Journal des débats 1994-déc-07 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The predecessor to the present Labour minister promised to make changes to the law that regulates private employment agencies back in 1991. The legislation was expected to address discriminatory practices against visible minorities and women by employment agencies and employers who use them.

Employment agencies exist as private firms that help match qualified workers with employer specifications for jobs, but it has long been the practice of many of these firms to send candidates to job interviews based on pre-screening criteria by prospective employers that are not job-specific. The former NDP Minister of Labour promised to toughen the auditing of agencies in 1991, but now, at the end of the NDP mandate, that office has been silent on this issue.

I call upon the present Minister of Labour to uphold the promise to introduce legislation to stop unfair job referrals by employment agencies. The problem is too widespread to be dealt with by the existing legislation. The Minister of Labour must show leadership in this instance to help the Ontario workers using employment agencies find jobs free of discriminatory practices.

Your government, the NDP government, that is, has failed the people of Ontario again by not bringing about legislation that will help all. The employment equity initiatives have been just chaos, especially in the public service, where even the Ministry of Transportation and other ministries have shown the inadequacy of dealing with employment equity.

BOEING CANADA

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): The year 1995 will mark the 40th year that Boeing aircraft of Arnprior has supported the Canadian armed forces as a centre for helicopter overhaul, maintenance and modification. This facility also provides precision-machined metal parts for all models of commercial jet transports.

From their helicopter division, Boeing Canada produces the tandem-rotor Chinook, provides vital support for the Canadian Labrador search-and-rescue helicopter and produces the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor airplane.

As one of the largest single employers in the Ottawa Valley, Boeing of Arnprior supports a labour force of more than 640 people. More than 1,700 Canadians pursue careers in aerospace at two major Boeing facilities, with a combined payroll of $65 million. Over 130 North American companies supply goods and services to Boeing operations valued at $800 million a year.

These factors combine to make Boeing Canada and the Arnprior operation a major contributor to the world's aerospace industry. For these reasons, I call upon the federal government to consider the enormous economic impact of the Arnprior branch and give it a fair chance to bid on Canada's military contracts. To quote Al Johnson, director of the military program at Boeing, "[Our] major concern is that we [be given] the opportunity to bid."

I realize this is a federal jurisdiction, but they have asked me to assist.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): A number of my constituents have been complaining about the abuses in gasoline marketing by the oil companies, and I must say they do so for good reason.

The federal government has just completed what I consider to be a whitewash study into price-fixing in the gas industry. Not a single consumer was involved in the examination of prices at the pumps. The people who buy gas had no input into the process driven by the federal bureau of competition.

Something is seriously wrong when gas prices rise as much as eight cents a litre just before a long weekend when consumers need to consume more gas -- and when there is no corresponding hike at the same time in crude oil prices.

The federal government is responsible for setting laws that promote and ensure fair competition. There is a clear problem of abuse in gasoline pricing. One can't help but wonder if the Liberal government's report was somewhat influenced by the hefty contributions the oil industry made to the Liberal Party. Imperial Oil and Amoco donated some $88,000 to that party in the last election.

The federal Liberals must undertake another examination of this issue. This time, they should consult consumers, the people who buy gas and who know there is a real problem with what the oil companies are doing.

Interjections.

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

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

1340

Mr Morin: I hope you'll start the clock again, Speaker.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. Restart the clock, please, for one minute and 30 seconds; the member for Carleton East with his statement.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Christmas is fast approaching. We know that for many families in Ontario the holidays won't be such a happy occasion. There will be few special extras because the money simply isn't there.

This government allocates millions of dollars every year to help the needy, yet it is obviously not very worried about where this money is going, does not care whether it is meeting its intended goal.

If this government were seriously concerned, it would have put a stop to the practice of charging fees to cash government cheques. It would have passed Bill 154; it would have listened to the members of its own caucus who supported Bill 154.

Recipients of social assistance continue to lose thousands of much-needed dollars. They are victims of both the cheque cashing operations, which prey on their desperation, and of this government's inability to respond quickly and efficiently to a problem which has plagued low-income Ontarians for many, many years now.

How can this government continue to condone such commercial activities?

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health and relates to Bill 173, the long-term-care bill.

Art Bradford, past chairman of Information Orillia, says the long-term health plan, launched by the Liberals and carried on by the NDP, appears to be largely a civil service plan based on the idea of bureaucrats controlling access to services in a management area without recognizing that many communities are already well served by existing organizations.

Mr Bradford said Information Orillia provides details about nursing homes for the aged, residential centres, shared accommodation, home help via the doctor, the VON, Red Cross, toenail clinics and much more. The local organization shares information with community information centres in Barrie, Alliston, Collingwood, and they reciprocate.

Mr Bradford said it appears we will be entering a chaotic era in which existing organizations will be restructured, either partially or completely wiped out, and a health manager without the money to do everything currently being done will struggle.

Bill 173 will undoubtedly result in the creation of another bureaucracy for which more staff will be hired to provide services already provided by organizations like Information Orillia.

Mr Bradford indicates he is not optimistic about seniors receiving better service under Bill 173 than they currently receive. He suggests that supporters of Bill 173 are being unrealistic about the NDP government's long-term-care plan being nearly perfect.

Unfortunately, the government has brought in another in a series of time allocation motions and limited democratic and constructive debate on this controversial legislation.

COMPASSIONATE LEAVE

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I rise today to inform the House that I will be tabling a bill entitled An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

The purpose of this bill is to allow an employee an opportunity to take an unpaid leave of absence in order to provide palliative care to a family member who is suffering from a terminal illness.

In the bill, the employee is entitled to return to work at their former position or, if it no longer exists, a comparable position. I see the employee being able to continue to participate in the benefits plan and have their seniority accrue as well.

My interest in this area came from my days on the shop floor of General Motors in Oshawa. On an occasion when I was filling in for the pension benefit rep, I had the opportunity to meet a fellow employee who was in need of some time to provide palliative care to a terminally ill spouse. This individual needed time to spend with his partner of many years -- not to retire early to mourn forever at the end of his spouse's life.

To quote from a story that ran in Monday's Globe and Mail about doctors focusing on palliative care, "'We tell people how to birth well,'" with such aids as providing "birthing suites and labour coaches, and 'we now have the knowledge to teach people how to die well.'" Let's not reserve that knowledge only for medical practitioners.

This morning I received a letter from the Community Hospice Association of Ontario in which it agreed with the principle of my bill. They fear the proposed legislation may be too rigid if an individual is forced to return to work just when the ill family member's need is the greatest.

As you can see, there are many challenges that need to be discussed during second reading debate and in the hearings which I hope will take place later on this year.

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I would like to draw the attention of the House to the very fine work of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters in Ontario.

The federation is the largest and oldest non-profit conservation group in the province, with over 74,000 individual members and 520 member organizations.

To deliver its principal message about the positive economic, cultural and biological benefits to hunting and fishing, the federation produces and distributes many excellent magazines, educational materials, and firearms and safety manuals. As well, its new TV show, Angler and Hunter TV, is seen weekly by over 15 million folks from across Canada and the United States. I know first hand that this is a very popular show in my riding of Kenora, where it's seen each Saturday.

The federation is involved in a great number of positive projects across the province which benefit the natural and human environments. Canada's largest-ever environmental campaign, Pitch-In, wetland preservation, government lobbying, firearms safety, hunter-land owner relations, and wildlife reintroduction programs are only a few of the projects that the federation operates.

The work of the federation cannot really be accurately measured in dollar terms, but the economic impact can certainly be measured. As we know, for every dollar spent on wildlife conservation programs, some $4.50 is returned in government tax revenues alone.

I invite all members of the House to join me in thanking and congratulating the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters for the fine work they are doing for wildlife throughout the province.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I stand today in support of my colleague from Wellington county, Ted Arnott, who on November 21, 1994, introduced a private member's bill to amend the Highway Traffic Act. The bill would allow volunteer firefighters the right to attach a flashing green light to their personal vehicles when responding to an emergency call.

Recently, the province announced green licence plate stickers to help identify firefighters arriving at the scene in their own vehicles. Stickers are fine; however, they fail to go far enough. A sticker will not alert other motorists to the emergency situation, whereas a flashing green light is easily identifiable as a signal for motorists to yield to an approaching vehicle.

To some of our urban counterparts, this may seem like an insignificant issue. However, with an estimated 400 firefighters in Grey and Bruce counties alone, flashing green lights are of great importance to safety and emergency response time in rural areas.

