests of seniors in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr Jackson: Minister, will you not consider a flexible model and eliminate this 80-20 rule to restore the autonomy and integrity of those agencies that are providing services in our community?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member starts his question talking about unions and deals -- nothing could be further from the truth -- and he ends it up by coming to the nub of what matters to the ideologues on the other side of the House, which is that they want to privatize the system, because by eliminating the requirement that there would be an integrated provision of service that is what they are opening the door to.

Interjections.

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

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I want to be very clear that our party and our caucus believe in the VON, in the Red Cross, in the Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses, in Meals on Wheels and all the current service providers and thousands and thousands of volunteers who have done a very good job of serving our seniors, our disabled people and those needing home care services across this province.

1450

Minister, clearly the evidence is in that this legislation will not be able to be implemented and up and running before you call an election. Given that within 60 days of forming the new government, our caucus will scrap the 80-20 rule in your MSA model, will scrap the labour adjustment clauses of Bill 173, which favour unionized workers only, given that commitment, given that there is no way to have this up and running before you call an election, will you do the honourable thing and delay 173, stop the forced unionization, stop the uncertainty, delay it until after an election and save the taxpayers and the volunteers turmoil and money? Will you do that today?

Hon Mrs Grier: There is no way that I or this government want to expose the seniors and the disabled of this province to the health care levy of The Common Sense Revolution that is going to raise $400 million for health care. We support a publicly funded system, we support a publicly administered system --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for London North, order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- and we will not stand to see the health care system of this province privatized as the members opposite advocate.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: We're prepared to let the people of Ontario decide. We're prepared.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, there are over 25 district MNR offices in Ontario. Staff at these offices are responsible for fish and game law enforcement within their areas.

It is our understanding that you issued directives for 1994 which mean that conservation officers must now do most of their work from the office; that they don't have enough gas money to do routine checks in the field in order to catch poachers and others who violate our conservation laws; that they must rely more than ever on tips from the public and sitting in an office waiting for calls to come in.

Minister, is this true? Has the party that claims to have a monopoly on environmental conservation directed all ministry enforcement officers to now respond only to emergencies?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): I'm pleased to respond to the question from the leader of the third party. In our government, we believe in managing the budget and we believe within the Ministry of Natural Resources in working with the budget we have, and we do that rather than engage in the kind of rhetoric that the leader of the third party engages in.

In districts across the province, district managers are working very hard to meet their budgets. In some places in the province that may mean they will not be doing as much flying as they have done in the past. In other places in the province, that may mean that staff are restricted in terms of travel outside the district.

In other places in the province, depending upon what the district manager believes will suit the priority of his or her district, depending upon what they believe are the needs that have to be responded to in terms of the provincial interest, district managers have assigned to staff certain levels of priority. In the case of some conservation officers in southern Ontario, yes, they will be replying to Crime Stoppers tips; yes, they will be replying to complaints; yes, where they have been told there is something they should investigate, they will be replying to those, and certainly to all emergencies.

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

Hon Mr Hampton: So, yes, the laws are being enforced, and I might say that if the member wants to look at some of the compliance results across the province for this year, he would be very impressed indeed.

Mr Harris: The Toronto Sun reported this morning that taxpayers will be footing the bill for a half-million-dollar advertising blitz that a downtown Toronto bureaucrat says is the top priority now for the Ministry of Natural Resources, an advertising blitz to promote your ministry's so-called efforts on forestry and wilderness protection.

Minister, since 1990 your ministry has already spent $1.5 million on advertising. I would like to ask you this: Just what could you be promoting when you have decreased the ministry's operating budget by $60 million? What good are the laws, what good are the regulations if in fact there are no dollars for enforcing them out in the field? And I would ask you this: How can you now justify taking an additional half a million dollars out of the hands of the conservation enforcement officers in some last-minute, desperate effort to boost your flagging image in time for an election call?

Hon Mr Hampton: I'm glad to reply to the rhetoric of the third-party leader again. The records will show that the Ministry of Natural Resources in Ontario now is advertising 40% less than the previous Liberal government, and if you factor in inflation, much, much less than the profligate ways when the member was the Minister of Natural Resources in this province. Check the record. Factor in inflation. These are the people who used to run ads -- get this -- called "Preserve it, conserve it" ads, and they asked the taxpayers of the province to pay for those ads.

In the area of forest management and forest conservation, our government has done a great deal. We have established a $100-million forest renewal trust fund, the first ever in the province. We have developed an old-growth policy. We are establishing forest policy in the province that treats the forest as an ecosystem, not just as a place to harvest timber. These are all things that the people of Ontario want to know about, and we are going to let them know about it.

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

Hon Mr Hampton: I should say that none of this money, this very minor amount of money, is coming out of the ministry budget. It is part of the plan to let people in Ontario know what's happening in our forests. A lot of good things are happening in our forests.

1500

Mr Harris: We spoke with an MNR staff member in one district office facing severe financial constraints, who for obvious reasons asked not to be identified. He told us that for the area he covers within his district, he has $1,500 left in his budget for this fiscal year. That's less than $15 a day to put gas in the vehicles, to cover maintenance and to operate the office.

We asked him this question: Would it help to divide the half a million dollars that the minister says today is a puny or a teeny little amount, would it help to divide that $500,000 you are wasting on your public image among the provincial district offices? He said: "It would be a dream come true. It would be a dream come true if we could have our share of that half a million dollars to actually do our job."

Minister, will you allow the conservation officers in the field to have their dream come true, cancel this half-million-dollar advertising boondoggle and give the tax dollars to the field offices where they rightly belong?

Hon Mr Hampton: We have established a forest renewal trust fund and we intend to let the people of Ontario know how they can take part in the forest renewal trust fund. We've established a private woodlot sustainability fund and we intend to let all of the woodlot owners in Ontario and other people who are interested in rural farm woodlots know how they can take part in that. Investment in our forests in Ontario is higher how than in other provinces and it's going higher, and we intend to let people know that's happening and let them know how they may be able to take part in some of those good things.

I would like to say to the leader of the third party that we make some tough decisions in managing our budget, and yes, that may not meet favour with everyone out there. But I'd say to the leader of the third party, the author of the so-called Non-Sense Revolution, that with a budget of $500 million in the Ministry of Natural Resources, which he proposes to cut by 20%, $100 million, that wouldn't be just a difficult decision for some of those people out in the field, it would be a nightmare, and it would be a nightmare for the resources of this province.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want to return to the Minister of Health on the issue of long-term care, because I do not believe it is too late to fix the long-term-care bill so that we have a workable solution. We have worked a long time in this caucus for the reform of the long-term-care system and we don't want to see it lost.

Let me make it as clear as I possibly can that we support a coordinated approach to long-term care. What we cannot support is bringing that about by creating a monolithic bureaucracy that replaces community-based organizations.

Minister, I believe that if you are willing to listen to the people who are here today, if you are willing to listen to the concerns of all the people who have written to you, you could fix the bill and you could have a system that builds on community strengths instead of devastating them.

Again, let me share with you not my concerns, but the concerns of one of those community organizations, a letter from the Catholic Family Services of Toronto. "While we need coordination, we fear the prospect of high degrees of centralization and bureaucratization of long-term care in the province. We wonder if the creation of multiservice agencies will ultimately lead to the loss of control by the local communities, by a highly centralized structure of a multiservice agency."

Minister, you've told this House repeatedly that this won't happen, that the members of the opposition are simply wrong when we believe that's going to be one of the results of this bill. What do you say to a dedicated agency like the Catholic Family Services of Toronto when they tell you that's their concern?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I say to them, as I hope the Leader of the Opposition has said to them, that a multiservice agency that serves a population of 50,000 or 60,000 people, that has a board of volunteers elected from among those people and has on that board one third consumers or caregivers to consumers, and that that agency will be receiving an envelope of funding within which to provide services, I hope she will join me in explaining that nothing could be less centralized or less bureaucratic.

Mrs McLeod: No, I will not join with this minister in telling these agencies that they are wrong, because I share their concerns. I believe their concerns are legitimate.

Another of the concerns they've raised with you and that we've raised with you over and over again is the impact of this bill on volunteers.

The Sudbury chapter of Meals on Wheels wrote and said, "The view of the NDP government that suggests that volunteers will wholeheartedly volunteer for the MSA is a very broad statement given that the volunteers I speak to deny this." That's what volunteers across the province are telling me and telling my colleagues, and I know they're telling you and your colleagues the same thing.

My colleague Dalton McGuinty received a letter from the director of public affairs at the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, who outlines his concerns about the MSA model. Here's what he said about its impact on volunteers:

"The importance of the volunteer sector, its role in developing values of citizenship and community responsibility, its potential to enable governments to cut their budgets while preserving our quality of life, will become more apparent than ever in this decade. These are some of the reasons why I believe the Rae government's proposed MSA structure" --

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

Mrs McLeod: -- "which would undermine community-based voluntary organizations to create another government bureaucracy, is a serious public policy error."

Minister, from the executive director of Meals on Wheels in Sudbury to an authority on volunteerism --

The Speaker: Leader, please place a question.

Mrs McLeod: -- people are telling you that volunteers will not volunteer for your government agency. You say we're raising alarm bells. What do you say to the people at Meals on Wheels in Sudbury, to the public affairs director at the centre for philanthropy, when they tell you you are making a serious public policy error?

Hon Mrs Grier: I don't know what the date is of the letter the member is quoting from, but I would remind her that the concern that was raised to ensure that volunteers continue to play their invaluable role in this system was precisely why amendments to the legislation were put in place to ensure that each multiservice agency develop a volunteer plan and have the resources to support and to educate and to train and to recruit volunteers.

Let me point her to those areas of the province where coordination of community-based services has already occurred, areas like Durham, where with my colleague for Durham-York I was visiting Community Care last week, areas like Victoria-Haliburton, like Haldimand-Norfolk, like Grey-Bruce, where in fact the community-based services have already begun to come together to coordinate, to integrate, and are finding that they are creating new and enhanced opportunities and satisfaction for volunteers. That's what's going to happen as volunteer agencies called multiservice agencies are created by volunteers for volunteers and with volunteers.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question for the Minister of Health as well. Madam Minister, as you know, I've had some involvement with Bills 108 and 109, with the Consent to Treatment Act and Substitute Decisions Act.

We've had over the past year many articles written in the press which have been quite frightening, particularly to many seniors in our province, about the impact of powers of attorney for property and powers of attorney for personal care. Quite frankly, I found those frightening stories to be very erroneous and false, and in fact I think it's a very, very good piece of legislation in that aspect.

However, I feel the press and the public have missed perhaps the most frightening part of this legislation, and that is the insertion of an advocate between a patient and his or her health care provider and the family and that health care provider.

When are you planning to proclaim this legislation, which is going to have a dramatic effect on how health care is delivered in the province of Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The three pieces of legislation that for the first time in this province give the vulnerable some rights and some ability to exercise those rights, the Advocacy Act, the Substitute Decisions Act, and the Consent to Treatment Act, will be proclaimed early in the new year.

Mr Sterling: Madam Minister, my concern is that I don't think many people, particularly health care providers -- I believe there are probably somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 health care providers in this province -- have any idea about how this is going to impact on them.

I might remind you, Madam Minister, that under the bill it is incumbent on any health care provider who finds a person they are treating to be incapable to advise that person in writing and to advise that person orally that they have the right to call an advocate and they have the right to challenge the finding that the person is incapable. If those people are truly incapable -- and there are many people who are incapable and are being treated in our health care system -- there are going to be many of those incapable patients who will want to see a rights adviser.

1510

Madam Minister, there are, as I said, 300,000 to 500,000 health care providers in this province. There are plans to have I believe 150 or 200 advocates in this province. How on earth are we going to have a health care system which can function efficiently and can treat people in a timely manner if in fact the regulations are not even struck under this act at this present time?

Will you assure us in this Legislature, will you assure the people of Ontario that you will stall the proclamation of this act until the regulations have been proclaimed and every health care provider in the province of Ontario has had ample time to be educated on how these are to be applied and we have trained advocates in place, whatever a trained advocate might be?

Hon Mrs Grier: I know of the member's support for this legislation and I'm very glad to be able to reassure him that all of the health care professionals -- in fact our number is 200,000; he says 300,000 -- have already been sent a package of information about the legislation so that they can understand it and recognize their roles.

There have been extensive consultations with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, for example, with respect to the development of the regulations, which are expected to be passed very shortly. There has been a travelling group of lawyers and representatives from the various ministries going around the province holding sessions and public forums so that everybody can be aware of it. The Advocacy Commission has been advertising and is in the process of recruiting the advocates. The concerns that he raises are legitimate ones of which we are very much aware and ones which I can assure him are being very adequately addressed.

WETLANDS

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Howard Hampton. My concern is in regard to the Lynde Marsh, which is located on the north shore of Lake Ontario, in the riding of Durham Centre. The marsh, which is a marvellous and dynamic natural resource of plant and animal life, is located entirely within an area protected by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. However, there is a proposal to develop the land to the east of the conservation area. The proposal has developed a great deal of controversy in our area. A lot of people in our town, Whitby, and Oshawa and Ajax are deeply concerned about this development.

My question refers to the steps followed by your ministry to ensure that this class 1 wetland is preserved. Did your ministry comment on the proposals, known as Lynde Shores, to develop the land east of the Lynde Marsh and south of the 401 highway in Whitby?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): On the subject of the Lynde Marsh, there is some history to this issue. Back in about 1988-89, a development plan was circulated by the developer. It's my understanding that at that time the Ministry of Natural Resources commented on the draft plan of subdivision. At that time there was no wetlands policy statement in place in Ontario; it was still under development.

The official plan amendment which designates these lands for development was circulated in 1989 and was subsequently approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. MNR, as I said, did not object to the plan at that time because there was no wetlands policy statement that had been approved. Since that time, however, there has been a revised plan of subdivision, so some work has been done on that revised plan of subdivision, noting what potential impacts on wetlands there might be.

Mr White: Since your ministry commented on these proposals, our government has developed the wetlands policy you mentioned, a policy that has been rather virulently opposed by the opposition members. Would these proposals in any way be changed, moderated by the wetlands policy? Would that likely have an effect on a proposal like Lynde Shores, or would they in any way affect the buffer area around those wetlands?

Hon Mr Hampton: As I'm sure the member knows, the whole issue of the Lynde Marsh has now been referred to the OMB for a hearing, so I will not comment on that specific proposal. But the idea behind the wetlands policy is to give municipal councils the tools to identify provincially significant wetlands within their boundaries and the tools to arrange for the protection of those provincially significantly wetlands by means of the Planning Act.