This proposal has been in the works for over two years, and in my riding two communities have decided not to wait any longer. The Markdale and Durham-area fire departments have already incorporated the use of green flashing lights to warn traffic and pedestrians of their presence in response to an emergency.

Posters such as this inform residents of the purpose of flashing green lights, warning them to pull over when approached by one. After all, the house volunteers are rushing to save may be your own.

Although the use of flashing green lights is new in these communities, I'm informed they have already met with success.

In light of this, I urge the government to move forward on this issue in order to improve safety and emergency response time throughout rural Ontario.

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY INNOVATION NETWORK

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the people in my riding who are successfully organizing a wonderful community economic development project, which has received significant funding from the Ontario NDP government through the Jobs Ontario Community Action program.

The Community Opportunity Innovation Network, in cooperation with 14 community partners, has designed a project that will assist low-income people in the Peterborough area and make important economic and social contributions to the region as a whole. Over the next 18 months, organizers estimate that 63 sustainable jobs will be created through seven community enterprises, resulting in positive spinoff economic effects for the entire area.

These organizations have come together to initiate a community-owned and community-driven business venture by analysing and responding to the business and economic needs of the local area. For example, the project will work towards the development of a textile cooperative to address an existing bottleneck faced by local design companies. They're also looking at the creation of a re-use centre for building materials and are planning to develop a local native arts and crafts training program to include a camp and outdoor education centre based on traditional native principles.

I want to thank those involved in this most exciting project, especially COIN president Warren Northcott and manager Kevin Edwards. Commitments of time and money have come from individuals, businesses, publicly funded organizations and the provincial government alike. I'm very proud of this government's support of this kind of collective entrepreneurial spirit.

1350

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I'd like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to make a few comments about one of those who serve us here in this assembly.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

TOM STELLING

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I understand we are a few days or about a week late, but I want to make a few comments today about our Sergeant at Arms, who I understand celebrated his 25th anniversary as the Sergeant at Arms last week.

For those of us who've been around for a while, Mr Speaker, as you will know, there are probably only one or two members left in the House who have been here longer than Tom has been in that chair. For most of us, he has been an institution here who, in many respects, has helped us to get to know this place. He's helped us in a very friendly way. He's a very friendly gentleman, as you know very well.

Before he became Sergeant at Arms, he actually worked here for a while. He worked in the government news clipping service and he later became a messenger with the Clerk's office. He left the Assembly for a while to work at the registrar general's office and then he came back to become an attendant in the Clerk's office before becoming the Sergeant at Arms here.

He's one of those very distinguished looking characters, but he's also one of those people who has a great deal of depth in his character itself. He is one who deals well with all of the members of the House and who has befriended many of us on all sides of the House.

We got some interesting comments from some people around the building about the Sergeant at Arms. These are the kinds of comments that make you think about what you really know about an individual. For example, I was told that his hobbies were skydiving and parachuting. I've never been able to picture the Sergeant at Arms in that kind of a situation. On the other hand, I know that the Sergeant at Arms, for hobbies, very much likes an occasional drink of single malt Scotch, a good Cuban cigar and, from time to time, even a good game of poker. There are obviously things that different people learn about individuals whom they work with over the years.

Tom also knows the building extremely well. I think probably Tom himself could have designed the renovation work that's been going on here over the last number of years, because he probably knew where every leak and loose nail and so on was. He has a lot of interesting stories about a number of the artefacts and carvings and paintings and so on around the premises.

He also has a whole range of very interesting ghost stories that he tells, I would imagine, mostly to school children. But none the less, they make for interest around the folklore about this place.

Tom Stelling is an extremely important part of the operation of this assembly, as you know very well, Mr Speaker. One of my staff suggested to me this morning that I might want to say this afternoon that you could really tell when the session was finally seriously under way when the Sergeant at Arms threw out the first member.

Having said that, our congratulations to Tom for 25 years of very excellent services as Sergeant at Arms and for a number of more years in addition to that of serving and learning the processes around the Legislative Assembly. Tom, I somehow have a feeling you'll be here for a number of more years yet, but we appreciate your service and we thank you for it.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My colleagues and I want to join with the government House Leader and all members of the assembly in paying tribute to Mr Thomas Stelling for a quarter century of stellar public service.

I knew Tom Stelling when his hair was as black as Gilles Morin's boots. I knew Tom Stelling before there was a crease of worry across his youthful visage, and today, after 25 years, we can see how the burdens of public service have altered his countenance and his hair colouring.

Actually, the Sergeant at Arms is the only landed sergeant who gets to wear an admiral's hat, and he wears that hat with no little bit of style. But I speak for a lot of members, probably most members, when I say that the Sergeant at Arms in this place, despite the daily pomp and circumstance in which he has to indulge, is known to all of us for one of his more basic responsibilities, and that is showing delinquent members the door. Tom has done that for many a year with aplomb and with great effect.

Will he ever forget -- because I know I won't and I'm sure the member from Manotick won't -- those days when Tom was beginning his career as Sergeant at Arms, bringing Frank Drea to some order as he escorted the colourful former member for Scarborough out the door, and I think on one occasion inviting the late member for Sarnia, my colleague Jim Bullbrook, to a duel just outside the door. Tom not only showed them the door but arbitrated a peaceful settlement to what looked like something of a difficulty.

There was that famous night, and I'm sorry the member for Sudbury East is not here, when her father -- Tom, will you ever forget the night when Elie W. Martel --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Let's talk about Eddie Sargent.

Mr Conway: I'm coming to Eddie, believe me. I'm going to be very ecumenical, I can assure the member for Lake Nipigon. The night that Terry Jones in the chair, Nick Leluk in that very seat over there and Elie Martel a couple of seats away from where I now stand got into a really good late-night dustup -- it was, I remember, the night of the chiropractors' dinner, always a night of some significance in this chamber. I have to say, to be again bipartisan, that night, as Elie made one of his great parliamentary flourishes -- well, I won't say any more than that except that it was a great night -- Tom Stelling, with the able assistance of Dr Robert Elgie, showed Elie to the door and to a happier place.

Then of course -- I think Ross was here that night and he will remember it perhaps even better than I -- that was the night we all agreed that Bob Rae was probably not the solution to the problem of the moment and Bob Elgie was called for and did a wonderful job, but again under the capable leadership of our Sergeant at Arms.

If Tom Stelling had a dollar for every time he had to show Eddie Sargent the door, he long ago would have retired to not just one motorcycle, but perhaps several. I think the current Premier and I have the distinction of being taken out of here by Tom one afternoon and being brought back in just a few minutes later, which is I think a feat that no two other members in my 20 years can claim.

So Tom, for all of those wonderful memories, those great parliamentary feats, we thank you. May your next 25 years be as productive and as interesting as those which we properly celebrate here this afternoon.

1400

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Much has been said, and I don't know what is left to be said. Sitting only 15 feet from the man himself who bears a very large sword, what does one say but nice things? I've crossed swords with Tom on a number of occasions. However, he's never had the opportunity to take me from this place and I say with some pride that I have never had the opportunity to be thrown out of the Legislature.

One of my first encounters with Tom is that Tom has a name very similar to my last name, Sterling as opposed to Stelling, and when I was first elected I used to get a great number of Christmas cards to Tom Stelling. This wouldn't have been as disturbing as it was to me, as a man of the people, as an elected politician, but he was getting more Christmas cards than I was.

Mr Stelling has lived through some very important times in our Legislature and has served us well in terms of trying to grapple with an ever-increasing problem related to security. I guess one of his greatest accomplishments over the past 25 years has been the fact that we have never had a major incident in this Legislature in dealing with a really very serious threat to the security of our members or our staff in this building. We have had some threats, but always those threats have been diverted or taken care of by both Tom and of course the OPP and the security staff who serve us so well in this building.

So, Tom, I say congratulations to you on your 25 years of service to us and thank you very much for taking care of us so well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Parliamentary practice prevents the Sergeant at Arms from having an opportunity to respond to the kind comments made by the members this afternoon. With your indulgence, if I may on behalf of the Sergeant at Arms thank the government House leader and the member for Renfrew North and the member for Carleton for their kind and thoughtful comments directed at one very special person who has served and continues to serve this assembly with great loyalty and great distinction. For that, sir, all of us thank you.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Yesterday the honourable member for Mississauga South, Mrs Marland, rose on a question of privilege in which she alleged that her privileges had been breached in that the Human Rights Commission had denied her request to make oral submissions on behalf of one of her constituents before the commission.

The honourable member will know that the parameters of parliamentary privilege are very narrow and were only intended to protect the activities of members while carrying out their legislative duties in the chamber and in its committees. I therefore cannot find any prima facie case of privilege. However, I do thank the member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and to the attention of the Speaker.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I know that all members of this House are saddened by the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of a mother and her 16-year-old son on Monday in Hamilton. The tragedy has focused attention on what has been a long-standing issue, the provision of services to families with disabled children who are living at home. This issue is long-standing; in fact we have raised this issue at least 30 times in the Legislature over the past four years.

Approximately 10,000 families rely on the special services at home program. It's estimated by the Special Services at Home Family Alliance that approximately 2,000 families are either on a waiting list or appealing for more assistance under this program. In my own home community of Thunder Bay, there are 57 children on a waiting list for the special services at home program. Another 40 families have applied for more funding.

I know, Minister, that you have been hearing from these families, as I have been. I believe it is important today that you send a message of hope to families who are on waiting lists or who are appealing your ministry's decisions. Will you instruct your officials to review their caseloads to identify other families that might be in crisis? Are you prepared today to take immediate action to avoid further tragedies?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciated the way in which the honourable Leader of the Opposition went into the question. I have to say that I was a bit perturbed towards the end of her question when she made a link between the tragedy, and potentially further tragedies, taking place and the issue of funding under this service.

I've tried very hard, as difficult as this issue is -- and our heart goes out to the family and our condolences certainly go to the family -- to be clear that we have no indication at this point, other than what has been speculated about in the press, that there is any link between the issue of the level of service that this family was provided and the tragedy that occurred earlier this week in Hamilton.

I think it's important that all of us continue to maintain that approach. There is a police investigation going on. That will determine, to the extent that they can, what happened. There is a coroner's inquest that will be held, and that will address those issues.

With respect to the broader issue, if the member wants to pursue that, I'm very happy to say that certainly that's an issue we should discuss. Let me also say that we believe, and I believe as minister responsible, that while we have done a lot in this area -- and we have done a lot in terms of the amount of money that we've increased spending by under special services at home; we've in fact almost doubled the budget in that area in the last four years --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- we also believe that more needs to be done, and that in fact is the direction that we have been pursuing, certainly over the last number of months.

Mrs McLeod: I indicated that this is a long-standing issue and one which we have raised, as I said, at least 30 times in the House. I believed it was important to raise the issue again today. It's sometimes sadly true that it takes a tragedy to bring an issue forward as a priority. While I don't make a direct link, Minister, I think you know that the families who are caring for severely disabled children at home are under enormous stress and deserve all the support we can provide.

I was concerned with a quote that was attributed to one of your officials in the media today, that there is an expectation that a family which is receiving this kind of support service will also "have taken advantage of other services available in the community."

It is clear, we know from that quote and we know from situations we've all dealt with in our own constituency offices, that these families are being asked to go not just to your ministry but to the Ministry of Health, to the education system, and to check with hospitals just in order to somehow put together the kind of adequate package of support that they need in order to be able to provide the care that's needed at home.

Minister, we're talking about parents who are living and working constantly with the stress of having to provide for the needs of severely disabled children. How can you expect parents to have to search through a maze of bureaucracy in order to get the kind of care that they need? How can you expect that of them when they are already living with the stress of dealing with their children?

Hon Mr Silipo: I think it's important that we put the issue of the special services at home within the context of the broader range of supports that are provided. It is but one of a number of services that are available to families, and together with other services such as intervenors or other supports, it provides, therefore, a range of services. I would be the first to say that in fact there is also more that we can and need to do, and are trying to do, to better coordinate that range of services, and that is also something we are doing.

I can tell the honourable member that in fact in the policy work that we are doing now, which will result in a draft some time in the month of January of a policy framework, we are picking up on the kind of work that we have been doing as a government to move money from institutional settings into community settings, an initiative that was started by the previous Liberal government and which we were happy to support and continue and move even faster in some areas.

But I believe that we're now in the process and on the threshold of also redefining what we mean by "living in the community" and not just applying that concept to group homes but also the whole array of other supports that will allow and facilitate families to be able to take care of children with a range of developmental disabilities at home, for those people who want to do that.

1410

I've been very supportive of that direction. The policy direction that the ministry is undertaking will enshrine that as a direction that we want to go in. What we have to do is to have a way in which the funds --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- can also flow in that direction and a better coordination of services that will also address the issue of the stress of families, which we believe is also an important problem that needs to be tackled and resolved.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, that's a very frustrating answer for me to hear today, because you're absolutely right: There is a range of services out there for children and families, but there is no coordination of those services and families do not know how to access the services. The reason your answer is frustrating for me is that it was November 1990, four full years ago, when your government tabled the Children First report, which clearly sets out the need for coordination of children's services.

Since that time, there have been two legislative committees that have offered details of action that needs to be taken to provide more at-home services. The recommendations for action have been absolutely clear, they've been clear for at least four years now, and for you to stand up in the House today, four years later, and tell us that you are looking at bringing forward a policy framework is just simply not good enough.

It is clear what needs to be done. There has to be better coordination of services, there have to be guarantees of long-term funding so that families don't have to live with the uncertainty of reapplying every year for the support they need, the government has to ensure that the services are consistent across the province and you have to ensure that if people move within the province of Ontario, they don't have to reapply for services.

Minister, those recommendations have been there. There has been no action taken by your government and I have to wonder where children have been on your agenda. Are you now ready, not to bring us a policy framework but to take action on these recommendations and this issue?

Hon Mr Silipo: The policy framework that I referred to will in fact be the action of the government. It will continue to build on the actions that have been taken. It will respond to the review that we have taken on special services at home and it will, among other things, make it clear that parents will not have to go through a process of reapplying year after year. That's something that we've heard and are going to be responding to.

That also will deal with the issue of people moving from one part of the province to another and being able to carry that allocation of assistance with them, and many other issues that have been raised. It will build on the kinds of things that are in the present policy framework, which has been the guide for this ministry and for the ministry even under the previous Liberal government. I think we have managed to move the yardstick along quite significantly.

I would also just say, in conclusion, that when the member talks about there being no coordination of services, she fails to notice the many initiatives that are under way across the province through community-based agencies that are doing exactly that coordination of service. But more importantly, I think she hasn't heard what many families with children being served under special services at home are saying, which is that they don't want someone else to coordinate the service; they want to be able to do that themselves. Our challenge is to be able to respond to that issue as well as the greater coordination of services that we need to have across the system.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: You had opportunity over a lengthy period of time to deal with a family who wanted to be able to coordinate services for themselves. It was not easy to do under this government's framework.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS BILL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the government House leader, who has disappeared for a moment. If I may place my second question to the government House leader, as you well know, today is the second-last day before the government plans to prorogue this House and literally to leave the people of this province in limbo.

For months now, all we have heard from this government is that it doesn't have any time left to deal with urgent and pressing issues. Apparently, the only thing they have time left for is to pass time allocation motions to ram their legislation through this House. In the meantime, there are at least, by our count, eight bills that are aimed at making our communities safer places to live and to work, and those bills are in jeopardy of dying on the order paper as of tomorrow.

The member for Mississauga North has a bill aimed at keeping dangerous sexual offenders off the streets. The minister knows this is a bill that is based on recommendations from the Christopher Stephenson inquest, and these recommendations are two years old.

The government has been advised by the Ministry of Health's director of legal services and by the former Deputy Attorney General that it is within Ontario's power to strengthen the Mental Health Act to keep our streets safe from sexual offenders. This bill does that.

Last week I asked the Minister of Health to urge you, Minister, to send this bill to committee for consideration and she refused to respond to the request. Minister, I urge you to move this bill into committee. I'm not asking you to commit to the bill; I just want you to give it a chance to be considered. Will you at least do that?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): There are a number of things the Leader of the Opposition has included in her preamble and her question. She implied that somehow, when this session ends, the people of this province will be any more in limbo than they are at the end of any session, or at the end of the last session before the former Liberal government called its election in 1990.

She knows full well that this government has passed more good private members' legislation than any government in the history of this province, by some substantial amount. We take very seriously the business that private members bring forward in this House. She's right, there have been requests around the bills that she's mentioned today. There have been requests around literally dozens of other private members' bills that members have come forward with. We can't deal with them all instantly, but I have made the absolute commitment to the House leaders of both of the other parties that I will carry over any private member's bill that they request to have carried over into the spring session.

Mrs McLeod: My concern is with this government's lack of commitment to issues that matter to people. You have exhausted your agenda, you've run out of ideas, and yet you refuse to deal with any other concerns.