If this kind of proposal were to come forward now, it would be subject to the wetlands policy and all of the tools that have been placed in the wetlands policy and that are at the disposal of municipal councils and municipal planning bodies would be available to ensure that development could take place but development could not threaten or otherwise risk harm to the wetland.

TEACHER MISCONDUCT

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, I think you'll know that today in the province of Ontario a school teacher can, one, admit or be found to have engaged in sexual activity with a student; two, after due process be found guilty of professional misconduct by a professional association; and three, after the teacher is terminated from his or her employment by a board of education, that teacher can in fact literally walk across the street, be hired by another board and continue teaching, sometimes literally within metres of the school from which he or she was fired as a result of sexual misconduct. I remind you that that happens after a finding by a professional association of misconduct.

The question I have for you, Minister, is, what are you prepared to do today to address this obvious deficiency in our system and, in so doing, protect the integrity of the teaching profession and, equally if not more important, afford a greater sense of protection to the students who are entrusted to our care in the educational system in the province of Ontario?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think the member would also be aware that there's a process under the act that involves the professional organization as well that can provide for a teaching certificate to be pulled from a teacher, and that does happen in the province.

It's an independent process that ultimately comes to the minister's desk for approval and, whatever the recommendations are, those recommendations have consistently been accepted by Education ministers. So there is a process to pull a certificate, but it's an independent process that ultimately reports and recommends to the minister.

Mr McClelland: I am in point of fact aware of that, as I would think are most, if not all, members of the House. I'm referring to a situation that is not hypothetical but in fact does exist, where after due process, after a hearing by the appropriate professional association and/or federation, a finding of misconduct is obtained.

In that situation there seems to me a deficiency, where a teacher can, as I said, literally walk across the street and continue teaching, notwithstanding the finding of misconduct by that professional association in that due process. It seems to me very, very evident that there is within the system a grave deficiency.

The question I'm asking you, Minister, is not in terms of the process, but will you commit today to sitting down with the appropriate association reps and federation reps and looking at regulations that would ensure that that deficiency no longer exists and, as I said, look at the interests of both the profession and, more importantly or equally importantly, I would say, the appropriate protection that should be given to students within our system? Minister, I'm asking you to commit to sit down with the federations and address this issue to close that obvious and apparent deficiency.

Hon Mr Cooke: I guess it would be helpful to me, if there's a specific case that the member is referring to, that he might want to share that information with me privately. Of course, whatever action needs to be taken, we would all be committed to making sure that if a teacher engages in misconduct, abusing a student physically, sexually, then obviously that is the type of teacher whom none of us would want to have in the classrooms or have contact with our students. It would be helpful to me if the member could share the specific information, and then we'll go from there.

1520

NEGATIVE OPTION MARKETING

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Every day Ontarians receive junk mail which is often immediately thrown out. Many find that in doing that, they have given their consent to be billed for some sort of good or service. This is considered negative option marketing because the onus is on the consumer to say no before being taken off the direct-billing treadmill.

Recently, every Ontarian with cable service received this magazine in the mail. Enclosed with this third-class mail was a deeply personalized letter. The salutation reads, "Dear Movie Lover," and it goes on to suggest that: "You don't have to do anything to continue with this free service. You just simply have to phone in to your cable company to avoid being automatically billed $3 per month plus taxes." But nowhere in this letter does it give you a phone number. There's a card buried inside.

My question, Minister: What are you doing, as the minister responsible for consumers in Ontario, to ensure that you're protecting unsuspecting consumers who are getting caught in the money trap of negative option marketing?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Indeed, it's a very good question. I should inform the member that, as he well knows, under existing legislation, negative option marketing of fixed-term contracts for goods and services is not covered. If you have a fixed-term contract, in fact there's nothing at this point against the law with the negative option.

I would at this point advise consumers who are currently receiving contracted goods or services to really carefully screen their contract and know what they're getting into. I would also suggest to those who don't wish to renew their contracted services or receive additional or repackaged services to notify the company of their wishes in advance. People should do that.

What I should let you know is that under the Consumer Protection Act at this time, people who receive unsolicited goods who do not have or haven't had a previous contract, do not have to pay for them. Unfortunately, at this time under the law, if they have a contract and they don't notice it, if they don't screen their contract properly, they do.

Mr Jackson: That sounds more like an insert from a pamphlet that's buried somewhere in her ministry, not an answer to this question.

Consumers deserve better personal protection for their budgets at home. They deserve better from your ministry, and Ontario consumers deserved better from even the previous government. I recall that Monte Kwinter, who was then the minister, sounded the alert back in 1989 on negative option advertising, but nothing was done then and nothing has been done with your government.

I'd like to send over a copy of a bill which I'll be tabling in the House tomorrow, entitled the Consensual Transactions Act. It will stop negative option marketing in this province. I raised this issue with you in the House on November 23, and to date I've not received a response. I hope you'll consider this bill and give a proper response, because Ontario is lagging behind Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, three provinces that have already brought in legislation to protect their consumers on negative option marketing.

Minister, my question is: Will you take the time out from your promoting casino gambling in this province to support a simple bill to help protect vulnerable consumers who are forced to gamble with their own personal budgets and planning because of the continuation of your government's inaction on negative option marketing in Ontario?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, I would say that --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Why don't you just make it illegal?

Hon Ms Churley: I think I have another question. Whose should I answer, Mr Speaker?

Mr Mahoney: Answer mine. Just make it illegal.

Hon Ms Churley: Yes, I think I prefer Steve's.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Churley: I find it really interesting that almost every day I hear Tories stand up in this House and ask for new regulation and a new bill. Every single problem that crops up, they're on their feet asking yet again, "Spend more money, bring in new bills, bring in new regulation." But on the other hand, in their Common Sense Revolution they talk about cutting, revolutionarily, regulations and bills and making the marketplace easier. They really can't have it both ways.

People out there are going to start recognizing after a while -- at least you're trying to have it both ways, but you can't -- people out there are going to start noticing, "Hey, one day they're asking for a new bill and the next day they're saying we're going to cut them all."

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Ms Churley: There is a need to deal with this problem, as I said to the member. There are many, many consumer issues out there that are not covered by legislation that perhaps should be covered by legislation that we have to take a look at, and I'll be happy to work with my colleague to see what we can do.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to bring to your attention today something that concerns most of the members in this House from time to time, and that is the length of the oratory leading into questions, which severely limits the ability of each and every member, whether they be a government member or an opposition member, to ask a question of a minister in this House.

I have concerns from my constituency that I feel I should be able to address in this House. My concern is with the speeches that are given in this House that have a small question attached to the other end.

I would like the privilege, as every member in this House should have, to rise in this House and ask a question. Mr Speaker, if you would check throughout Hansard in question period, I believe you will find that members are being severely restricted from asking pertinent questions that deal with their constituency to ministers of the crown in this House.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No, there's no need to drag this one out. Indeed, it's not just the length of the questions, it's the length of the replies. Today the member in fact was not done a particular service by his colleague who was answering and took a bit more time than perhaps was needed.

If all members would keep the length of their questions short and the length of the replies short, we would have a lot more members from all sides of the House having an opportunity to pose questions, to try and assist the concerns which are expressed within their constituencies. I appreciate the matter raised by the member for Norfolk.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I have great sympathy with the member for Norfolk and, considering the length of time of some of the questions and some of the answers, I think the member makes a very valid point that should be addressed. As a consensus I know that we can reach in this place, I will put the question to ask for unanimous consent to add another hour to question period today.

The Speaker: The member has a legitimate point of order. Is there unanimous consent to extend question period by one hour?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Aside from myself, I heard at least one negative voice.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I want to be able to help you out with this and to express sympathy with the member's concern. I guess what we have to explain, and you as Speaker have to explain, are your limitations on just how much you can limit either questions or answers. You can implore members.

If this is to be addressed appropriately, it would seem to me that the Legislative Assembly committee or some similar committee could talk about giving the Speaker authorization to cut either questions or answers off after a certain period of time. I don't blame the Speaker, because you don't have that latitude at the present time and you try to be as accommodating as possible.

I listened to some lengthy questions here, a very lengthy question by one of the member's colleagues and a lengthy answer on a matter of importance to Durham Centre. All of those things add up and individual members can't get their questions on. I'm very sympathetic to that. I would also be very supportive of the member for Etobicoke West, who suggests that we have a two-hour question period.

Interjection.

The Speaker: All right, but briefly, please.

Mr Jamison: The point that I was making was that in some of the questions presented there are three and four questions given at one time from the opposition, which call for an expanded answer. If you were to check, Mr Speaker, you would find this to be true.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jamison: -- that I have heard you in this House asking that the question be concisely put. I have listened to you from your chair, I have listened to you on your feet saying the same thing, and I've also watched you try to bring a question about when no question seemed to appear.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, that the problem is not just the length of the question, it's the number of questions presented at one time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Briefly.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Unless members are prepared to change the standing orders, which is being suggested by the honourable House leader of the opposition, indeed the best discipline in this matter is self-discipline. The Speaker does not have an opportunity to pose questions or answer them. It is your question period. If you wish to have more members asking questions, then indeed some self-discipline has to come to rule in this chamber.

1530

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition submitted by some Ottawa residents from my riding.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any 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 any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I affix my signature.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas 81% of all driving fatalities are alcohol-related;

"Whereas 59% (or 18,000) of the 30,000 total convictions for drunk driving in 1992 involved repeat offenders;

"Whereas the Drinking and Driving in Ontario Statistical Yearbook released by the Ministry of the Attorney General's Drinking/Driving Countermeasures Office confirmed that drunk driving is on the rise;

"Whereas drunk driving is the number one killer of young people;

"Whereas the existing measures and penalties have failed to deter chronic drunk drivers from reoffending;

"Whereas driving is a privilege, not a right, and chronic drunk drivers have failed to take their driving responsibilities seriously;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact Margaret Marland's private member's Bill 195, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act" --

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: -- "or similar legislation prior to the recess of the Ontario Legislature on December 8, 1994."

I am upset by the fact that the member for Perth would not want to protect people from being killed by drunk drivers. I will lend my support for this petition with my signature.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): This is not a petition that pats myself on the back. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the NDP government has stressed that equality of treatment is essential in a modern society; and

"Whereas the former Liberal government chose to exclude thousands of workers in the Pension Benefits Act, 1988, whose employment was terminated prior to January 1, 1988; and

"Whereas workers are being denied access to pension funds that are in fact deferred wages;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact changes to the Pension Benefits Act that will enable workers whose employment was terminated prior to 1988 the options to:

"(a) purchase a locked-in retirement account (LIRA) or a life-income account, or

"(b) transfer the pension money to the pension fund of the new employer, and that these workers be allowed the right to begin receiving payment of their pension funds or LIRA at age 55."

This is a petition that's put together by members in the Blenheim, Chatham and Tilbury area and I do affix my signature to it.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Mr Speaker, I wanted you to know that these petitions keep coming to my office, and this petition reads:

"Whereas the NDP government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed homes and unlicensed rooming houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are other neighbourhoods where the criminally insane could be assessed and treated; and

"Whereas no one was consulted -- not the local residents and business community; not leaders of community organizations; not education and child care providers; and not even the NDP member of the government for Fort York;

"We, therefore, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the NDP government of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by over 1,500 residents of Leeds and Grenville addressed to Ontario Premier Bob Rae and 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 OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

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

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

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

I'm affixing my signature.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): On behalf of my colleague Bob Huget, the member for Sarnia, I have a number of petitions for him here. He, as you know, with his new position as minister, cannot bring petitions. We have one here:

"Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Environment and Energy to deny the county of Lambton the right to establish a composite waste management facility, including the landfill site north of the Sombra-Moore town line at either site designated I or H by Lambton county's consultant, M.M. Dillon Ltd, in the draft master plan report."

This I bring to you on behalf of my colleague Bob Huget.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The honourable member for Eglinton.

AUTISM SERVICES

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm not going to pout any more.

"To the Legislative Assembly 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;

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

"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 heartily support this petition and have affixed my signature.

FIREARMS SAFETY

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

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

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

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the 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 only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I've signed that petition.

1540

CHANGE OF VENUE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition here and it's signed by 880 names from the town of Cochrane. It was presented to me by the mayor, David S. Hughes from Cochrane.

"The Genereux murder trial that is taking place in Timmins in 1994...in order to save the people involved the emotional and financial stress of travelling to Timmins, we believe the trial should be relocated to the Cochrane District Courthouse in the town of Cochrane."

I support this petition. As I said before, it's signed by 880 people from the town of Cochrane.

LADY EVELYN-SMOOTHWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Again I have one here for my colleague, Bob Huget from Sarnia, and this is a petition with regard to the bicycle helmet.

"To the 35th Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 124...Traffic Act" -- it's with regard to the bicycle helmet law,

"We, the undersigned, petition the 35th Parliament of the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"An age limit with...because of freedom of choice and the rules and regulations."

There are a number of people from his riding who signed this and I give it to the Speaker.

ADOPTION

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): "Whereas the right of adopted persons in Ontario to know their natural identity is denied; and

"Whereas the present disclosure system under the Child and Family Services Act is discriminatory, inefficient and expensive and government has demonstrated an inability to provide service in a timely fashion since 1979; and

"Whereas provincial government studies since 1976 have repeatedly recommended that adopted adults be granted unrestricted access to their original birth registrations; and

"Whereas there is widespread public and political support for these rights to be recognized and codified; and

"Whereas Bill 158 has passed second reading in the House by a wide margin and is now before the standing committee on social development; and

"Whereas this bill addresses the right of adopted persons to obtain their own birth certificates and provides a mechanism for birth parents to register a veto prohibiting contact from the person they surrendered parental rights to; and

"Whereas 1994 has been designated the Year of the Family;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, petition the 35th Parliament of Ontario to act without further delay and respectfully request that Bill 158 be put on the committee's agenda."

I have signed this petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Bob Huget, my colleague, has a petition with regard to the Workers' Compensation Board, and because it's fairly long, I'll finish with this:

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

This is again signed by a number of residents in his riding and I have put this for the record.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to help us to protect our children by changing the current maximum penalty of 10 years for sexual interference to a minimum of five years with mandatory counselling and up to and including life imprisonment as a maximum penalty."

I have signed the petition and support it.

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I have several hundred petitions that read as follows:

"We object to the manner in which the IWA's work is being rushed through a constrained environmental assessment. We do not agree with the review's conclusion that IWA's environmental assessment is adequate in addressing required components of the EA Act for satisfactory and technical quality, level of detail and range of alternatives.

"We refer you to the submissions made by the King-Vaughan Environmental Coalition for a fuller explanation of our concerns."

As I said, this is signed by several hundred residents of my riding.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Cooper from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 176, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Slow Moving Vehicle Signs / Projet de loi 176, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne le panneau de véhicule lent.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 176 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail et la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1546 to 1551.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms Coppen has moved third reading of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise, until recognized, one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Crozier, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 63, the nays are 45.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Before I call the first order, again we have some agreements that the House leaders have discussed to bring to the House and seek the consent of the House to proceed with.

Firstly, the first two items I'll be calling today are the eighth order, which is Bill 173, and the seventh order, which is Bill 171. On both of these bills we have agreed that, regardless of the presence in the House at the time, we will see a division on both of these items, on no other items today but on both of these items. So that's the eighth order and the seventh order.

Secondly, on the eighth order we have agreed that the minister will start off the debate, taking 10 minutes, and that the government will reserve two additional five-minute slots for other members, for a total of 20 minutes, and the opposition will split the remainder of the time in that debate.

With respect to the seventh order, the minister will lead off with a five-minute opening, we will reserve two five-minute additional pieces for other government members, and the remainder of the time will be split by the opposition on Bill 171.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Say when the votes will be.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The divisions.

Hon Mrs Grier: The divisions will be tomorrow.

Hon Mr Charlton: Well, we're just coming to that, yes. And we've also agreed to continue today, that on any votes between 6 o'clock and midnight where a division occurs, the standing vote on that division will be deferred until orders of the day tomorrow.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Agreed? Agreed.

1600

LONG-TERM CARE ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Mrs Grier moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care / Projet de loi 173, Loi concernant les soins de longue durée.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): It is with great pride and with great pleasure that I open this third reading debate on Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care. I know we have with us for this debate in the galleries representatives of a number of groups, from the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance for Long-Term Care Reform, Canadian Pensioners Concerned, the Ontario Coalition of Seniors' Organizations, the CAW Retired Workers and the Ad Hoc Consumer Coalition on Long-Term Care, as well as representatives from the Red Cross and home care organizations and home support organizations.

I want to say that this bill is about all of them and I hope they will come to realize that this bill is for all of them, because if there is any aspect of health care where I think both the providers and the consumers are integrated entities, it is in the provision of long-term care and particularly the provision of long-term care in the community.

I hope they will recognize that some of the amendments and provisions in this bill are designed to provide a continuance of a seamless delivery of service and an enhancement of that delivery of service for the consumers, about whom I know the providers care deeply, and to ensure for the providers that their professional experience in working life has the satisfaction and the order and the ability to do what they do best, which is serve the seniors and the disabled, which many of them want.

Today's debate marks the culmination of many years of debate, of study, of work and of thought regarding the long-term care system in this province. It also marks the beginning of a new period, a beginning of implementing long-term care within the framework of this bill. Passage of this bill does not start the process; it began a very long time ago. In fact many of the reforms that this bill contemplates are already in place or are already in the process of being planned by district health councils all across the province.

It marks the culmination of a lot of debate that was started 10 or 12 years ago by the Conservatives, a debate that continued under the Liberals and that continued, again, during the clause-by-clause hearings on Bill 173. In the focus that has been made on Bill 173 we have, I think, forgotten some of the preamble, some of the identification of the need for an enhanced and improved system.

We've forgotten some of the commitment that is being made in funding and the enhanced funding that is already out there in communities across the province to create a system of long-term care, as opposed to the patches -- excellent patches, but patches -- that were in place around the province. I have sometimes referred to this as creating all of those patches into a quilt that will cover everyone, regardless of where they live and regardless of what they need.

I think it's important to remember that this debate has somehow drowned out the work and the commitment of many of the people who both initiated that debate in the first place, because they saw a need, and have participated in that debate for many years in their own communities and in their own organizations, because I suspect there isn't an organization involved in long-term care that hasn't had at least one or two or three retreats, discussions, seminars about how to improve the system. Many of the reforms that are now being put in place reflect those discussions.

There has been a consensus over the years that reorganization and reform was necessary. I think it's worth asking ourselves, given that consensus, why has Bill 173 become the lightning rod for so much emotion, so much misinformation and so much fear and concern that have somehow been generated around that piece of legislation?

I think the answer to that question is, because Bill 173 represents change and the reorganization of long-term care represents change, change that builds on the excellence of the services that are and have been provided, but change that recognizes that if those services are to be put on a footing that we can be sure we can sustain into the future, a future where not only is there not the unlimited funding that there was in the 1980s, but where the number of people requiring care is going to increase significantly as the population ages and as the patterns of health care change, if we are to create that sustainable footing, then we have to act.

Interestingly enough, in the press conference that the consumer groups had this morning, they put it very well. I quote from one of their statements: "Shooting the messenger will not make the reality of our message go away. Our existing system of community-based services does not and will not meet the growing needs of Ontario's elderly population. However, fundamental reforms, such as MSA creation, do offer the opportunity to enhance both the quality and the efficiency of those services."

That is a change. It requires the people who now work in the system to change the way in which they work and the professional relationships they may have developed, but to change so that they can serve their clients better. That's what this is all about. That's what all of the organizations that we heard today in question period are resisting this change were formed to do: to provide service to the people who needed it in this province.

We, as a result of years of debate, discussion and consultation, are saying that the way to do that is to reorganize the way in which service is provided, and to provide that service in a way that gives the consumer a much greater say in both the management and the running of the agencies and in the rights that they have, because they are now getting care in their own communities, the same rights they deserve to have there as they have when they move into institutions.

I am reminded of the debates around medicare, the change that it involved and the horror stories and scare scenarios that were constructed at that time, all of which of course are hollow today as we look back on the success that medicare has been. I suspect that many of those who have those same scare scenarios today will some day look back on today as a beginning of a turning point and the fact that we have a long-term care system of which I know this province is going to be very proud.

Let me just say a couple of things about MSAs, because that seems to be the focus of so much of the concern. MSAs will be local voluntary non-profit organizations, preferably with charitable status. They will be governed by volunteer boards comprised of consumers and others. They will need, they will involve and they will welcome volunteers.

They will provide that one-stop access we've heard so much about and they will continue to provide services to the consumers who are presently receiving them, probably, we hope, with the same provider providing that service, though perhaps that provider's paycheque will come from a different organization, because the MSAs will employ the workers currently working in the system. They will not be inviting in new workers until those workers currently in the system are placed in jobs probably as close as possible to what they are now doing.

MSAs will respond to the consumer's ethnic, cultural, religious, spiritual, linguistic and familial preferences. They will be consumer-based, they will be in the community and they will be run by the community.

They will not be large government bureaucracies. I think that's the canard that most offends me, because the change that our government made from the proposals of the Liberal government was just so that we would not create bureaucracies, because that was what we heard loudly in the consultation was not what people wanted. The board members will not be government appointees, and I do not believe that they will result in a loss of volunteers.

I want to say directly to the consumers that MSAs will not take your services away, nor restrict your access to services, and they will not compromise the ability of the thousands of front-line workers currently employed to continue to provide community-based services. They will not leave the sole control of services in the hands of providers or government, nor eliminate consumer choice.

I want to acknowledge, as we get to this point in the debate -- and my colleagues will talk about the amendments that have resulted from the debate and the submissions to the committee -- that there has been a great deal of emotional turmoil as a result of these reforms and this reorganization. I think that's inevitable, given the extent of the change that we're proposing, a change that is expanding the services but a change that is reorganizing the way in which they are delivered. It is a change that is designed to benefit the people the whole system is designed to serve: the seniors and the disabled.

I am heartened, comforted and encouraged that throughout this turmoil, throughout this debate, the consumers have been clear about what they want and they --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you. Your time has expired. Any further debate?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): As you know, Mr Speaker, Bill 173 will pass through its third and final reading this week because the government has invoked closure and cut off debate. I expect it will be proclaimed as law either before the end of this year or early in the next. I'm deeply disappointed, because I had hoped that we would be able to come to an all-party accommodation on this legislation and have a framework for a system that would really be effective. However, I'm convinced that there are elements to this bill that are so unnecessary, so costly and so negative that it will not work. I believe that's a tragedy and I'll tell you why.

But first, I want to reiterate what my party supports in this legislation and believes there to be broad-based support for. First of all, we wanted a single place where a person can call or be referred to for service. A central point of access for information and service is fundamental to any concept of long-term-care reform, and we got that.

1610

We wanted to see greater coordination of services to people who need them and much-improved information sharing among those who provide services. We got that. In fact, as the Minister of Health has herself acknowledged, we indeed are encouraged by the extent of coordination of services and case evaluation that has been undertaken to date by existing providers in long-term care and we think that is a positive result of long-term-care discussions which have been occurring over the past 10 years.

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

We wanted to see a streamlined assessment method, where one process of assessment could gauge clinical, health and social services needs. We have the first step in this bill in streamlined assessment, but I should tell you, Mr Speaker, that we are deeply concerned that the clinical needs of those long-term-care consumers with medical and other health problems will be glossed over. There is in fact increased fragmentation created through this system; another new silo has been created.

In fact, it was only at my urging that the purpose section of the bill was amended to ensure that coordination with other health professionals, facilities and organizations was included as a fundamental premise of this legislation. This is extremely important. When 90% of seniors entering the long-term-care system have a medical problem, that coordination is clearly vital.

A particularly important presentation from the Association of Ontario Physicians and Dentists in Public Service spoke of the needs of breaking down barriers between long-term-care reform and mental health reform. I'd like to quote directly from that presentation, which was made to our committee on the September 13. The association says:

"As it currently stands, Bill 173 ignores three critical issues: the need for long-term care of the severely mentally ill who are not elderly, the needs of a large percentage of elderly who suffer from mental illness and the need for flexibility during the mental health reform process. We need this flexibility to address the long-term-care issues of those with concurrent medical and severe mental illness."

Later in their report they describe the seriousness of this particular issue:

"The Ontario population is aging at a rapid rate; that is clear to all of us. What may not be so obvious is that mental and behaviour disorders are much more common in people with declining health and advancing years. We can expect an exponential increase in these problems in the next 20 years.

"The Canadian Study of Health and Aging, a document which is well known to this committee, indicates that 8% of all Canadians over the age of 65 currently suffer from progressive dementia -- just one of the mental illnesses associated with aging. The same study estimates that the actual number of dementia cases will more than double by the year 2021 and triple by 2031. In some provincial hospital schizophrenia clinics today, the average age of our patients is between 50 and 60.

"Clearly, the stakes are high for long-term-care reform for the elderly with mental disorders.

"Without dwelling too long on statistics, an appreciation of the impact of elderly mental health is important in the larger picture of health care reform in Ontario, of which long-term care is a part. Ministry of Health studies have shown that as many as 50% of all hospitalized elderly have at least one psychiatric problem.

"The numbers are even more striking in long-term-care facilities. As many as 70% of their elderly residents exhibit personality or behaviour problems which may be psychiatric in nature. And as many as 80% have a diagnosed psychiatric disorder.

"Our association members are on the front lines of these new, and at times alarming, mental health care needs of the elderly. As these people with mental disorders live longer, we've also had to grapple with the issues of their long-term care. It seems to us that now, when the problem is increasing and placing strains on existing systems, is not the time to radically shift the burden of this responsibility. Nor do we believe it's the time to diminish the role of the trained professional in the assessment, treatment and ongoing care of these elderly patients. That's what appears to be happening by not considering mental health needs in Bill 173."

That is the kind of linkage that we had hoped to see throughout the system as long-term-care reform moved ahead.

There's another area that's of major concern. Children have been included in Bill 173, but to us they seem to have been an afterthought. The concerns that we have expressed at committee and once again are bringing before this House are echoed by people who are attempting to provide a rational plan for meeting the needs of children and their families.

Let me quote from the Association of Treatment Centres of Ontario, which wrote to me, on October 11, as follows:

"We are supportive of the principles underlying long-term-care reform and uphold the principles of accessibility, affordability and local planning. We're requesting an amendment that will state that services for children will be planned and delivered within the existing children's system by those specializing in children's services.

"We're not asking for structural changes, we are asking that the bill state a principle so that attention will be paid to the special needs of children in the planning at the local level, that the needs of children will not be lost in a system primarily designed to meet adult needs, and that needless duplication of services will be avoided."

The position of the Association of Treatment Centres of Ontario is also supported by the Easter Seal Society and the Metropolitan Toronto Association for Community Living, which do so much in caring for children who need long-term care. But as well, the long-term-care steering committee for the Metro Toronto District Health Council has also raised concerns about the issue of the inclusion of children in Bill 173. Indeed, its conclusion from its report was, "It has been recommended that decisions regarding the access and delivery mechanisms for children to those services which are in the long-term-care 'basket of services' should be deferred until the recommendations from...other initiatives are more apparent."

There are many, many questions about the issue of children's services and how they were considered and how well and carefully they were considered as they were included in Bill 173. Where do children's treatment centres fit in the 20% purchase rule and why are day care programs for children and for the disabled excluded from an exemption to the 20% limit on purchases from facilities and institutions when that exemption has been granted or will be granted by law to seniors?

For the disabled, who are also included in this long-term-care reform there are other questions and other emphases. Where does supportive housing fit? What has happened to the direct funding pilot and will direct funding be integrated into an envelope funding model? How will people who have capacity and acumen, and limitations only in physical function, be able to determine the services to meet their own needs rather than be subject to third-party assessors? Clearly, we believe that much more needs to be done to address these areas.

But there were also other areas on our own reform agenda. We wanted a mandatory basket of services so that people in communities which have fewer resources -- both financial and human -- would not be at a severe disadvantage as compared to people in communities which could provide greater and more extensive services. We got that.

We wanted clear, consistent rules from the province about how services would be paid for, what payments were government's responsibilities, what payments should be shared between government and the individual and what payments were the individual's responsibility. We got that, and I think that if people refer to the section of the bill which describes the community services that are included in the mandatory basket, we find the community support services, homemaking, personal support services and professional services, which are delineated, and that those services which are the community support services and homemaking services will in fact be allowed to have a copayment or a user fee or a consumer contribution to the cost of receipt of those services, whereas personal support services and professional services are indeed paid for by the government.

1620

We think that's an improvement, because people wanted clear and consistent rules. What's still of concern, however, is the government's commitment to funding those mandatory services. Despite our pressure and amendments which we put forward to ensure that the government would commit to pay for those mandatory services, the government defeated our amendments.

So there is a fear that while each multiservice agency may be required to provide those services, it will not have the resources to do so. The only guarantee in this bill is a right to be put on a waiting list. MSAs, we predict, will end up, as our long-term-care facilities have, after Bill 101, with high obligations for services and no guarantee of funding. In long-term-care facilities today, people require more care than facilities are equipped to provide. We believe the same scenario is likely to follow on the community-based side of long-term-care reform, and, I repeat, the only guarantee in Bill 173 for seniors, disabled and youth is a waiting list.