I'm not asking you, Minister, to deal with the whole range of issues which private members have indeed brought forward, but to focus at least on those pieces of legislation which would address people's very real concern about safety and security in their communities. I believe that's an important piece of business for us to be working on in January and in February, until such time as this government decides what we are about to do.

Last night in committee your members refused to allow the proceeds-of-crime bill that was put forward by a member of the third party, the member for Burlington South, to go to committee during the recess of the House. It's a bill that all three parties can agree deserves support, a non-partisan approach, but your members voted to defer further dealings with the bill until next spring when the House resumes.

But there is no date set for the return of the House. In fact, we don't even know if we're going to be coming back. You have no bills to go to committee in the intersession. There is no reason for blocking this particular bill and there is no reason not to be back here in January and February to deal with it.

I'm asking for unanimous consent of the House so that we can have this bill go to committee, so we can hear from the public, so that we could get the bill passed. Will you agree to this, Minister?

Hon Mr Charlton: The leader of the official opposition seems to suggest that some private members' bills are much better than others, that some of her members who bring forward private members' bills bring forward bills around which nobody in the province has any concerns. I don't happen to believe that's the case.

Having said that, I repeat: We are going through a debate this afternoon and tomorrow that will see five, six, seven private members' bills perhaps passed in their entirety and become law in this province, a record which is unprecedented, a record which the Liberals would never even consider approaching. For her to even suggest that we're blocking legislation, with that kind of a process occurring here today, tomorrow and ongoing, is just too much to take.

We have said to all of the members who have bills before this House that, in an orderly fashion, we're prepared to attempt in committees to schedule those bills. We're not prepared to see committees with all of the bills that have been requested for committee hearings travelling all over this province ad infinitum over the next three months.

1420

Mrs McLeod: It's not just my concern that makes certain private members' bills that deal with crime and safety important bills for this House to deal with. I happen to believe that the safety and security of our communities is one of the greatest concerns of people across the province. This isn't just my concern; it's their concern. I believe it's a concern that we should be dealing with in this House and I believe it's an issue on which we can do much more. That's what members of this House have been trying to do in presenting these private members' bills.

Minister, you don't have any new government business for the committees at all. I don't think the government has the will or the energy to deal with these issues that do matter to people, and there are at least six other bills that have been presented that are on the order paper that are aimed specifically at making our communities safer. Yet in spite of having no government business to do, you're willing to let these all die on the order paper.

The member for St George-St David has two bills which would make our parole system more effective and more accountable to victims and the public. The member for Eglinton has a bill aimed at keeping killer cards out of the hands of children. The third party has three other crime bills that are worthy of consideration -- all bills that speak to people's concerns about the safety of their communities.

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

Mrs McLeod: If you have no business for the House this winter, why not let these bills go forward? We're willing to cooperate and I'm sure the members of the third party would be willing to cooperate. If you have no solutions left, Minister, step aside. Let others get on with the business of helping the people of Ontario make their communities safer.

Hon Mr Charlton: I just can't accept the comments that the leader of the official opposition has made. First, the Leader of the Opposition suggests that this government had nothing left to do this fall accept time allocation motions. We've dealt with, in the last two weeks, four complete pieces of legislation, one of which happens to deal with making communities better, where three of our ministries got together and spent considerable time and effort putting together a piece of legislation which this House will pass tomorrow afternoon.

If I had seen any indication of interest in proceeding with some of the bills the member is referring to -- like the fact that at least one of the bills she referred to in her first question today we have offered on two occasions to proceed with in committee and the member who is the sponsor of that bill said he was not ready to proceed.

As I have said a number of times here in the House, we have a better record on proceeding with private members' legislation than any administration in the history of this province and we will keep up that good work, and none of these bills will die on the order paper.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier, following on the deaths of Cathy Wilkieson and her disabled son, Ryan. This is a difficult issue, Premier, and I don't believe pointing fingers in this specific case solves anything. However, I think you would agree that if we don't learn from tragedy, we can't prevent another from happening.

I understand that two parents of disabled children, Steve Mahler and Gloria Christianson, handed you a package of information at your recent convention in Hamilton. They were urging you to reallocate $26 million of existing funding to the special services at home program. Premier, you read this information. Did you not think that this $26-million reallocation request was a higher priority than most other areas where your government currently spends?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to refer this question to the minister responsible.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): On the basic issue that the leader of the third party has raised around the reallocation of funds to special services at home, let me say to him very clearly that that's exactly what we have been doing. We have been moving year after year to add more money, not only into special services at home but into the whole area of services in the community. There were sums that come to mind of about $29 million this year, an equivalent amount in the past year, and some of that money went right into the special services at home.

The member correctly talks about reallocating. That means reallocating funds that we are now spending essentially in institutions into the community settings, including, as I say, special services at home. That's exactly the direction that we're moving in. That's exactly the direction that we want to continue to move in.

We don't have additional funds that we can find and put into this area, but we have been very clear and we are going to be even clearer with respect to the new policy framework that I was referring to earlier, guiding the actions of the ministry in a clearer fashion very much in that direction, very much into saying that people should live in their communities, in their families, in their homes, where they can and want to live, and that we need to be supporting them in doing that. That's exactly the thrust that this government and this ministry want to continue to support, want to indeed enhance, and that's exactly what we're going to be trying to do.

Mr Harris: I'm pleased to hear in the future that's exactly what you're going to try and do. The member for Burlington South has a petition signed by Cathy Wilkieson and other parents who need home services, which they have asked him to present to you in the Legislature today.

We know, Minister, and to the Premier as well, that governments must make very difficult choices and that it is not easy, but we have heard your Premier in the last two years acknowledge that being all things to all people is long gone, that spending priorities have to be set. Clearly, your government has made a number of choices we've pointed out to you that we think were wrong priorities: half a million dollars to fight NAFTA, which was not in your jurisdiction; $30 million on government advertising we've raised; $75 million on the Interim Waste Authority; $22 million to drive the private sector out of child care.

I have a letter here from Bob Rae to Mrs Carol Eaton, dated February 12, 1990. I don't want to read the whole letter, but part of it says:

"Thank you for your letter of January 31 concerning the special services at home program.

"I agree with you: The special services at home program is a necessity. Funding for this program and for programs like it should be stable and adequate."

You're not getting this from the Liberal government. This is Bob Rae in opposition. This is five years ago virtually now, February 12, 1990, this response. This is not a new issue.

At that time the Premier said, and certainly implied, it would receive a far higher priority from New Democrats.

I would now ask you, Minister, on the $26-million request -- to take the budget of $26 million to $52 million was the specific request they've been asking for -- do you honestly believe that this request does not have a higher priority than virtually most of the $55-billion or $56-billion or $57-billion budget that your Treasurer is working on today? If you agree with that, will you allocate that money today?

Hon Mr Silipo: Again, I want to emphasize for the leader of the third party that we have been doing exactly that. We have been moving more funding into the special services at home. You can just compare: In 1990-91 there was about $17.5 million that was being spent on the special services at home. This year there's $30 million that's being spent. So we've almost doubled the budget during that time. But I will be the first to say that there's more that we need to do, and we are trying to see how much more we can do and how much faster we can move.

But that is very clearly for us not only the direction for the future but in fact is very much the direction that we have been pursuing and acting upon over the past four years that we've been the government. There are a number of improvements that we believe need to be made to the special services at home program particularly, and then to the whole array of services that are provided to people who want to be able to live at home and be able to take care of their children at home, and we believe very much that that needs to continue to be the direction that we move the system in.

1430

Mr Harris: The irony in the requests that the parents have brought forward is that by reallocating resources -- and they have pointed this out. They tell you where to find the savings. For families trying to give their disabled family members a better quality of life at home, ironically, in many cases it is at far less cost to the government than the institutionalization of these family members. So it may come out of a different ministry, but it all comes out of the Treasurer's total budget.

Given this and given, obviously, that we've not moved nearly quickly enough in this area, I earlier today had a chat with the Premier to ask the Premier if he would agree during the intersession, when I think the House leader will acknowledge there's not too much happening during the break between now and the budget and the throne speech, if he would allow a committee of the Legislature to sit, have hearings, allow the families, the intervenors and the caregivers of disabled children and young adults to come before the committee early in the new year and allow that committee to make its presentations to the Treasurer in his pre-budget consultations.