We wanted to ensure throughout long-term-care reform discussions that there was caregiver recognition, that when a wife or another family member or a neighbour was supporting someone in their own home, there were opportunities for respite for that person, there was a place to go for the patient or someone else to provide desperately needed relief in the home on a regular basis. We believe we got that.

We wanted to ensure that while the government outlined the parameters, spelled out the policy, indicated the resources that would be available for a reformed long-term-care system -- in other words, spelled out the whats of the legislation -- local communities could determine the hows, the best mechanisms for ensuring that there was a coordination, that there was a high level of quality, that there was a continuum of care. We certainly didn't get that.

What we got was an inflexible template, a highly centralized structure and delivery model that in fact eliminates local decision-making. In a province that's as diverse as Ontario -- diverse in geography, demographics, history and culture -- I do not believe that one template will work, and I'm not alone. Only two of close to 300 individuals, groups and organizations who appeared in public hearings on this bill supported the government's approach. Everyone said: "This is wrong. There are serious problems with this approach." I do not believe that those presenters in every area of the province that we visited and who have written to us from every area of the province were acting solely out of self-interest.

People wanted a multiservice system; instead, they got a multiservice agency. I sincerely believe that the government has misread the public consultations, and the results of its own ideology have run amok with what would be a rational policy approach.

Let's talk about the multiservice agencies themselves. They must serve a specified geographic area. They must be the primary provider of all community-based care for seniors, the disabled and for children. The agency is allowed to spend a maximum of 20% of its approved budget for services not provided by its own employees. Most of those services which will be required outside of the agency will in fact be highly specialized.

A local community is not allowed to determine its own model of service delivery, whether that model is the one that the government has put forward, whether it's a federated agency model, whether it's a service coordination model, whether it's a contract model, whether it's a cooperative model. It must follow the government model. That will be the law. It will have four years after submitting its application to the minister to implement that model whether local people believe it will work or not.

The effect of this is that organizations that have provided exemplary care for decades will cease to exist. The Victorian Order of Nurses; the Visiting Homemakers Association; Meals on Wheels; the March of Dimes; in my own community, Halton Helping Hands; Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses; Red Cross homemaking, and many other commercial and non-profit agencies will simply be put out of business. With a stricture on purchases to 20% of the total budget, they will not have enough business to enable them to stay alive. Boards of health will only be able to become an MSA as a last resort.

Throughout the debate, we were puzzled as to the government's rationale for its decisions and we pushed it to give us that rationale. We asked them questions. "Why couldn't VON and Saint Elizabeth and Meals on Wheels continue to provide services?" we asked. "Well, their administration is too expensive." "How do you know?" we asked. "You haven't done any cost analysis of this entire proposal nor even of any part of it." "Ah," they answered, "we're relying on a study done by Price Waterhouse for the Senior Citizens' Consumers Alliance which we funded."

Then Price Waterhouse withdrew its own study in an unprecedented move, because by its own admission its methodology was flawed. As the Toronto Star observed today, the report has "been hopelessly discredited."

That is when we got closure on this bill; not changes but closure.

We had more questions as well. "Why can't the Red Cross continue to provide services?" The answer was, "The Red Cross isn't accountable because it's incorporated under federal law." Where has the government been for all these years? Red Cross has been providing homemaking services in 78 communities across this province according to the government's criteria for years. In some parts of Ontario, it's the only service that's available. It has 10,000 volunteers. How did Red Cross suddenly become unaccountable?

We asked why private sector providers who deliver a major portion of health care and nursing services in many parts of Ontario are now completely out of the system. That question has no merit to an NDP government despite testimony from non-profit agencies that spoke of the value of competition within the system in ensuring quality and the value of gleaning new experience from providers who operate from a different base.

To us, it makes no sense to eliminate all private sector providers, any more than it makes sense to arbitrarily eliminate Red Cross homemaking. Both of those services add their capital investment, their management expertise, their systems approach to case management, and they provide caring and effective service.

We asked why boards of health can only be considered as a multiservice agency as a last resort. The answer was, "They're not accountable or representative either," despite the fact that they're charged now with carrying the home care system, despite the fact that they include people who are elected within their own communities, despite the fact that they are in large part responsible for all health promotion and disease prevention activities in Ontario. "No. They're not accountable and they're not representative." Those are the answers that we received in committee. That's how the government defended its decisions.

1630

The government's model is inflexible. It says that a new agency must be formed. Its board must be selected from its membership.

I noted in a news conference today, sponsored by the consumers' alliance, much of whose work I admire enormously, Jane Leitch spoke of her high hopes, and I want to quote, of "consumers having control over services in their community." I also noted the pleasure with which the alliance greeted the new multiservice agency board makeup, which will have one-third consumer representation.

I want to look at this governance issue for a moment and I want to examine with you what powers the board of the new multiservice agency will have.

First of all, can it determine its own funding needs? No. The Minister of Health does that, and that's in the regulations.

Can it determine what services it will offer? No. There will be a minimum basket of services and, beyond that, the Minister of Health must approve any additional services which are proposed.

Can it decide that it wants to buy services from an agency that has provided exemplary general or specialized services within the area? Not unless the cost of those services is under 20% of the budget.

Can it set its own budget? No. The Minister of Health must approve all budgets.

Can it say that it should concentrate on certain services and refer other services? No, it can't.

Can it even determine the elements of its volunteer programs? No. The Minister of Health will make regulations about that.

Can it approve referral of special-needs clients outside of its geographic area? No, it can only deal with issues within the geographic area, and our amendments to that effect were voted down.

Can the membership of the multiservice agency even ratify the election of its own board members? No. The Minister of Health must do that.

Can it select its own committee members when it sets up committees to carry out its work? Oh, yes, it can, but they must be approved by the Minister of Health, and if the Minister of Health doesn't like the selection that local people have made, another will have to be made.

Mr Speaker, we're all busy people, and people who volunteer in our communities are busy people. Do you know of anyone who would want to sit on a board which has no authority for decision-making of any kind? Why waste time? Why not just have the regional office of the Ministry of Health make the decisions in the first place, because they will be making them in the end?

When the government talks about consumer participation, what it's doing is giving consumers the right to rubber-stamp government decisions or to make decisions that can't be carried out without the government's imprimatur. That's not community participation, and I hope that consumers won't be fooled by any of the rhetoric we've heard from the government side of the House.

Let's now look at who can work for a multiservice agency. We know that when existing agencies close down, their employees will be laid off, their income and their pensions affected. If they are not hired by a multiservice agency, the government will cover their severance costs. It will in fact be putting money into severance instead of into service.

But on close to the last day of committee clause-by-clause examination of this bill, the government brought in some new rules. First preference in hiring must be given to union members. The labour relations board cannot require a certification vote if union members form any part of the membership of the workforce of the new multiservice agency. A unionized workplace will be deemed, whether the workers want it or not. There will be no certification vote, and this is the only sector in our entire labour force in this province where this provision will apply. In the event of a strike, the multiservice agency will not be allowed to purchase services from any other agency above the 20% maximum.

Well, let's look at what actually happened in a strike scenario in Brant-Brantford, a home care, from March 1 to June 15, 1993. To do that, I'd like to quote from a report which is a synopsis on that particular strike and how the new provisions of this bill would now be put into play in a similar circumstance:

"Brant home care had a contract with the Red Cross to provide homemaking services to Brant home care clients throughout Brant-Brantford.

"With a strike on the horizon, the director of the home care program developed a contingency plan to minimize the impact of a strike.

"The contingency plan saw Brant County Home Care contract with other service providers in the community, particularly the Victorian Order of Nurses."

The report goes on to say:

"Service providers in Brant-Brantford know the reality of a homemaker strike. They also know that the only means to ensure a continuum of care in the community is to allow the delivery agency, such as Brant County Home Care, the authority and the flexibility to enter into a variety of contracts with service providers, so that the delivery agency is not the sole employer and is not subject to the provisions of Bill 40," the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

I suggest to you that what is now even more of an impact is the new provisions of Bill 173. The report goes on to say:

"The implications of the strike were far-reaching. Other unions refused to cross the Red Cross homemakers' picket lines in front of the Red Cross office. The food supplier for the Red Cross Meals on Wheels program refused to make deliveries. The postal worker would not deliver the mail and the courier would not deliver parcels. All Red Cross services were in jeopardy. Consequently, the Red Cross made temporary arrangements for deliveries and programs to be operated from local churches."

The analysis that follows from that experience follows:

"The proposed multiservice agency model...would not allow for the hiring of outside workers as the MSA is the sole employer. Therefore, during a strike, service would be completely interrupted.

"Clients would be compromised in a strike in the MSA model. They would have to simply do without, or contract privately with independent service providers, and pay for the service themselves.

"Service providers recognize that during a strike, female family members would be called into duty to aid an elderly or sick family member. This would only serve to reinforce the stereotype of women as caregivers and yield additional stress to the family unit.

"There is also the fear of sympathetic strikes. In the event that the home care workers go on strike, would home care nurses refuse to cross the picket lines?"

I'm grateful to my colleague Ron Eddy, the member of provincial Parliament for Brant-Haldimand, and his staff for doing a thorough analysis and for conducting the thorough interviews with respect to the impact of that strike on clients in his community.

People who require home care deserve to have the assurance that they will have uninterrupted service in the event of a labour disruption. But the Ministry of Health has brought in a new law making it impossible for multiservice agencies to fulfil their obligatory service requirements. Who was the Ministry of Health paying off at the expense of clients in the community, and what does that provision do other than jeopardize the care of people who desperately need it?

Surely the focus should be on the service, the kind of care that people need and on enhancing that care and that service. What do any of these things that the ministry added very late on in this discussion have to do with service and care, and what do any of these things have to do with fairness and equity for people who work in long-term care now? Those provisions are neither fair nor equitable to people who work in the long-term care system today. They don't have much to do with fairness and equity but they will be the law.

1640

There will be many other impacts; pensions, for one. I don't believe that this government has even given a modicum of consideration to the impact on pension plans of people who are now employed in the system. In some cases those impacts will be severe. We are told, by example, that the Victorian Order of Nurses' pension plan, which is a national one, may have to completely wind down. The impacts will not only be on workers in Ontario but on workers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and other provinces where the Victorian Order of Nurses delivers service.

There are other aspects of these changes that are disturbing as well. You will know that existing agencies have capital equipment and goods, from cars to computers to leases, that have been built up over the years through community effort and through sound budgeting. The government has made no commitment to compensating agencies for that equipment, and multiservice agencies will have to build up a new complement of capital goods, cars, by example, to ensure that nurses can get to people's homes.

How much service money will be diverted to replace capital goods that are now in place? They are not owned by the government. Does the government intend to compensate for or to confiscate those capital goods? We're already facing caps on service and user-fee increases. What other decisions will be made that will seriously cut into the moneys that are available for service?

Lastly, I want to share a very serious concern, because the government has made what I view as an arrogant assumption that people who volunteer for existing agencies will simply switch their allegiances to a new multiservice agency. I don't believe that. For many people, there are personal preferences and ties that stem from family experience, religious and cultural ties, interest in a particular service specialty and many other factors that draw people to volunteer in the first place.

Volunteers are crucial in our system. They provide patient care, they provide social support, they fund-raise, they crusade for their organizations and for their clients. They provide information and they share fellowship. They sit next to the bed of a person who's dying and they provide comfort. They deliver food and they take people to and from meetings, recreation and rehabilitation. They pay, through their efforts, for cars and computers and meeting halls. Without volunteers our system will collapse.

I provided some reasons why we support many, many aspects of this bill and believe that particular sections are vitally important as we move into a reformed long-term-care system. I have provided to this House the reasons why we will not, in fact, end up voting for this bill. We will not vote for this bill despite the fact that we believe that reform of the long-term-care system is necessary and long overdue. I had sincerely hoped for another scenario. I had hoped that we would see the flexibility from this government that would ensure that this legislation would work.

We have committed to changing this legislation after the next election, if we form the government, so that it will work in every part of Ontario. There will be no 80-20 rule. Multiservice agencies should be able to determine the optimum mix of services which they will provide and the mix of services which they will be able to purchase. We believe the communities should be able to choose their own system, whether it's a service coordination model, a federated model, a brokerage model, a contract model, a cooperative agency, a board of health.

We will remove the draconian labour requirements that have been included in this bill and ensure that all workers, whether they currently belong to a union or do not belong to a union, are treated fairly and equitably.

We will change this legislation to ensure true participation of members of the local community in decision-making that will meet community needs. We will not be looking over the shoulder of the board of directors on decisions such as who can sit on the subcommittees of the boards of MSAs.

We will also ensure that this bill includes real linkages with other professional services, facilities and institutions to ensure a real continuum of care.

Let me quote from a letter which our leader, Lyn McLeod; Yvonne O'Neill, our critic for Community and Social Services; and myself, as Health critic, have sent to hundreds of people who want to know how we will fix Bill 173. We write:

"We are convinced that in a reformed long-term-care system there must be provincial goals and standards, there must be simple access, there must be multidisciplinary coordination. We are convinced that there must be a multiservice system -- but unfortunately, what we're getting is a multiservice agency.

"We have said publicly that if we form the government after the next election we will treat changes to Bill 173 as a priority. We will provide flexibility so that local areas can determine, within the context of provincial standards, how services can best be delivered to people who need them in their homes or in their community.

"In every effort that we have made for change in long-term-care services we have said that it is the patient" -- the consumer -- "for whom the system must be designed, and not the Minister of Health."

That is what we intend to insist on and that is what we intend to do.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): It is with sadness that I rise to spend the next 10 minutes once again discussing Bill 173 in this Legislature. I am sad, and I truly am sad, because today with the third reading debate and with the vote expected tomorrow after question period, we will be witnessing the beginning of the end of the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Red Cross homemaking service, Meals on Wheels, Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association, and many other agencies that together have provided decades and decades of services to seniors and the disabled and the people who require long-term-care services in their communities.

It's with sadness too because we were unable today to get a commitment from the Minister of Health that she would not move forward with the implementation of this legislation until many of the serious flaws in the legislation are corrected. We have an extreme degree of stubbornness being demonstrated by the government with respect to this legislation, and at the end of the day we will not end up with the coordinated, accessible system that the government claims that Bill 173 establishes. We will end up with a bureaucratic, monolithic, monopolistic, expensive boondoggle.

That's all this legislation represents. The new multiservice agencies, combined with the one-stop unionization, combined with the 80-20 rule and the monopoly and the delivery of services really, in the final analysis, mean that there will be fewer services, fewer people doing those services and that the waiting lists will continue.

I've spoken at length and often about this legislation, both in committee and in the House, so unlike my Liberal colleague I don't want to go through in the few minutes I have many of the specifics other than to express to people that there is some hope, and certainly a commitment that was reiterated today by the leader of the Ontario PC Party, Mike Harris, that we will undo the damaging and devastating aspects of Bill 173. Our hope is that the government actually won't get around to proclaiming this legislation in the next few months. I say to the bureaucrats who are sitting at the back, don't be in any rush to implement this if you value your jobs, and I mean that.

1650

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Holy mackerel. That is outrageous.

Mr Jim Wilson: Well, I'm having a difficult time figuring out, over the past few months, whether it's totally the political masters who messed up long-term-care reform or whether there's some work being done in the bowels of our bureaucracy that might have helped the government get off track.

This is a free Parliament with free speech, and I am speaking from the heart. I hope there are sounder minds in the bureaucracy who do not agree with the unionization measures of this bill, who agree with me when I say that it is immoral for the government, on the backs and off the sweat of the brows of seniors in this province, to do a unionization drive to simply fill the coffers of the New Democratic party. It is wrong, it is never morally acceptable and it is not the role of government.

I would agree that had you not brought in your 11th-hour section 15 labour amendments, we would not have been able to confirm our theory that we've held for many, many months that this was simply one-stop unionization and not about increasing access to services and not about increasing services. But when you brought in your section 15 amendments, it became abundantly clear to anyone who can read the English or French language that the true agenda is and was what we contended all the way along.

In fact, I remember having discussions with some of our bureaucrats who said no, there were no deals with the OFL; no, we would not be bringing in amendments that would bias this bill in favour of unions and unionization and against those people, half the home care sector now, who are non-unionized. And yet just before public debate was cut off, these amendments appeared on the table and your true agenda was exposed for what we had thought for quite a while was the agenda.

On November 14, 1994, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, CARP, called for "a system that is less bureaucratic and monolithic, allowing seniors and their families to obtain advice but without losing the right to choose how they wish to live, whom they wish to entrust with their care, and freedom to determine their own future." I thought that was a beautiful summary of what the intent of phase 2 of long-term care was all about. That's certainly what we bought into many months ago and years ago when we used to talk about one-stop access, better coordination. It was exactly what CARP has said.

But what we've ended up with is, as I've said, something that is going to be very expensive, unworkable, and a system that is not supported by any type of cost-benefit analysis or study or one iota of logical fact and data to legislators and to the people of this province. As has been mentioned, the Price Waterhouse study, which is what the NDP hung its hat on for a few weeks, was withdrawn by that firm. I think in an effort to save their reputation in this world, they withdrew what was clearly a flawed study.

The government says that it heard from some 75,000 people during consultation on this bill. I was at a number of those hearings. I've seen summaries of what seniors and the people of this province told the government, and the government was never told to wipe out the VON or the Red Cross or the Saint Elizabeth Visiting Nurses' Association or Meals on Wheels, or the dozens and dozens of other agencies out there.

The government says that by combining some 1,200 agencies into 200 or more MSAs, that will somehow save money, although they can't prove it, and improve the quality of services. I think this is what the consumers who are in favour, and there are very few of them, of this legislation undoubtedly have been promised, that there will be savings and that there will be higher-quality services somehow at the end.

But that's not what's going to happen. I think this amalgamation of agencies is somewhat akin to taking 14 lines in a bank and reducing it to two lines. It does not improve service but makes waiting in line take longer.

The government, if it really was about improving service, should be able to give us some fact that we can see, some study that we can understand and analyse to prove its point, and clearly it can't do that. Today, as I do almost every day and have been doing for many years now, I met with a number of health care groups, in particular provider agencies. I think what I must do in the few minutes I have remaining is to tell people -- although I didn't think I'd ever be elected to encourage a small degree of civil disobedience -- that with the ridiculousness of this boondoggle that the government's created and the immorality behind it all, it's now incumbent upon service provider agencies to not cooperate in the next few months.

I say to employees, do not unionize, as I know some of the VON have already done, and meetings are under way because they can't get jobs under the NDP's Bill 173 unless they are unionized. They are very much afraid they won't get a job in the new multiservice agency. Keep in mind that if you unionize in these very few months before the next election, if we form the government, we can undo that too. If we find that clearly the unionization is attached to wanting to be into an MSA, which we're going to do away with, then we can very much do that too.

Unfortunately, the precedent was set in the NDP's own social contract. I would say that's a fairly desperate thing and we would not want to do it. But if I hear of any more VONs etc who are simply unionizing right now because they're afraid they won't get a job in the MSA, I can tell you that we will be weighing that very, very carefully when we get into office.

At the end of the day, I want to tell everyone here that we are only interested in front-line services. We are not all that interested in who represents whom and about all of these committees and about the social contract, which Michael Decter at least had the honesty to admit was not about saving money but was merely about power. I'll tell you, it's power to the people. The people who need services in this province need our scarce health care dollars put towards front-line services and not towards arguments about who will represent whom and how big a bureaucracy can we create in a multiservice agency, and forget about the people of Ontario who require services.

If we are to change the direction of the ministry, we will downsize the ministry and we will make sure that our discussions are about front-line services, service providers. We want to keep in the system those providers that are doing a good job now, and if anything, I've been extremely convinced that the VON and the Red Cross and Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses and Meals on Wheels, the ones we talk about most often, the large players in the system, are cost-effective.

The government is not able to bring forward anything to show us evidence contrary to that. If anything, we know from our private sector experience that smaller, autonomous and effective units, agencies out there, are the way of the future, not the old way of "bigger is better" somehow, because you cannot prove bigger is better. What we're doing here is exchanging a number of cost-effective agencies where in fact the managers in many of our small towns also provide front-line services and do their administrative duties. How can you get more cost-effective than that?

1700

What we're doing here is replacing a number of agencies, in the name of amalgamation, with a number of departments in a multiservice agency. I don't know anyone who's satisfied with the level of care they're getting from government these days. I don't know anyone who can get through the phone lines in government these days without getting some talking machine. The humanness and the humaneness have gone out of government services.

Interjections.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's incumbent upon you people not to heckle but to examine your consciences and to ask yourselves what you're doing with Bill 173.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order. Order, please, the member for Oxford.

Mr Jim Wilson: All of the evidence is weighed against you. There is nothing that you can hang your hats on now to indicate to us that Bill 173 is good. I am recommending to my colleagues that we not vote for this legislation. Right up there with the labour laws that we will undo and scrap when we come to office, the Bill 40 labour laws, is Bill 173. The 80-20 rule, the NDP's multiservice agencies, the bias against boards of health and municipalities, all of that will be scrapped under a Mike Harris government too. I know Mr Harris will take a few minutes this afternoon to reaffirm our commitment.

I want to say, in ending, that I have very much enjoyed getting to know our service providers over the past few months. I have met and had the privilege of meeting some of the brightest minds in health care today. I like to think that many of them are my friends and that we've found common ground, albeit against a negative bill by the government, but we've found common ground. I know in the future, with the level of cooperation that we've established, that we will be able to build a system, a truly coordinated system, that isn't overly prescriptive and that truly responds to the communities of our province.

I look forward to that challenge, hopefully after the next election. I make the commitment to all of our people here today that we do not want to see you thrown out of the system and that we will do everything we can to work with you, to improve services, those front-line services that the people of Ontario so desperately need.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of Bill 173. This day has been a long time coming, about 10 years by some people's calculations. That's how long the province of Ontario has been deferring the decision to put a logical organizational framework on the development and delivery of long-term-care services for people living in the community. That's 10 years of wasted resources, wasted money and wasted time, and that responsibility lies with members across the floor.

The decision wasn't put off because it was the wrong decision; it was put off because neither of the other two parties had the fortitude or courage to do what is necessary. Here today we have a minister and a government prepared to act and follow through with a commitment that is long overdue, a commitment to the people of Ontario to spend funds wisely and to the people in receipt of services to give them a voice and a role in developing the care programs that sustain them. That is what long-term-care reform is all about: less waste and better, more responsive service.

Bill 173 provides for greater economies by providing seniors with their long-desired one-stop-shopping access to all services under one roof and by a single phone call. It means less waste and less duplication, because multiservice agencies will provide integrated case management, with clients being subject only to necessary assessments. That means less bureaucracy, not more.

Community-based multiservice agencies will also be directly responsible to the people served. Board members will consist of consumers of service and their care providers and healthy senior activists who are knowledgeable on health and social service issues. They will be community professionals concerned that the best possible home services are being provided in their region. Board members will reflect the age, gender, linguistic and cultural backgrounds of those who are served.

Volunteerism will flourish within an integrated system. People volunteer to help others, not because of any label. Our school boards and hospitals are good examples of large management structures that nevertheless continue to attract fine, reliable and loyal volunteers. That long-standing tradition of responsible citizenship which motivates volunteers is going to continue with multiservice agencies. In fact, they're most likely to make it easier for people to volunteer, just as they will make it easier for clients to gain access to services.

There have been scurrilous attacks on this bill because it acknowledges our legal responsibilities to unionized employees. In fact, the bill represents an incredible breakthrough in labour relations in that it recognizes seniority for all employees, even those who are not part of organized bargaining units. That means front-line workers have job protection the like of which they've never before enjoyed. This issue is a red herring.

My community, the riding of Peterborough, is often used as an archetype of the typical Ontario city. It has only a very small minority of long-term-care workers who are unionized. They don't represent a threat to any front-line worker because they've been doing very specific case management work. Furthermore, this is an expanding system that has room for more workers, not fewer.

What do the opposition parties offer us? I want to give the Tories some credit. They did at least present an alternative in committee, a bizarre creature called a federated multiservice board. This model entrenched the status quo by setting up a new superboard composed of representatives of existing boards. It entrenched political meddling by having the minister appoint a few token consumers to the board. It entrenched conflict of interest and lack of accountability to consumers or the public by having the board dispense taxpayers' money to its own provider members. It multiplied levels of bureaucracy and deprived communities of control of their own health care.

This Tory vision of a reformed long-term-care system took us right back to the 1950s. Consumers asked us to reform the system, but all the Tories have given them is 1-800-status quo.

The Liberal Party, on the other hand, seems to have no vision about where to proceed. We've known for some time that they have a leader who is sometimes difficult to pin down. Well, now they've given us a virtual reality MSA.

We have a good bill. Let us get on with it.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): The consent-to-treatment implications of Bill 173, the displacement of front-line health care workers, the sections of Bill 173 that deal with aboriginal issues, the new and very changing role of the district health councils, and indeed the new and much more powerful role of the Minister of Health, each of these significant issues was closed to debate by this Ontario NDP government. Each of these issues fell victim to the 18th closure motion of this Parliament. In spite of a continuing flood of objections, resistance, disagreement, protests and fears, this jackboot, sledgehammer government has moved forward.

Yes, from every region of this province, we continue to be presented with more and more reasons why this NDP government's long-term-care reform is off the rails. I'd like to place on the record some of the correspondence and comments which have crossed my desk just recently.

From Waterloo region chairman, Ken Seiling: Bill 173 will wreak havoc with Waterloo region's current system, in which the region acts as a "broker, coordinating a nice blend of volunteer, non-profit and for-profit agencies. This is probably one of the most destructive pieces of legislation that I've seen coming out of this government." Not my words, Mr Speaker, but the words of Ken Seiling of Waterloo.

From the Coalition for Neighbourhood Services, a Metro group: "Bill 173 will not solve the problems in the community system. Bill 173 will create many new problems. Closing down community groups and creating mammoth bureaucracies will provide fewer services in people's homes and arbitrarily take away choices over their future."

These people, these experienced people, are telling us: "The proposed MSAs are too rigid.... Communities should be able to craft their own delivery systems and continue to use agencies...as they see fit."

1710

Without community flexibility, the new law is doomed to fail. What is needed is enabling legislation to allow communities to build on what is good, what has been successful, what has been working.

Twenty-nine provincial groups of consumers and professionals and volunteers have this to say:

"In our view, the single 'one size fits all' model specified by the Ontario government for all communities ignores the fundamental diversity of this province. It abandons the real principles of community-based care. The solution for Metro isn't the solution for Kingston, Kitchener or Kirkland Lake."

To quote Don Richmond, commissioner of community and social services for Metro Toronto:

"The MSA will be a structured, bureaucratic, provincially controlled agency that has nothing to do with...the community. It will be disastrous in a large urban area like Metro." Don Richmond, the commissioner of community and social services, has that to say.

"Putting everything," he continues, "in a single agency is like asking everyone to shop at a department store, but some people want to shop at smaller stores.

"The MSA will be given full responsibility," and not much authority. "Its funding will be provided at the whim of the province." Again, the words of Mr Richmond.

Mr Alex Lampropoulos says this about this NDP government:

"They want to centralize everything. They want to have a long arm from Queen's Park" to dictate things in Kingston, in Frontenac, in Addington, and that is just unacceptable."

Dr Alex Hukowich, medical officer of health for Haliburton, Kawartha and Pine Ridge district health unit, calls the bill "a straitjacket, not a framework, for improving long-term care."

Karl Samuelson, administrator from the Sun Parlor Home in Leamington, says Bill 173 is "akin to recommending invasive surgery for someone who's got the flu."

From the Ontario Home Care Case Managers Association of Ottawa:

"In reviewing Bill 173 and the strategies for long-term- care reform, it would appear more cost-effective to recognize the strengths of the current system."

The government's idea that combining agencies is going to save money is built on flawed data, and that has been proven, Lyn Linton, executive director, Victorian Order of Nurses for Peterborough, Victoria and Haliburton, says. "The real cost of establishing MSAs has not been addressed."

We continue to ask for the cost-benefit analysis. It has never been presented. A fundamental issue has never, ever been addressed by this government regarding Bill 173.

This NDP government seems to have an uncanny ability to confuse, to alienate almost every group it comes in touch with: non-profit agencies, nurses and home care providers, not to mention the volunteers who contribute so much to this system.

Fay Booker, president of the VON of Ontario, says:

"The bill is fatally flawed in several ways. Building a new system from the ground up, the legislation gives the multiservice agency a monopoly on paid and volunteer care in each jurisdiction, throwing out decades of experience and knowledge of home and community service delivery."

I would like to end by quoting from a volunteer and from a consumer. Kathy Kennedy, a volunteer from Kingston, asks:

"Why is the government continuing to ignore the requests made by 95% of the respondents in the consultation who asked that access to and improved coordination of existing services be supported? To have spent millions of dollars to establish a new administrative organization while money for direct client services is being taken away seems in direct conflict with the purposes and the purported aim of this government's legislation" in long-term care reform.