I would like to ask you, Minister, if the Premier's had a chance yet to talk to you about this, if you would agree that allowing them the access to a legislative committee, allowing them full access to put their case of priority --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader complete his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- against all of the others of the $57 billion or so that the Treasurer will be looking at spending, if you would agree to do this, because they're confident and I am confident that if we will agree to do this, in fact the priority will shift from some of the other dollars that are being spent of the $57 billion to make sure that we're providing the support necessary for caregivers to look after family members in their homes. Will you agree to that?

Hon Mr Silipo: Let me first say that certainly the issue of cost continues to be one, and in fact it is true that in a number of these situations it is less costly to be able to provide support in the families, which is exactly also why we believe it makes sense, and that is also why we've been moving the system more in that direction.

But we need to also understand that if the money is to be taken from people who are now being served in institutions, we have to be sure we have a place for those individuals, that we don't simply put them aside in order to serve someone else. That's the difficult process that we have been trying to grapple with, but I think our track record speaks volumes to how much we've moved the system along.

On the issue of having people have an opportunity to voice their concerns through a legislative committee, yes, the Premier has spoken to me about this. Let me say it's my understanding that there will be pre-budget hearings, as there have been over the last number of years since we've opened up the budget process. I would expect that through that process it would certainly be possible for people who have concerns around this issue, as well as other issues, to come forward and to make their views known to the Legislature through, I presume, the finance committee of the Legislature.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: Well, maybe we're gaining. Thirty minutes, though, is not going to be enough time for one presentation to the Treasurer. I'd ask you to reflect on the reply --

The Speaker: Is there a second question?

Mr Harris: -- to make sure that there's adequate time provided to make the case.

Interjections.

TAXATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question, Mr Speaker, and through you to all those members anxiously awaiting and calling out trying to do your job for you, is to the Premier as well.

Yesterday, Premier, you told Ontario's beleaguered taxpayers you will not cut their taxes. You say it cannot be done. Well, Premier, I say it must be done. You and the Liberals have raised taxes 65 times in the last decade, including 11 hikes to personal income taxes. I am simply proposing to take tax levels back to the point where they were in 1990, when the Liberals were thrown out of office for having taxes that high.

Premier, how can you possibly say that tax rates cannot be cut by $4 billion when in fact you have hiked them by $4 billion over and above the rate that the Liberals were thrown out of office for? How can you stand there and say that?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm delighted that the leader of the third party is spending time reading my speeches.

I would say this to the honourable member. I must confess to him that I find a certain irony in his presentation today. We all recognize that maintaining services is a critical part of our civility as a society. I would say to the honourable member that for the instance that he has raised today, as important and as dramatic as it is, I could point out areas with respect to health care, I could point out areas with respect to the needs that people have in our society, where there is definitely room for movement and for increased services for people.

I'm a simple soul, Mr Speaker, as you well know. I would say to him that when I hear people saying from his corner of the House, cut four or six or eight, or whatever number they choose out of the air, in taxes and don't relate that to the services that are being provided to the people of this province, they are trying to suck and blow at the same time. It cannot be done. It should not be done. It's a bad idea and it's something which we have to look at seriously.

Yes, I am saying on the eve of --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- the year 1995, which is going to be an election year, the quality of services we provide for our fellow citizens is a sign of our civility towards one another. You cannot do that if you're saying to people, "You can have it all for nothing." I don't believe that's being honest and straightforward. There's no free lunch. There wasn't one when you were in government, there isn't one today and there never will be one, and that view has to be expressed clearly and emphatically to the people of the province.

Mr Harris: I think after we cut through the rhetoric, the Premier is saying, "I can't do it."

Hon Mr Rae: No --

Mr Harris: If that's the case, step aside. If you cannot live with the tax rates that David Peterson left us with and that Lyn McLeod left us with, the highest in the country, if you can't keep your spending within those rates, then step aside.

By way of supplementary, clearly the Premier has identified that to live with those tax rates, we have to live with a reduced rate of spending. We have proposed a rate of spending equivalent to what the Liberals were spending when they were thrown out of office, fully indexed for inflation.

Are you honestly telling us that you cannot run the affairs of the province of Ontario at a spending rate equivalent to what the Liberals were thrown out of office for having taken us to, indexed for inflation? Are you prepared to go to the people saying: "I can't live with that amount of money. I can't provide the best services in the world with that amount of money"? If you're saying that, I say step aside too, because we can.

Hon Mr Rae: I must confess the leader of the third party has said --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Newt.

Hon Mr Rae: A Newt by any other name -- I've read his speeches as well and I'm always fascinated by the clippings that I receive from many different parts of the province. "Harris Promises Tourist Operators to Increase Budget" is a headline I saw recently. "Harris Promises Increased Funding for Health Care," "No Cuts in Health Care," "Harris promises that natural resources will not be affected by the cut." Harris told the farmers when I was at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture: "You've been badly treated. It's going to go up."

There isn't a group he isn't prepared to cater to and say they won't be affected by cuts. That's the position that's being taken by the leader of the third party. Today he comes in here and says, "I'm advocating a doubling of the budget," with respect to an aspect of the Community and Social Services budget.

The leader of the third party can't have it both ways. If he is going to go around the province saying, "Vote for me, I'll give it to you for free," he's got to tell people, "We're going to cut your hospitals; we're going to cut your natural resources; we're going to cut the budget of this province right down, not just to the bone but beneath the bone." That's exactly what this leader is saying with respect to the budgets of this province.

That's not something I'm prepared to countenance, that's not something I'm prepared to advocate, and when I hear the leader of the third party saying it, I'm prepared to call him on it because I think what he's doing and what he's saying in that regard is not right and is not fair.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary, once we get through the wild-eyed ranting and raving and rhetoric, what the Premier is really saying --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: What the Premier is really saying is, "I don't agree with your priority." Our priorities are to maintain funding for health care, for agriculture, for tourism, but the Premier --

Interjection: Agriculture?

Mr Harris: Yes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: But the Premier and the Liberals disagree with slashing a number of politicians. The Premier and the Liberals disagree with reducing the number of bureaucrats. The Premier and the Liberals seem to disagree --

Interjections.

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

1440

Mr Harris: The Premier and the Liberals disagree --

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader please take his seat. I must caution the member. Will he please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier. Does the Premier have a reply? If the leader of the third party could briefly and quickly place a supplementary, then we can have a reply.

Mr Harris: I acknowledge that the Premier and the Liberals disagree with our spending priorities and our reductions, our reductions in the numbers of politicians, bureaucrats, tax-free allowances, MPP pensions, every one of which we've detailed in our plan. You can disagree with that.

Premier, let me ask you about the tax cut. Even your own Treasurer in his last budget acknowledged that the greatest bang for the buck of job creation was in his tax cuts.

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

Mr Harris: Why are you not in favour of the single biggest job-creating tax cut in the history of Canada, a $4-billion income tax cut to create jobs, prosperity, wealth and opportunities in Ontario? Why do you oppose that?

Hon Mr Rae: I oppose it because I think it's a truly nutty idea. That's why I oppose it. I really do. You've had free rein with this nonsense for a long time, and you've had free rein with this stuff for a while, and I think it doesn't add up.

I haven't met a single person -- I've talked to bankers, I've talked to people on Bay Street, I've talked to other people about it. I've talked to small businessmen, large businessmen, working people and all sorts of people. They don't think your numbers add up. They don't think your theories add up. They think it's a bunch of right-wing nonsense which even they feel uncomfortable hearing you embrace.

I would say to the honourable member, I will tell you why I don't embrace this idea: because I don't think it has any merit. I think it's time we started telling the truth to the people of the province about how we feel about these things. I'm telling you how I feel. You tell people how you feel. I think your ideas are really nutty. I think they're nutty.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, within about an hour's time we understand that you are going to use the majority of your government to force the long-term-care bill through this House. You are clearly determined to impose your version of a monolithic bureaucratic agency on communities across this province. Not only that, but you're also determined to make matters even worse by sticking to something called the 80-20 rule.

At the hearings this summer, there were numerous organizations which gave testimony to their objections about the MSA model and about this very arbitrary 80-20 rule. They are frustrated by an arbitrary rule that restricts the numbers of agencies in a community that are even allowed to provide services. They're frustrated that only 20% of the services can be provided by anybody other than your bureaucratic agency. They know that this 80-20 rule is going to ultimately force some agencies to close their doors.