Ann Donnellan, a consumer from Peterborough, says:

"I cannot help thinking that any changes to existing services should be dictated by the best interests of the clients rather than by political considerations. And I am outraged by the thought that any of the dedicated caregivers who have done so much for my family should have to worry about the possibility of losing their jobs because of a political agenda....

"We need to think very carefully before dismantling a system which, while undoubtedly capable of improvement, really does work."

The minister today talked about patronizing those in need of long-term care. Bill 173, in my opinion, is an example of Queen's Park paternalism. Bill 173 is Queen's Park paternalism at its worst.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I appreciate the opportunity to have some brief words of input into this legislation, which certainly is unfortunate legislation, to say the least. I want to talk briefly about a comment my colleague Mr Wilson, the member for Simcoe West, our Health critic, made during his comments when he alerted the bureaucracy responsible for implementation of this legislation as to its position with respect to a future government. There were some moans and groans from across the chamber from government members with respect to his comments.

But I simply want to reinforce them and send that message out to the bureaucracy as well, that it should very much be concerned about proceeding quickly with implementation of this legislation, if indeed the government is going to ram it through, which is clearly what is occurring here, through time allocation. You've limited debate, you've limited opportunity for input and what input you've had from the public you've literally ignored.

I want to say that what my colleague Mr Wilson suggested is quite appropriate, I believe, because we're dealing here with what, in effect, is an illegitimate government, an illegitimate government that is operating beyond its mandate. In this province we have traditionally gone a maximum of four years for a government serving in office. They're now well into the fifth year. The polls show clearly that the government is mired at 15%. If you factor out the undecided vote, they have 6% support in the population of Ontario -- a meagre 6%. In 1990 they were elected with less than 38% of the vote. This is clearly an illegitimate government that has no right whatsoever to bring in this kind of significant legislation which goes against the grain of virtually every Ontarian.

The Health minister has the unmitigated gall to stand in this House today and say, "We listened, we consulted." The reality is, they may have listened, they may have consulted, but they've clearly ignored virtually every word they heard during that process -- virtually every word. The concerns have been reflected day after day. Again we see it indicated in the galleries of this House -- widespread concern about the future of volunteer organizations in this province. But they continue to ignore them.

I'm not one to urge civil disobedience and I'm not going to do that, but I want to say, in respect to the service providers, I want them to clearly understand the position of the Mike Harris Conservative Party. If indeed we form the government, this legislation is going out; we're throwing this legislation out. We're going to have an election in the next few months. This government is going to be forced to go to the people. They obviously don't want to go. They're hanging on by their fingernails, with about 6% of the population of Ontario supporting them, shoving through this kind of legislation.

We're telling the service providers as well, take a look at how quickly you're being compelled to implement this. Do not cooperate in any way, shape or form with the government in implementing legislation that you very strongly opposed, that is going to create significant problems for you, frustration, expense and may mean the death of many volunteer organizations in this province. Do not cooperate, because they do not have the support of the people of Ontario to be doing what they're doing today. They do not have the support of the people of Ontario to even be in office today. That's the reality.

1720

I simply want to say that, as well as the other members in my party, the Mike Harris Conservative Party of Ontario, we've had thousands and thousands of people approaching us expressing their concerns. I've met with the Red Cross in my riding, the volunteers, the Victorian Order of Nurses, people who have made strong contributions to communities right across this province, people who have willingly given of their time and energy to help their fellow citizens. These are the sorts of groups and individuals who are being dumped on, insulted by this socialist government.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): They don't want you any more.

Mr Runciman: They don't want you any more; they want their union friends to take over virtually every one of these opportunities. Forget about volunteerism in this province; it does not mean anything to this socialist government, this illegitimate socialist government.

Again I urge the bureaucracy of this government and future governments to move cautiously, given the stand of our party if indeed we form the government. Again I urge service providers to not cooperate in any way, shape or form with speedy implementation.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to at the outset register my disappointment with the fact that we have so little time to speak to such an issue of so great import. We've also had time limitations with respect to the number of amendments that could be moved in committee, and that too was limited. I'm very disappointed in that as well.

I was elected in 1990, and so my parliamentary life hasn't been that long. But I have never seen so much opposition raised in the face of a government initiative during those four years, and by some very substantial organizations which have a tremendous history and breadth of experience in this province. We're talking about groups like the VON, Red Cross, Saint Elizabeth's, the Catholic Women's League and many others. At one point, I expected Mother Teresa to walk into the committee room and speak out against this bill.

The response that the government has offered from time to time is that these are only providers. If we look at them in that context, then surely to goodness they cannot possibly have the best interests of their consumers at heart. Surely they're only acting out of a mercenary interest, at the end of the day, or their own particular self-interest of whatever nature, but surely to God they cannot be acting in the best interests of consumers. I find that kind of a response insulting and impugning the motives of the good people who have been working on the front lines for decades in this province.

My particular concern is with respect to the impact this legislation is going to have on the voluntarism efforts presently being made in this province.

One of the reasons that we have a debt of some $92 billion is that over the years there has been a gradual devolution of responsibilities from individuals to government. In many ways, that's been a good thing, so let's not be naïve about this. But given that we've hit the fiscal wall today, one of the things, to my way of thinking, that the government should be doing is promoting voluntarism where it doesn't exist and nurturing it wherever it does, but the very last thing it should be doing is acting in any way to discourage voluntarism.

Many people tend to forget that in this province and in this country we have a wonderful history of voluntarism. Our first schools, our first universities, our first hospitals were not bought and paid for by governments or taxpayers; they were founded and run by volunteer agencies, non-profit agencies, religious organizations. Unfortunately, Bill 173 runs counter to this spirit.

I'm sure we have many of our own anecdotes and we heard from many, many presenters, obviously, in this matter. It's a very contentious issue, to say the least. I was out one day delivering Meals on Wheels with an older friend of mine, Cy Hoganson, 73 years of age. He was getting on to closing on the 2,000th delivery and we were talking about Bill 173 and he said to me, without any prompting, "The day the government gets into the Meals on Wheels business is the day that I get out." Anybody who thinks that volunteers will leap at the chance to work for an MSA, a multiservice agency, is either wilfully blind or hopelessly naïve when it comes to human nature.

Volunteers have loyalty to organizations like the VON, the Red Cross, Saint Elizabeth, Meals on Wheels because of the distinctive qualities and features of those organizations. As a volunteer, you get to pick the agency which best suits you. You pick an agency because you like the logo, you might like the motto, you might like the uniform, you might be attracted by the special mission or you might simply like the way they go about doing things. All of that distinctiveness will be lost if MSAs assume control for the delivery of services.

MSAs will, out of necessity in this age of political correctness, in an effort to offend none, will become a large, amorphous, colourless, flavourless organization.

Politics offers us a lesson, and we as politicians in this chamber ought to recognize that. People don't volunteer for the government. They sign up for our campaigns, they join our parties, they may have some affinity or some affiliation to our party or to us as individuals. The parties and we, as individuals, offer something distinctive, presumably, from something else.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): What about children's aid societies? They have lots of volunteers.

Mr McGuinty: I want to take the opportunity to respond to an issue that has been raised on a number of occasions, and the member here is shouting it out across the floor: What about all of those people who volunteer for government agencies at the present time? In fact, there are some such volunteers. My leader today, in a question to the Minister of Health, raised this issue.

I got in touch with the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy. Many people, obviously, can only offer opinions, but I would submit that some opinions ought to be given more weight than others. When it comes to the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, the people who are out there to promote voluntarism in the country, I think we ought to be attributing a substantial amount of weight to their opinion. They told me that, indeed, there are people who volunteer for government organizations. But, lo and behold, the more money you get from the government, the fewer volunteers you attract. I'm just going to read one passage from page 42 of A Portrait of Canada's Charities. It says:

"The most common type of charities for which Canadians volunteer is 'other charitable organizations,'" which is their category, "which use almost three million volunteers. Almost two thirds of Canada's volunteers, 65%, devote their time to other charitable organizations, with most of these volunteering for welfare and benefits-to-the-community charities. As for the remaining 35%, the majority spend their time with places of worship. Hospitals and teaching institutions, which are important in the area of formal employment, together account for only 8% of volunteers."

1730

If we flip to page 24, we learn that the government-funded organizations which get the most money are hospitals and teaching institutions. You wouldn't think you'd need this to be reduced in writing in the form of a study presented by some expert for us to recognize this. I think to most of us it would make good sense. The closer you are to government, the less likely that you're going to arouse some genuine interest in your welfare and arouse some need to make some kind of a philanthropic contribution. Governments today are behind the eight ball. If you're in government; you're suspect. That may not be fair, but those are the rules that happen to be operating today.

So I think the last thing we want to do, if our objective here is to promote volunteerism, is to cloak the delivery of long-term care in this province under the guise, some guise, of government. Let's be clear about this: What we're talking of at the end of the day here is perception, and many people will come to believe that MSAs are an arm of the government.

I want to touch briefly on the issue of costs, and particularly the fact that we have no reasonable expectation as to what the cost might be of implementing Bill 173. The government itself did not commission a study. A study was commissioned by a group, but that study has now been yanked. So effectively, we have no numbers on which we can rely in this chamber here, and I think that given that, it would be irresponsible to proceed.

Maybe a good fallback position would be simply to have a pilot project. Why couldn't we have a pilot project which would allow us to study in some detail Bill 173 and how it affects a particular community, what it does to volunteerism, what it does in terms of offering services to consumers?

The final point I want to make is that so much of your assessment of what exists today in this province in terms of the delivery of long-term-care services depends on your own particular perspective. Now, to some, and the government in particular, it is a complex patchwork of many, many service providers. It is certainly not neat and it is certainly not tidy. To me, the long-term-care delivery system that has evolved in this province is in many ways -- and maybe this is because I studied biology for a few years -- a thing of beauty. It is a living, breathing creature which has evolved over the years to meet varying and changing needs as and when they arose, and that's pretty darn significant.

We do have a problem. There's no doubt about that whatsoever. We have a lack of coordination between the various service providers. But the solution does not lie in government assuming responsibility for the delivery of those services. It would lie in developing some kind of coordination system, and it certainly does not lie in micro-management, something which will act to kill individual communities' abilities to respond to their local needs.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I appreciate the opportunity this evening to say a few words relative to this bill. Of all the legislation that has come through this House, whether it was under closure or under limited debate or whatever you want to call it, this piece of legislation is causing me more stress and problems in my riding than any other piece of legislation because of the people it's affecting most: my seniors, the handicapped, the people living alone. These are the people who are being directly affected by this legislation.

As my colleague the member for Leeds pointed out a few minutes ago, here we have a government that came to power with only 38% of the vote of this province.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): But 59.9% of the members, Leo.

Mr Jordan: That's the way the democratic system works and there's no debate about that. The point is that they originally came to this House with about 38% of the vote of the province of Ontario. Their popularity now has gone down to about 16%, and if you took the undecided, I wouldn't want to mention the figure, but it's about 6% or 7%.

Somehow, if you're really thinking of serving the people of Ontario, at some time in your life and at different times you must sit back and not only assess yourself, your accomplishments, but the group that you're trying to provide them through. If I were a member with the government today, I would be sitting back assessing first of all how I was serving my riding, and then, as a group, how are we serving the province of Ontario? I wouldn't hesitate a minute to go to the people and let the people tell the government: "Sorry, this is not the kind of legislation that we elected you for. These are not the promises that you made. This is not part of the Agenda for People that you waved around to muster up 38% of the votes." That was all a big smoke and mirror game, because you knew at the time. Anybody who read it or listened to it knew that the items in that agenda were just not possible and the people of Ontario really didn't expect to get them.

Here we are tonight with this bill before us. I have a letter from the president of the VON in Lanark county to Mr Rae. He's asked me to try and get the Premier to answer this letter. I know the Premier is busy and I know he's not going to answer the letter, so I'd like to put the letter on record. He says:

"Dear Mr Rae:

"Our board of directors is gravely concerned with the funding crisis affecting home care services in Lanark county. At a time when you are preaching a system transformation and a commitment to community-based service, to place the citizens of our community in jeopardy for future services and to add more uncertainty and anxiety on care-providing staff when your proposed long-term-care reform is already unsettling to both groups is both irresponsible and unwarranted. We are concerned about funding for growth in our community as it is impacting on client care, hospitals and community health care staff.

"If your government truly believes community-based as opposed to facility-based health and social services is the way of the future, then fund this growth and relieve the fear and uncertainty for the citizens of our communities of Lanark and Renfrew county."

That's signed by the president. I am only too pleased to express his concerns here to this House this evening.

I have several letters from individual seniors here affecting these cutbacks and I'll cite some examples:

"Patients with borderline care who are living alone are no longer receiving care."

"An illiterate couple requiring medication had to be dropped from the program."

"There are elderly patients waiting for a nursing home bed. Their physical condition is deteriorating and the family is unable to cope."

"Four nurses have been laid off, leaving only two RN staff to cover Lanark county. In the last month, home visits were reduced by 500."

So you know the people in need are out there. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to bring some of these concerns to the government.

1740

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): In the few minutes that are left in this debate, I want to set out why I feel that there is one very tragic flaw in this legislation, a flaw that will have to be changed and a flaw that means that we're not going to be able to support it.

We've been dealing with long-term-care reform for many years and there is certainly, I believe, a very strong sense in the broad Ontario community, by both consumers and those who are providing services to seniors, that we need to have some fundamental change in the way in which those services are provided. I think there is a real consensus out there among all of the provider groups and the consumers that this should occur.

What is most regrettable is that we're not going to be able to allow for what in my view would be much more community-directed service agencies to come forward that would in fact include in a much more positive and specific way the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Red Cross, Saint Elizabeth, Meals on Wheels, home care, all of the different organizations that have been involved in the provision of long-term care.

One of the problems that I think we often have from Queen's Park is that we get an idea, we want to make changes and too often we try then to structure something that is new and different when in fact, if we look at our communities, we can see that there are many services that are existing and that can very ably and very capably provide the outcome that we want to make sure we have in all of our communities.

I think the government is quite within its rights to say: "Look, these are the kinds of long-term-care services we want to make sure that any community in this province has. Whether it's in the north or the south, the east or west, urban, rural, those services need to be provided." But then I think what we need to be doing is saying to those communities, "All right, how best can you provide them?" What we here in this Legislature need to do is to assure ourselves that in fact those services will be provided.

We saw, during the course of our hearings, a number of examples of where organizations had come together in various communities, and I can think of Hamilton-Wentworth, Windsor-Essex, Oxford, where they were saying, "Look, we can sort out the overlap and the duplication and we can provide the service, but we will continue to maintain the independence and the integrity of our organizations, and we believe that will be a much more effective way to deliver the services that are needed, and we believe that will ensure that the volunteer base," which I think all of us, we've all said it, is critical to this success of providing effective services for seniors, "will be maintained as well."

I really believe that this is not a place where you need to have one model and only one model that is going to be replicated throughout the province. I believe there can be different models that can still ensure that we meet those same goals and that we provide those outcomes and that indeed the service and the long-term-care system would be much the stronger if what we were saying to district health councils was not, "Thou shalt create this model in that particular community," but, "What is the best way to organize in your community, the area that you cover, making use of the organizations that are there?"

We heard from many witnesses before our committee of how different things are in terms of the delivery of services in various parts of the province. Indeed, with the first bill that we dealt with on long-term care two years ago we also heard that, and we listened to how different communities tried to develop the services they required and to bring organizations together to work together and to provide those services. So for me, that is the way we should have gone with this legislation.

There is much that is good and positive in this legislation, but there are several elements that are critical where we believe that it simply will not work effectively, at the community level, to serve the seniors whom it is intended to help.

What we would say to the government is to go back and rethink that model and a number of the other clauses and articles that flow from that, because that model will not be an effective one. It is not truly a community model, it is not an accountable model and it is going to ensure that there will be tremendous stress in the delivery of long-term-care services throughout this province.

We are going to have to continue to deal with this issue because we are going to have to find better ways of effectively delivering services. I think what we need to do is to base that on continuing with those major groups and organizations that are already in our communities and that have provided such excellent service. If we can do that, then I think we'd have a model that truly would deliver the long-term-care services that are needed as we enter the next century.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time of the official opposition.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have only a few minutes to add to this debate. I have never had an issue where so many of my constituents have come forward to express their disapproval of the government, and believe me, they've expressed their disapproval on quite a few occasions.

In a general sense, I'm supportive of the thrust of this legislation, that is, that we have enhanced accessibility to health care for disabled and long-term-care requirements. We need to have a coordinated approach, and it is a very good idea that anybody who needs to receive these services should have one-stop shopping in the sense that they have one phone number and they don't have to phone a host of people.

Having said that, we have to look at the problems with this bill. We had some 229 oral presentations and 400 written presentations. Of those presentations which came before the committee, approximately 95% of the people who made presentations were against this 80-20 split, which restricted the amount of services that could be delivered by any outside agency that was not an MSA to only 20% of the total services that were given or were booked through the MSA. Clearly that is an intrusion to many of the volunteer sectors.

The creation of MSAs is just the creation of a huge bureaucratic nightmare, but this is typical of socialists throughout the world. Whenever they approach any given situation that they encounter, their immediate response is to create a large bureaucratic organization. We've seen it in so many of the European countries where they have created absolutely unmanageable bureaucracies, and slowly people are having to come to terms with the fact that you can't pay for it. It does not serve the purpose that the government would have you believe, that in some way services are enhanced. They're not. They usually suffer as a result of this.

This approach to the MSAs is undoubtedly an effort by the government to pay off its union friends, to try and unionize this health care sector. Well, they may be trying it, but I assure you, a Mike Harris government will unwind all of their efforts. Do not have the belief that you're casting something that's going to be around for very long because, friends, it ain't. We're going to get rid of it.

We have seen that all of the volunteer organizations, the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Saint Elizabeth visiting nurses, Meals on Wheels, the Red Cross, to name just a few, have come forward and said: "Don't do this. This will be very injurious to getting volunteers." But the government hasn't listened. This is typical of this government, even though when they were sworn in, the Premier, in his first speech, said, "We will listen, and where we make mistakes, we will admit it and we will correct it." Well, he hasn't kept to what he said in that initial speech.

We have seen from the example of both BC and Quebec that where they have moved to this type of model, you have had indeed a measurable decline in the amount of volunteerism, which translates itself in terms of higher taxes down the line, because when volunteers are not there and we have all of this unionized labour working for this huge bureaucracy, cost goes up.

I can just simply say that all of the people who spoke to me were against this legislation. We will eliminate it. We know that it's an attack against the private sector. The cost to establish some 20 MSAs in Toronto has been estimated at $7 million. That's just the cost of setting it up. That isn't $7 million which will be spent on health care for those people who need the services. That is just setting up this bureaucratic nightmare. Furthermore, it's discrimination against non-unionized people who deliver those services. We're against it and we will continue to fight this government on it, and I would like to fight an election on this issue.

1750

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): It's amazing that I have a total of five minutes to debate this very important issue in this House. The health system in this province simply won't work without volunteers. That has been found over and over again and was heard over and over again in the hearings. The fact of the matter is that Bill 173 is going to do away with the volunteers of this province, all for the benefit of the union leaders, and that simply is appalling.

Volunteer-based groups in this province involved in the provision of long-term care are extremely upset with the creation of these MSAs. They view the MSAs as the forced demise of volunteer community groups and they maintain that the loss of volunteers will translate into the loss of dedication to work in government positions, commitment to provide hands-on services, historic values and commitments, donations and fund-raising ability, and that's most important. Who in the world on a volunteer basis is going to raise money for this government? Who could believe it? Finally, of course, consumer choice: As this government so often does in much of its legislation, there will be no choice.

I only have a few minutes left and I'm going to simply read a letter that was written to me by a Victorian Order Nurse in Orangeville, which I think adequately expressed many of the hundreds of letters that we've received. It was a letter that was addressed to the Premier with a copy to the Minister of Health and myself.

"Dear Mr Rae,

"As a member of the health care team in Dufferin county" -- the person, incidentally, is Bonnie Holden from Orangeville -- "employed as a nurse with the Guelph-Wellington-Dufferin VON and also a president of our local Hospice Dufferin, I have some grave concerns around the implementation of Bill 173.

"Volunteers in both of these organizations play a very important part in delivering many aspects of care and support to those who are living in their own home. Those who volunteer are drawn to and identify strongly with the organizations they represent and the specific needs they address. Volunteerism will fall greatly if these groups lose their identity under the MSAs. Will volunteers want to volunteer for the government? And if so, moneys need to be assured for a strong volunteer coordinator to be in place to provide support, ongoing education and coordination for those who may choose to continue. These points need to be considered when the structures of the MSAs are finalized.

"Secondly, easy access has been a main thrust of Bill 173. Even more intolerable bureaucracy could possibly occur if the MSA is to envelop all of the community services. Not only will groups lose their identity but services identified specifically by clients in need could be difficult to access directly and only if the coordinator or case manager deems it a need. Hospice Dufferin, for example, offers education to the general public around death and dying and established their credibility over the years -- only to lose it" by this bill. "And who would do this important education -- presently totally volunteer driven?

"As a third concern, VON is a non-union branch in this area. Will our jobs be assured? Bill 173 has given precedence to unionized employees. As an employee for VON for 11 years, I know this community and the local resources made and used in community nursing. Is that expertise not more important for the client than a union employee?

"Lastly, if the true reason we are trying to construct a better system (financial reasons aside for a moment) is the client, then the local community where he lives and seeks his medical care must be able to design and keep the MSA here on a local basis.

"Bill 173 is to be addressed in the next Legislature. Please consider what is truly best for the client and his community in your deliberations. Change is necessary but 'good constructive change.'"

That letter I think adequately expresses many of the concerns that have come in my riding. I think that this government is trying to change but they've changed in the wrong direction and it's going to cause disaster in this province.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): As my colleagues have indicated, there is a great deal of concern within our communities concerning Bill 173. I have certainly received numerous phone calls and letters. Very few people question the objective of the government's long-term-care system. However, the plan for reform that we have before us today is not only questionable but is potentially hazardous to the health of Ontario's long-term-care delivery system.

Indeed, a great many service providers are being left to wonder what will become of their organizations if Bill 173 is passed in its current form. Community agencies in my community such as the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Red Cross homemaking services, our new hospice and the Woolwich Home Support Services have maintained that they will be gobbled up by the MSAs.

If they disappear, my community, our home-health-care system, will lose thousands of dedicated volunteers who donate their time and money to assist these agencies in delivering essential services to individuals in the dignity of their own homes. Although these people have pleaded with this government that you can't have one size fitting all, this government has simply refused to listen. This Minister of Health has been totally inflexible and they have gone ahead with their blanket approach to the long-term-care situation.

I just want to read at this time a letter from the regional chair of the regional municipality of Waterloo:

"Dear Elizabeth,

"You should be aware...there is a great deal of concern within the community. This includes agencies, local governments and individuals who have all been part of developing a very good delivery system within the regional municipality of Waterloo....

"I do hope that you can appreciate the enormity of the loss which this community will feel once the new model is established and running.

"I know I speak for many people in asking for your assistance in ensuring that the bill is suitably amended so as not to destroy the work of many years in this region and to ensure that we continue to have the best possible services delivered in a cost-effective, community-based approach."

Our chair of the region appeared before this committee and he then talked about the need for continued local flexibility in service management and delivery, the dangers of forcing us to abandon a brokerage model and the inherent difficulties with special-purpose bodies as an administrative structure. In his concluding remarks, he talked about this one simple plea. He says:

"It also goes without saying that if new programs are mandated, expensive new bureaucracies established, salaries and wages driven up and the volunteer and municipal contributions undermined without the province being able to fund the results, the new act will see exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do. It will see the decline of services and the further rationing of existing support. Is the ideological drive for a separate, centralized, controlling agency worth the loss of service and commitment which communities such as ours will experience?

"My plea to you today is simple. Please amend this legislation so that it does not destroy the hard work, planning, love and commitment that so many people in our community have given to the building of a long-term-care system. There is dismay and anger within our long-term-care community today from those who believe that the government refuses to be flexible and ultimately will drive them from the fields they have chosen to serve. They see themselves and their roles as being altered and destroyed by the direction of the legislation. Please do not allow this to happen. Amend the legislation so that it provides the flexibility for true local planning and delivery."

I believe that these remarks from our regional chair adequately express the concerns of the people that I represent, and it is with regret that I conclude my remarks knowing that the future of long-term care in this province is not headed in a direction which will benefit local communities, local delivery of services and local planning.

1800

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'm saddened today to have to join in this debate. I want the members opposite to know that with the passage of this piece of legislation, they are undermining what we believe in this province or I believe in this province is what makes our neighbourhoods and our communities strong, and that's the volunteer.

Many people volunteer for projects, they volunteer to participate, because it's the best way they can show that they're philanthropic with respect to their communities. They aren't given an opportunity through money, because maybe they don't have it, to show what they want to give back to their communities. They want to give back to their communities because they believe they've, in fact, taken from these communities and they need to show what it is that they want to give back to them. Make no mistake, folks; when you pass this piece of legislation you're doing just that.

These organizations and agencies don't write to government telling them that volunteerism will suffer, and don't consider the letter that they're writing to you. They consider it very carefully. They're very concerned because they know the people who are delivering the Meals on Wheels are putting back into the community things that are needed in the community. They do this because it makes them feel better and provides this province with neighbourhoods and communities that make us strong and make our jobs easier as government. They do things that we would have to otherwise pay to have done and cost taxpayers in this province significant dollars.

What you're doing today is ripping away that opportunity by people to put back into their communities things they've taken out, all in the name of ideology, all in the name of union organizing. These jobs aren't union jobs; they're not even jobs, for heaven's sake. They're volunteer positions, and these volunteer positions are things that keep us ahead of the game, give us an opportunity to see in our neighbourhoods how good people can and will be.

Make no mistake: When you vote for this, you're taking away people's opportunities to provide for others at no cost because it's in the goodness of their hearts that they volunteer. You're saying to them: "You're not necessary; you're not needed. We can hire union organizers and we can hire union people to carry forward on these jobs."

Mr Speaker, make it very clear to these people opposite, when you pass this piece of legislation -- some parts are good, I'm not debating that; some of it is good -- but make it very clear that you're undermining a community and neighbourhood and you're cutting out the good things in our communities that we have.

I'll tell you something: If this government believes that people will line up and volunteer to work for government, you're crazy. People will not volunteer to work for government.

I heard the member for Oxford heckling about the fact that, "They'll line up and volunteer for government because it's good." No, folks, they volunteer to agencies, they volunteer to support groups, they volunteer for causes and to be people with other volunteers. They will not volunteer to work for government. For heaven's sakes, 80% of the people in this province can't stand government, let alone volunteer for it.

This thought of yours that somehow they'll come out of their doors and come out of their houses and stand together and say, "What we need to do is volunteer to be workers, government workers," is crazy, absolutely crazy. Be it on your heads, let it be on your heads that when this is passed --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Oh nothing, member for Yorkview, it's on your head that when you pass this legislation those people who won't be served properly and won't be served by volunteers will cost taxpayers money. It will cost us all money to try to serve the community that we used to serve by volunteerism.

Lastly, when you go back to your communities and you deal with these people who are volunteers, you ask them: "Now that we've formed this government association, are you going to volunteer to work for me?" And they're going to say, "Volunteer?"

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yes.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Cochrane South thinks they're going to -- you can't get a volunteer to work for you to get re-elected, for heaven's sake, let alone anything else; but he thinks they're going to volunteer at some MSA.

This is ideology gone mad. This was good stuff to begin with. It was necessary changes in government, changes in legislation. It's gone mad, and it's gone mad because this government has made some serious, serious errors in judgement on the way.

I'll say this to them: When you finally go back to the people this will be but one more example of why the biggest mistake made was on September 6, 1990, and I guarantee you if we get a chance to get back to the people you'll answer for this and I would like to be there, a fly on the wall, because I want to see you answer to those volunteers when they tell you, "We do not accept your government and you're not going back into power and you've made some very callous and silly errors."

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I would concur with my colleague for Etobicoke West. This is indeed ideology gone mad in Bill 173. In the short time that I have remaining to me I would like to bring to the debate some of the concerns that I've heard as the representative for Wellington county.

We have heard a very serious concern about the level and diversity of care and how it may suffer if Bill 173 goes through. Many people in Wellington have written me regarding their concerns that multiservice agencies which the government is creating under Bill 173 will not be able to provide the same level and diversity of care which volunteer and private organizations have been able to provide. So they're very, very concerned that the quality of care will suffer.

A letter from Susan Ledger of RR 1, Fergus, sums up the quality-of-care issue very well. She says: "The clients are the ultimate ones who will suffer. The very specialized care that they currently receive will not be automatically transferred under the administration of a new system. It is presumptuous of the government to assume that existing organizations will automatically hand over their expertise which they have invested a tremendous number of years and dollars to develop."