We have moved amendments to remove this unworkable, destructive section, but your members on the committee have defeated them. Minister, at this last hour, can I ask you why you have not at least supported these amendments? Why are you so determined to proceed with these provisions in a bill that is going to force agencies to lay off workers and possibly to close their doors?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I have made it clear time and time again when these issues have been raised that our reorganization of long-term care has created jobs, is creating jobs and is most unlikely to result in people being laid off; $400 million extra does not add up to layoffs, it adds up to an expansion of service.

The critical difference, I think, between the opposition and ourselves on this issue is whether you merely coordinate 1,200 existing agencies or whether you in fact reorganize the services into a way that ensures they are provided in an integrated manner based on the needs of the people they serve.

The 80-20 rule or regulation confirms that our government believes that integration of services, bringing together those agencies, making them work together and join together in a way that provides integrated service, is the way to make sure that the people this is all about, the seniors and the disabled, get the care they need.

Mrs McLeod: We have tried to make it clear time and time again that we believe this bill is going to destroy community organizations. The organizations have told us that and, Minister, they have tried over and over again to tell you that.

This is bad public policy. It is the wrong thing to do. It's wrong because it says no to volunteers in this province. It's wrong because it is going to devastate community agencies that have served people in Ontario for decades.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs McLeod: It's wrong because workers are going to be needlessly let go with absolutely no assurance of being rehired by your new agency. It's wrong because you are proceeding with this with absolutely no evidence of the cost of this new bureaucracy. It will not stand the test of people working in communities across this province. It will not stand the test of delivery service to seniors and people who need long-term care and that's why it must be changed.

Minister, every time you have answered a question in this House, you've used as your example of a coordinated system --

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

Mrs McLeod: -- models which exist in communities, and every example you've used has been a model that's been built by the community itself.

Why do you persist in ignoring the views and the voices of these very same community organizations that have proven that they can deliver effective service to seniors and others in our communities? Why do you insist --

The Speaker: Could the leader please conclude her question.

Mrs McLeod: -- on imposing your view of what's best on communities across this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: If ever there was a case of a policy where a view was not imposed, it was this one. I say once again, the government that preceded us was about to impose coordination on 1,200 agencies. This government went back to those agencies and went back to the people those agencies serve and said, "Do you want this kind of coordination?" We heard, and we continue to hear, the answer is: "No, we want to integrate. We want to make sure that we provide service that is a continuum of care, that is seamless and that comes from one place, not from a variety of places."

Time and time again, and in community after community across this province, in advance of the legislation being voted upon, communities are coming together and doing that. I know the member won't like to hear that, but that is what's happening --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- in district after district and in community after community.

Interjection.

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

Hon Mrs Grier: The people who run community-based services are recognizing --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- the value of working together and are creating, as we speak, the agencies that will deliver that service in an integrated way, in a continuous way and in a cost-effective way. She refuses to believe it.

The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude her reply.

Hon Mrs Grier: We know --

The Speaker: New question.

1450

PROCEEDS OF CRIME BILL

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I notice that the Premier is not in the House. I called his office at 10 o'clock this morning to advise him --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat, please. The member knows better. If there is a minister to whom he wishes to address the question who is not in the House, would he please direct his question to someone else.

Mr Jackson: Can I ask the House leader if the Premier is still in the House or in the lobby. I had served notice to the Premier, which I understand is the rules and regs in this House. I served notice. If he has left, I'd like to --

The Speaker: I give the member a few more seconds if he will identify a minister to whom he wishes to place his question. Otherwise, I will recognize someone else in the chamber.

Mr Jackson: I then ask the question to the Attorney General.

On July 17, 1993, I tabled Bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the proceeds of crime. On October 21, 1993, it was debated in this House and passed with a huge margin of support and referred to the social development committee for public hearings. That was over a year ago.

Late last night, at the 11th hour in the social development committee, a motion by NDP members of the committee was placed to stop and prevent any public hearings on this bill during the intersession.

I have contacted the main sponsors of this bill, Donna French, Priscilla de Villiers and Debbie Mahaffy. Their comments today are filled with concern at the manner in which the government has acted, and they have been attempting to contact the Premier's office.

Minister, can you explain why your government refuses to conduct public hearings when that was the will of this Parliament? As Mrs Mahaffy, Debbie, has indicated, Christmas is one of the most difficult times for her family, and this decision by your government has made it that much more difficult.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): As this is a matter of House management, I refer to the House leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The member raises a serious question, one on which he obviously has significant depth of feeling.

On the other hand, it should be made clear to the House that although the government members on the committee yesterday did move a motion, it was not a negative motion, as the member suggests. In fact, it was a positive motion to seek the committee's approval to proceed with hearings on the bill to which he refers during the spring session. In fact, the committee passed that motion, although the Liberals and the Conservatives both voted against the motion to proceed with hearings on this matter next March.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: As a result of calls the member across the way made to the government this morning, we offered to have the Attorney General's staff sit down with the member across the way to deal with some amendments to make the legislation acceptable so that we could pass it here in this House tomorrow, and the member declined to participate.

Mr Jackson: I don't think any serious-minded person actually believes I would indicate my unwillingness to proceed with this legislation after I first tabled a form of it seven and a half years ago in this House.

In my discussion with the Premier only a few moments ago in this chamber, he indicated that there were four lawyers standing by the phone waiting to sit down and get the bill passed. I said: "Fine, if you think you can do it. It's quite unbelievable." The note from the Premier, which I have on my desk, says, but, oh, by the way, "We're ready to proceed with a discussion," and he boxed in the word "discussion."

I don't know what the game is that's being played over there. We are willing to sit down and pass this bill.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jackson: The facts have been laid out in this Parliament for everyone to see. If the government has the political will to pass this bill in the next 48 hours, we're prepared to proceed. That is a fact. If the government is prepared to withdraw its support, then state that: Stand in the House and tell Priscilla de Villiers, Debbie Mahaffy and Donna French that you're not prepared to do it in 48 hours, because I'll be here for the next 48 hours to work with those four lawyers or any other lawyers to pass the proceeds of crime bill.

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

Mr Jackson: Will you proceed to prepare the bill for this House for tomorrow, yes or no?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member across the way is the sponsor of the bill. The Attorney General's staff are prepared to sit down with that member to see if he can agree to amendments we can agree to in terms of passing that bill. We believe that can happen.

But I would suggest it's somewhat intriguing why the member didn't inform the House today about those discussions that occurred this morning and only about the motion that happened yesterday. The member's bill has been in committee for a year, as he has suggested. On two occasions, the member has been offered hearings on that bill and has declined, saying he was not ready to proceed. We're prepared to deal with this piece of legislation if the member is prepared to sit down with the Attorney General's staff and proceed in an honest and straightforward way and stop playing political games with the issue.

ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a question for the House leader. On Tuesday, I met with a group of constituents, Citizens for Access, in the riding of East York. They continue to experience many barriers in gaining access to transportation services and buildings. As you are aware, with the end of the session, Bill 168, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, will die on the order paper unless the government moves that it be carried over into the next session of the Legislature. Will the government move that Bill 168 be carried over?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): The simple answer is, yes, we will ensure that Bill 168 is carried over. This government has shown very serious commitment to both equity and disability issues. We intend to continue to show very serious intent to proceed with issues like the member's Bill 168, and we will proceed to carry it over, yes.

Mr Malkowski: In a letter dated November 23, 1994, to Ron MacInnes, president of ARCH, you indicated you would be speaking to the opposition House leaders about review of Bill 168 by the justice committee. Have you raised the issue of intersessional hearings into the bill, including hearings in centres outside of Toronto? If you have, how have the opposition leaders responded?

Hon Mr Charlton: I thank the honourable member for the question.

I have to admit that although I have discussed the matter of his bill with the opposition House leaders, I didn't do that in the context of the intersession. We did have some discussions about Bill 168. As a result of that, the bill is now in hearings in the justice committee. As I've said here in the House about this bill and a number of others, no, we have not had discussions about the intersession. As I understand it, as a result of the member's own efforts, the committee yesterday passed a motion to proceed to deal with hearings on the member's bill during the spring session.

FURNACE VENTING SYSTEMS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Madam Minister, my question deals with a very serious health risk existing as a result of the installation of plastic gas venting systems on mid-efficiency furnaces. You will know that on November 21 you responded to a question posed by the member for Renfrew North on this issue by stating, and I read from Hansard: "I should add that the product in question that the member referred to was banned for sale in Ontario. That was done right away when we first heard about this problem," and that was in March 1994.