Another letter I received: from a VON nurse in Ennotville, actually, Sandra Howatt. I know very well the good work the VON has done in our area. Speaking personally, my mother was stricken with rheumatoid arthritis when I was about four years old. She spent a year in bed at home when I was just a child, and in many ways the VON homemakers and nurses raised me for that year.

Sandra Howatt says: "With VON nursing we have saved your government hundreds of thousands of dollars by supplying excellent home nursing rather than hospital services. We are specialists. We are skilled and we are competent. We must appeal to your government in the interest of the communities we serve to have Bob Rae and his government change the legislation in Bill 173. The communities must have the right to design a community-based health care delivery system to serve the needs in their own area."

Another letter I received from a constituent, Clark McAlpine of Arthur, said: "Under the proposed system, patients may suffer a decreased quality of care since there will no longer be any freedom of choice for consumers. There will be a standardized basket of services in each community, but these services will be constrained by the limited funding the government may choose to provide." Another concern about government takeover of the system.

Another major issue that I've heard concerns expressed on is the loss of volunteer help in our communities, and there's a great deal of concern in this respect that with MSAs people will be reluctant to donate their time and money to a government agency under the MSA system. I received a letter on this that I'd like to quote very briefly from.

Colleen Cudney, life enrichment coordinator for Wellington Terrace in the county of Wellington, which is our municipally owned home for the aged, says: "There is volunteer opposition to this bill. Boards are telling us that they will not be committed to an MSA as service deliverers."

Another letter I received, from Verna Speers of Palmerston, concurred: "Volunteers will no longer be as plentiful as many will not want to devote their time to government-mandated agencies. This will further decrease the quality of care people will receive, as there will be fewer volunteers to augment the services. If this legislation is passed, this province will also lose the benefit of the time and energy that hundreds of thousands of volunteers currently provide to augment and enhance publicly funded, community-based health and social services."

I'm very strongly opposed to the provision in the bill, the 80-20 rule, as we call it, which stipulates that an MSA cannot spend more than 20% of its approved budget on purchasing services from independent service providers. This will limit private sector and not-for-profit sectors who do not wish to be part of the MSA to 20% of all community-based long-term care. What a bunch of socialist nonsense.

I think the objective of this bill has to be to enhance the level of care to our seniors, and this arbitrary rule, which is just central planning at its worst, which I think around the world we recognize is a negative, we're bringing into the health care system in Ontario.

1810

Again from Colleen Cudney at our home for the aged, Wellington Terrace: She says that we should remove the 20% limit on services purchased outside of the MSA, that communities must be allowed to deliver the best model of service delivery, and that we should lift the ceiling on the four-year implementation time frame.

I heard another concern from our health unit on the issue of how to become an MSA. Our medical officer of health, Dr Doug Kittle, expressed to me his concerns about the procedures set out in Bill 173 for the selection of an MSA for a given geographical area, and I also heard concerns from a number of municipalities in the riding. We have put forward a constructive series of amendments to improve this bill. Of course, the government has rejected our approach and I just want to say in the short period of time to conclude with my remarks, I think that we owe our seniors the very best possible long-term care that we can provide. This bill will not achieve that. At least in the short term and the medium term I think that's clear, and the disruption that will be created and the uncertainty in the next six months is going to be a very negative impact on the delivery of care.

I hope that in six months' time there'll be a new government. I believe that will be the case, and a new government can address some of the mistakes that have been made with respect to this bill, but I really must ask the government one last time to please, please reconsider calling third-reading vote on this bill, and let's see if we can't get together and have a better approach to this issue.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In rising to speak briefly in this debate because we have had our voices closed down by the government moving the final debate under time consideration, to try to get up in five minutes and speak to a bill on which closure has already been moved, I must admit is one of the most frustrating experiences that those of us who wish to stand and speak on behalf of our constituents can experience. In fact in the nine and a half years that I have stood in this House and spoken on many issues on behalf of my constituents, I don't think there has been a bill that I have felt as strongly about as this bill. I am totally opposed, and so are my constituents, to Bill 173.

I do, however, wish to commend the work of Jim Wilson, my colleague and the member for Simcoe West. He has struggled with this bill since it was first tabled. He has tried to amend the bill to make it work. He has tried to place amendments in response to all the deputations who came forward and made comments on this bill, but unfortunately the government members on the committee, of course, would not accept any of his amendments.

I think it's important that we call this bill what it is. It is not one-stop shopping. It is one-stop unionization and it's a sad time when the socialist Bob Rae government implants its ideology with such far-reaching fingers and tentacles as Bill 173 represents. The fact that it will destroy volunteers is not debatable; every one of my colleagues has talked about that aspect. The other fact, whether or not the government members choose to understand this, or whether or not the government members are able to understand this, is that no government in this province, in fact in any province in this country, can afford to pay for the work that is currently done by volunteers.

In fact in Ontario according to the Statistics Canada report, if we were to pay the minimum wage for the work that volunteers are doing in Ontario today, volunteerism itself would be the largest single industry in Ontario, larger than automobile manufacturing, larger than any other manufacturing sector, mining, forestry and so forth, just larger than any other single industry, and that's what you are about to destroy with the passage of this bill.

And while I'm thanking the people who have conveyed their concerns to us from all their different perspectives, I think too that I would like to commend the people who have sat in this House now for almost close to five hours to endure what I'm sure for them must be a very difficult debate, but I am glad they are here, because they are here seeing first hand what a socialist ideology that is committed to unionization is all about in this province.

I hope and pray that the people and the organizations that all the people in our public galleries represent today will be there to ensure that socialism is rid from this province once and for all at the time of the next election.

Finally, since the time limitation is so difficult for us, I want to read a brief quote from the United Way of Peel, lest my dear colleagues across the floor of the House would think that my comments are partisan in being critical of Bill 173. I would simply remind them that the United Way of Peel has said:

"Fourteen of the 45 United Way of Peel member agencies, and their clients, will be impacted by proposed changes to the long-term-care service system.

"The objectives of the legislation as described in Bill 173 are not new ones. Community-based, consumer-focused, accountable, accessible services currently exist in the community agencies providing long-term care services.

"The draft legislation assumes that the multiservice agency...is the only answer to improving long-term care service delivery. United Way challenges this assumption and has requested the Minister of Health to provide any research or data which supports integrated service delivery in any sector as a proven method of improving service for customers."

In fairness to my colleagues, that is all the time that I can give to this debate today, which I regret tremendously. But I simply agree with the comments that everyone else has made, and goodbye, New Democratic members.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): In the minute that I have, I would just like to say I agree wholeheartedly with what my colleagues have said here today. This is just another poor bill that's been put forward by the socialist government. It's another plank that'll come up in their defeat. There's no doubt that you people have no idea what's going on in this province. You have given the people of this province no leadership, and it's very unfortunate that you would bring through a bill like this and destroy the systems that have been built up in this great province of ours.

Again you put closure on this bill. There's no need for that, and 20 closures in the regime are just unforgivable. As Margaret says, goodbye.

Mr Jackson: I suspect that this is about the ninth or 10th speech that I've had the privilege of presenting in the brief time that I have, but it's the ninth time that I've responded to long-term-care concerns. It's unfortunate that there is a disturbing trend in the direction and the tenor of the legislation that we faced in the last four or some years with this government.

Bill 120 allegedly helped fix the institutional end of long-term care, but was financed on the backs of bed closures in hospitals and chronic care hospitals across Ontario.

We now are faced with Bill 173, the bill which professes to provide a whole series of community-based services when, if you peel back the publicity around this bill, if you penetrate past the legislation into the regulations, which none of us have seen, you will discover some very insidious aspects to this bill.

In the brief time I have, I want to summarize some of the points that I've been stressing, not only in this House but as I toured this province in all the public hearings on both Bill 120 and Bill 173 over the course of the last four years.

The first issue is that the brokerage model, the changing to the 80-20 formula, was thrown out for discussion as late as June this year. For years, even this government was parroting a model for Ontario that worked with existing delivery service agencies in this province to take all the very best of what we have built as our culture of response to senior services and build and broker those services in a cooperative way, in a more efficient way, to get more service directly to seniors because we can provide it more economically. Then all of a sudden, at the eleventh hour, we're thrown this motion that this has to be a government agency.

1820

The second issue, and it hasn't come up much in this debate, is that this bill delists home support services from the OHIP formula under the Canada Health Act as it's applied in this province, just as Bill 120 delisted the right of a citizen of this province to have access to a nursing home bed or a long-term-care facility bed. I want to remind the members opposite, the accusation you will make in the next election, as you did in all previous elections, was about, "Don't delist service under the Canada Health Act," and your government has done two of them in your term. Several others you've done, but as it relates to seniors, those two have been delisted, I remind the members.

Deprofessionalization, the language in this bill in terms of how we do assessments, how we do seniors with multiple concerns and needs and how we do those assessments and who's qualified to do those: This bill really has failed the professional infrastructure we now have, and it's violated even further. I mean, we wouldn't do this in our schools, in our classrooms for our children, where we would put a shop teacher in a class to teach French, so why are we getting unqualified people in to help senior citizens? Because we've left the door open in this private deal with Sid Ryan and the unions, "Look, we'll buy some peace with you, but these are the implications when you start saying that people are going to be hired based on a magic formula and a commitment that's been made to a union, and not to the best needs of the client, the persons who need the service: our seniors."

There is the whole issue of the volunteer base and we have been discussing this. I want to remind the members opposite, $37 million of service, human resources, the touching, the support services, the reaching out of human services that are provided by volunteers, and Sid Ryan said, when I cross-examined him, "We would relegate the volunteers to basically recreational programs." So even Meals on Wheels has to be a unionized job in this province. We can't afford millions of dollars for that. We just can't afford it.

There's no cost analysis for this legislation. We've been bugging the government to give us some number, but the only number we get out of this government is this phantom number of millions of dollars that it's going to pledge in the budget with which Bob Rae is desperately going to try and campaign in the spring in this province. That's the number we've been given, what they hope to spend.

But the number you should have given us is, how much money are you wasting with this legislation? How many more seniors could we provide services to if we costed it out properly, planned it out properly? But you don't want to determine that, and even Price Waterhouse has removed its support for its own analysis.

We have removed front-line caregivers as the natural advocates for our seniors. Once you make these people civil servants, who do seniors appeal to? Right now we have an implied appellant mechanism: The service providers, whether they be the Red Cross or VON, take the client or the seniors' needs and they go and fight for them. We in this House on occasion have had to fight and advocate for moving that service or shifting that service or shifting dollars. We do it successfully, but not under this new regimen.

I remember the minister explaining that what they liked about her bill so much was the fact that it gave more choices to seniors. It's taking away choices for seniors. When I asked the minister, "Give me one example of a choice you've given to seniors," her answer spoke volumes and summed up what this bill is all about. This is a record for Hansard: The minister said, "The senior citizens have the right to say no, they don't want the service."

That is it in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen. That is the new-found right in Ontario for our seniors, and no appellant mechanism; there's been the union deal. This is a cost-containment, not a service-enhancement model, and the government knows it.

We owe our seniors, who built this province, on a pay-as-you-go basis. That is their legacy, and now, when they are frail and elderly and they need our support, we have a government that says, "Pay, or else you go." That is the legacy of this bill.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time for the opposition. The parliamentary assistant and member for Simcoe Centre has five minutes in summing up.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I've listened to a lot of myths and a lot of rhetoric today. I think we really ought to deal with the realities of this situation. What is pushing this legislation is the necessity to have a more effective delivery system of long-term care in the community. We believe the MSA model we have created will be the way to ensure that we deliver those services effectively to consumers.

I think it should be stated clearly that the purpose is to preserve the community non-profit method of delivering community health care in this province, because there is a competing model out there, a competing model which many members of the opposition would like to push, and that is the market system, the system where you purchase services. We believe in not a market system of delivering health care; we believe in a community-based, community-controlled system of delivering health care. That's the basis of this legislation.

We want to preserve the non-profit sector; we don't want to destroy it. We want to build on it. The way we want to ensure that it does continue is that the non-profit system is the most effective way we can deliver the services. We believe the MSA is the most efficient, the most effective way of delivering those services.

Why do we think it is more effective? We think it's more effective because, first of all, it's going to be community-based. It's going to be governed by members of the community, not by a government bureaucracy as the opposition would have you believe but by members of the community. It's going to be governed by consumers. One third of the people sitting on the boards are going to be consumers, the people who actually receive the services. That's going to mean that it's going to be responsive to the needs of the consumer. It's going to have the expertise, with people having experience in the health services field and in the social services field. It's a move towards getting a better delivery system.

Let's just deal with some of the other myths that we've heard. As you can see, it's going to be accountable to the community. First of all, I've heard comments that we're going to have too much inflexibility with respect to budgets. Yes, we have to live today with envelope funding. But the board's going to determine the spending in accordance with that funding envelope and also to ensure that they meet the basic services. But they'll determine their budget just like a hospital determines its budget.

With respect to the question of volunteers, it's not an easy answer to say, "Well, because an organization changed, you're going to lose volunteers." People volunteer for many reasons. They volunteer because they want us to provide the service; they volunteer because they're appreciated; they volunteer because the organization they work with gives them good training. That's what we've done in this bill. We've put in amendments which will ensure that volunteers will play a role in governance, will play a role in planning the process.

That's the other thing. We're doing the planning for this long-term-care system through our district health councils. Volunteers are involved; service providers are involved. We have a four-year phase-in. This is going to develop the best system for each community and the most effective system.

With respect to the whole question of unionization, that's really a red herring. There are only two homemakers in all of this province that are unionized, in Windsor and Brant, so it's not really an issue. It's completely a red herring.

With respect to the nursing services and personal care services, they're obviously essential health services and will be protected for continuation.

With respect to some of the other indications, cost of the system, we want to ensure that the money is spent more effectively in service delivery, not in administration.

With respect to some of the other comments, protection of workers, we have put in the provision that's going to ensure workers' jobs will be protected. Actually, the real protection for workers' jobs, besides recognizing seniority, is the fact that we're spending more money in the long-term-care delivery system. We've increased spending by 54% and we will increase to $1 billion this current year. There's still approximately another $250 million in spending to come in community long-term care.

I'd like to conclude by first of all thanking the Chair of the committee, who did his usual good job of chairing the hearings and going through clause-by-clause; members of the committee for some of their contributions which assisted in improving the legislation; and I would particularly like to thank the Ministry of Health people. I can't name them all, but the people I'd like to mention particularly are Gail Czukar, Geoff Quirt, Patrick Laverty, Louise Hurst and many, many others who have made this legislation better and made a great contribution.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for third reading of Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care.

This item will be voted on, by previous agreement, as the first item pursuant to the normal routine proceedings tomorrow, December 7.

Report continues in volume B.

6 décembre 1994