I have been provided by the member for Halton Centre with recorded minutes of a meeting that took place just last October in the town of Oakville. In attendance at that meeting were representatives of your ministry. In recorded questions and answers, it was asked who was advised of the deficiency and when. Your fuels safety branch of your ministry became aware of the problem in 1992. Minister, you told this House only last week that you banned the product when you first heard of this problem just last March. However, it appears that your ministry, that you knew of this problem not in 1994 but rather in 1992.

Why did you wait two years before informing the public of a product that can cause a carbon monoxide gas leak in their home?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): When the ministry officials informed me of the problem, the whole situation and the problems associated with the gas vents had increased significantly. What I was informed was that there seemed to be problems with these gas venting systems across the country but very few had been reported.

It's not the ministry inspectors who go out into each and every home. We have to rely on the inspectors out there, the industry out there, to come and tell us when there are problems, and for a long time we were not getting consistent reports. The ministry officials tell me they were getting a few reports here and there from officials, and it was at that time that they started to think there may be bigger problems with these systems. At that time, when it became apparent that there seemed to be a consistent problem, then they came and informed me about it, and shortly after that, that product was banned from the market.

1500

Mr Offer: Minister, that's a bunch of baloney. You told this House just last week that the first time you heard about this, you banned the product. That would have been last March 1994. Your own staff said they first heard about this problem in 1992. Minister, they advised all the installers at that time. That wasn't just hearsay; they knew there was a major problem. You didn't inform the public of the province of Ontario that there was a real problem in gas venting systems in mid-efficiency furnaces that would result in carbon monoxide leaks.

You know that the Ontario Home Builders' Association has indicated that there are over 10,000 homes in Ontario with this type of furnace venting which can crack and allow odourless carbon monoxide gas to escape into the house. Your ministry has indicated that this carbon monoxide gas will cause headaches, will cause nausea and, in extreme cases, death.

Minister, today the temperature is falling; the furnaces are being turned up. What do you say to the families, to the children who live in these homes where they're under a constant threat of carbon monoxide gas leaks, on a matter --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Offer: -- which you knew about in 1992 and didn't inform the people of this province of until two years later? What do you say today to those families and children who live in those homes?

Hon Ms Churley: In fact, the member is quite wrong. I didn't know in 1992, and when we were aware that there could be significant problems with these gas vents, we were the first jurisdiction whatsoever in North America to take any action -- the very first. As soon as we were aware that there may be problems --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Will the member for Halton Centre please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: -- that these vents may be a problem, we were the first jurisdiction to act. Other jurisdictions across the nation and across the United States are looking to what we have been doing.

They have been banned. There is a replacement system that can be used in the meantime. We are looking at working with the industry's concern to come up with alternatives. You don't want me to talk out the clock again, so I won't, but Mr Speaker, we were the first jurisdiction to act, and the member knows it.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. You thought you were going to get off easy.

Minister, I wouldn't want the session to end without asking you a question about our favourite joint venture company, Teranet, particularly when your colleagues of the justice committee have blocked my efforts to subject the corporation to further scrutiny.

When your predecessor, the member for Welland-Thorold, announced the joint venture agreement, he said that Teranet would create jobs here in Ontario and expedite the work of people involved in the land registration business. He also claimed, "All this will be accomplished much sooner and at a lower cost than if the government had tried to do it on its own."

Minister, I have been told by people in the business that neither of these goals have been realized.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): That is not what he said.

Mr Tilson: I'm sorry, it is what he said. It's a direct quote from his statement.

Minister, I have been told by people in the business that neither of these goals have been realized. Can you confirm that in the brave new world of Teranet, the cost of the research necessary to provide a professional opinion will be a minimum of 20 times the current cost, and that, to compound the damage, in many areas of Ontario we lose up to 10% of the physical boundary information? Is this not a fact, that we will pay more for less?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No, the member has the facts all wrong on this. Perhaps we can talk about it later. I'd like to tell him that over 600,000 properties are now available for public access and 350 direct jobs have been created by this consortium. I'll be glad to update the member after question period as to the latest on what's happening with Teranet, but I can assure him that the problems he thinks are happening there are not happening.

MEMBER FOR VICTORIA-HALIBURTON

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps you can assist me and direct under which section of the standing orders I can draw attention to the fact that the newest member of the House, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, I believe is celebrating his 21st birthday today. Chris Hodgson, I want to wish you a happy birthday, and I wonder if you could assist us in that regard, Mr Speaker.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): No, it's his 31st.

Mr McClelland: I'm sorry; I might have said 21st. We might have missed 10 years or so.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Brampton North, I have studied the standing orders, and I can't remember which particular order he refers to, but indeed very best wishes to the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to set the record straight and state that it's 33 years, and thank my friend and colleague.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's signed by people from Dryden, Waldhof, Machin, Keewatin, Kenora, Red Lake, McKenzie Island, Balmertown, Cochenour and other places across my riding. I too attach my name to that petition.

1510

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

There are 290 names on this petition and I am happy to sign it.

SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition signed by snowmobile enthusiasts from across southwestern Ontario and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas snowmobile insurance premiums have increased disproportionately to the economy; and

"Whereas increased premiums have the effect of forcing people to ride smaller machines which may not be suitable for families; and

"Whereas many snowmobiles have been blacklisted; and

"Whereas snowmobiling has over the years become a safer sport through better education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to investigate the needless and unwarranted increases in snowmobile insurance."

I affix my signature to it.

VENTE DE BIÈRE ET VIN / SALE OF BEER AND WINE

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition de 3,149 noms de 14 dépanneurs de la circonscription demandant au gouvernement provincial -- and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations may want to hear this -- que la vente de boissons alcoolisées telles le vin et la bière soit autorisée dans les dépanneurs de l'Ontario.

There are 3,149 names and 14 stores in Prescott and Russell to ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that beer and wine can be sold in corner grocery stores and get Ontario to come into the 20th century.

SPEECH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

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

"Whereas the provincial government has left unresolved the issue of speech-language service delivery between agencies representing the provincial ministries of Health, Education and Training, and Community and Social Services; and

"Whereas on January 24, 1994, the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington decided to discontinue its program of assessment and treatment of preschool children with speech and language disorders; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health was asked on May 2 in the Legislature to intervene and examine why cuts to vital children's health services were replaced by user fees to private agencies for the families affected;

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

"That the Ontario government immediately undertake to streamline the delivery of speech-language services in this province and assist Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital to restore its speech-language program to maintain accessibility to speech-language services for the families and children that need them in Burlington and within Halton region."

This has the signatures in support of 2,000 of my constituents in Burlington and in Halton generally, and has my signature of support as well.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition which is signed by a number of constituents of mine and 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 the 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 or a life-income accounts, or

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

I affix my signature to it.

M.M. ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition prepared by 535 parents of students at M.M. Robinson High School in my constituency. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the provision of publicly funded education is a fundamental right of every Canadian citizen;

"Whereas studies have shown that school environment has a significant impact on student attitude and levels of achievement -- education should be provided in a decent, well-equipped facility;

"Whereas the deterioration of M.M. Robinson High School in Burlington has led to reduced programming, particularly in the arts and science and technology -- some examples of this are no place for performing arts to stage a production, reduced ability to do science experiments, no seminar rooms for independent study, no facility for testing/assessment or counselling;

"Whereas the disintegration of the building shell and the internal mechanics has resulted in extremely cold working conditions, water leakage problems leading to damp conditions, mould and mildew, water on the floor and falling objects -- the electrical system has not been upgraded since the facility was built in 1962 and is totally inadequate for today's demands;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure the timely and complete renovation of M.M. Robinson High School in Burlington."

I have affixed my signature to this petition. I agree wholeheartedly with it and believe that these safety and academic issues must be addressed.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

"Whereas Kenora Liberal MPP Frank Miclash has called upon the NDP government to keep their 1990 election promises; and

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature thereto.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature to this.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the private, peaceful ownership, maintenance and use of firearms is currently heavily controlled under existing legislation; and

"Whereas we see as our right the peaceful ownership, maintenance and use of such firearms; and

"Whereas there appears to be no legislation guaranteeing such right;

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

"To institute legislation to protect the peaceful, private ownership, maintenance and use of such firearms including, but not exclusive to, such events as controlled hunting, sport shooting, collecting etc."

I am affixing my signature in support.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING / LOGEMENTS À PRIX ABORDABLES

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My petition is addressed to the Minister of Housing:

"Whereas the Ministry of Housing's policy of calculating rent in geared-to-income projects from 25% of gross income to 30% of gross income over five years is causing undue hardship to many of the residents;

"Attendu que cette politique ne tient pas compte du revenu net des résidentes et des résidents ;

"Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

"Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly review this policy to maintain a true affordable housing policy for the residents of those housing projects."

I have affixed my signature.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

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

"In this, the International Year of the Family, we, the undersigned, call upon the Minister of Community and Social Services to support and strengthen families in Ontario by significantly increasing the funding allocation to the special services at home program.

"This cost-effective program provides essential supports to children and adults with disabilities so that they can remain with their families in their home communities."

This petition was furnished to me by Gloria Christianson and it contains the signature of support of Cathy Wilkieson. The petition has my signature of support as well.

1520

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition from a number of people from Toronto and from St Catharines. This is addressed to members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the announcement by the NDP government to choose three superdumps within the greater Toronto area has disturbed and upset local residents; and

"Whereas these superdumps might have been prevented if Bill 143 had allowed the Interim Waste Authority to look at all alternatives during the site selection process; and

"Whereas we would like to ensure the province of Ontario is making the best decision based on all the facts regarding incineration and long rail-haul and garbage management;

"We demand that the NDP government of Ontario:

"Repeal Bill 143, disband the IWA and place a moratorium on the process of finding a landfill to serve all of the greater Toronto area until all alternatives can be properly studied and debated."

I've signed this petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it again reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, that's signed by many people from Dryden, Kenora, Keewatin and other areas of my riding, and I too attach my name to that petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Beer from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 158, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne la divulgation de renseignements sur les adoptions.

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

Shall Bill 158 be order for third reading?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The bill is therefore referred to the committee of the whole.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates presented the committee's report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 60(a) the following estimates 1994-95 are reported back to the House as they were not previously selected by the committee for consideration and are deemed to be received and concurred in.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 60(b), the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and offices named therein as not being selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr139, An Act respecting the Sarnia Community Foundation

Bill Pr143, An Act to revive Coballoy Mines and Refiners Limited

Bill Pr144, An Act to revive Columbia Metals Corporation Limited

Bill Pr145, An Act to revive Parkway Delicatessen Limited

Bill Pr152, An Act to revive S.A.W. Gallery Inc.

Bill Pr155, An Act to revive Pays D'en Haut Wilderness Expeditions Limited

Bill Pr158, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors

Bill Pr159, An Act respecting the County of Kent and the Local Municipalities in it.

Your committee begs to report the following bills, as amended:

Bill Pr120, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge

Bill Pr140, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton

Bill Pr160, An Act respecting the County of Kent.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr120, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge

Bill Pr139, An Act respecting the Sarnia Community Foundation

Bill Pr152, An Act to revive S.A.W. Gallery Inc.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Paul Johnson from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 198, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act, the Municipal Act and the Regional Municipalities Act and certain other statutes related to upper-tier municipalities / Projet de loi 198, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les permis d'alcool, la Loi sur les municipalités, la Loi sur les municipalités régionales et certaines autres lois ayant trait aux municipalités de palier supérieur.

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

Shall Bill 198 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SUPPLY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1994

Mr Laughren moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 204, An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1995 / Projet de loi 204, Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinées à la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 1995.

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

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

Mr O'Connor moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 205, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act / Projet de loi 205, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les normes d'emploi.

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

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): The purpose of this bill is to allow an employee the opportunity to take an unpaid leave of absence in order to provide palliative care to a family member who is suffering from a terminal illness.

CONSENSUAL TRANSACTIONS ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES TRANSACTIONS CONSENSUELLES

Mr Jackson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 206, An Act to require Consent to certain types of Transactions / Projet de loi 206, Loi exigeant un consentement pour effectuer certains genres de transactions.

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

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): This bill prohibits a person from charging or collecting payment for the provision of products or services to a person unless that person has consented to purchase. The bill will outlaw in practice in Ontario the use of negative option marketing.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, before I call the first order, as has been my habit for the last several days I will deal with a number of issues that we need the consent of the House to proceed with, issues which the three House leaders have agreed to.

Firstly, as has been the case for the last several days, any votes which occur between 6 pm and midnight, where there is a division and a request for a recorded vote, the recorded vote will be deferred until tomorrow, immediately at orders of the day. All other votes where there is no request for a recorded vote shall proceed.

We also seek consent to do second and third readings on a list of private bills that have been reported back to this House by the committee on private bills. We also need the consent of the House to call certain private members' bills for second reading. Those bills are Bill 192, standing in the name of Mr Arnott, the Highway Traffic Act amendments; Bill 179, standing in the name of Mr Hansen, the Highway Traffic Act amendments; and Bill 191, standing in the name of Mr Runciman, the Municipal Elections Act amendments.

We also need consent to proceed directly to committee of the whole from second reading on Bill 191.

Lastly, we need the consent of the House to deal with the Supply Act at second reading today.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I believe we start at the 134th order.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): No, the deferred votes.

Hon Mr Charlton: Oh, I'm sorry. We have the two deferred votes first, right.

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

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care / Projet de loi 173, Loi concernant les soins de longue durée.

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

The division bells rang from 1533 to 1538.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members please take their seats. Mrs Grier has moved third reading of Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, 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 one at a time.

Nays

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

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 62, the nays 47.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

CROWN FOREST SUSTAINABILITY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA DURABILITÉ DES FORÊTS DE LA COURONNE

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you like it to be the same vote? No. Therefore, we will call in the members, and this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1543 to 1548.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seats. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, 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 one at a time.

Nays

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

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 63, the nays 46.

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): The orders that I intend to call now are the private bills on which I sought consent to have second and third readings dealt with today.

It will be the 134th order and the 136th through the 152nd orders.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT (RE CLEARY ESTATE), 1994

Ms Haeck, on behalf of Mr Lessard, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Will of Edmund Anderson Cleary.

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

Ms Haeck, on behalf of Mr Lessard, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Will of Edmund Anderson Cleary.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

J.G. TAYLOR COMMUNITY CENTRE INC. ACT, 1994

Mr Hope moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr117, An Act respecting The J.G. Taylor Community Centre Inc.

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

Mr Hope moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr117, An Act respecting The J.G. Taylor Community Centre Inc.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

MONPRE IRON MINES LIMITED ACT, 1994

Mr Murphy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr118, An Act to revive Monpre Iron Mines Limited.

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

Mr Murphy moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr118, An Act to revive Monpre Iron Mines Limited.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

YORK ST. PETER'S EVANGELISTIC ORGANIZATION ACT, 1994

Mrs Caplan moved second reading of the following bill:

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

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

Mrs Caplan moved third reading of the following bill:

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

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS INSTITUTE ACT, 1994

Mr Martin moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr129, An Act respecting the Ontario Professional Planners Institute.

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

Mr Martin moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr129, An Act respecting the Ontario Professional Planners Institute.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

1600

BRAMPTON BRAMALEA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP ACT, 1994

Mr Callahan moved second reading of the following bill:

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

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

Mr Callahan moved third reading of the following bill:

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

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

TOWNSHIP OF EAST LUTHER AND THE VILLAGE OF GRAND VALLEY ACT, 1994

Mr Tilson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr132, An Act respecting the Township of East Luther and the Village of Grand Valley.

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

Mr Tilson moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr132, An Act respecting the Township of East Luther and the Village of Grand Valley.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

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

Mrs Caplan moved second reading of the following bill:

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

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

Mrs Caplan moved third reading of the following bill:

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

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE ASSOCIATION INC. ACT, 1994

Mr O'Connor moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr135, An Act to revive Durham Regional Police Association Inc.

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

Mr O'Connor moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr135, An Act to revive Durham Regional Police Association Inc.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

PEACE BRIDGE AREA UNITED FUND INC. ACT, 1994

Mr Hansen moved second reading of the following bill:

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

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

Mr Hansen moved third reading of the following bill:

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

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

BEREAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF COLLINGWOOD ACT, 1994

Mr Jim Wilson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr138, An Act to revive Berean Baptist Church of Collingwood.

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

Mr Jim Wilson moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr138, An Act to revive Berean Baptist Church of Collingwood.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

CITY OF YORK ACTS, 1994

Ms Poole moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr146, An Act respecting the City of York.

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

Ms Poole moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr146, An Act respecting the City of York.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

Ms Haeck, on behalf of Mr Rizzo, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr147, An Act respecting the City of York.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Ms Haeck, on behalf of Mr Rizzo, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr147, An Act respecting the City of York.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT, 1994

Mr Miclash, on behalf of Mr Mahoney, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr148, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

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

Mr Miclash, on behalf of Mr Mahoney, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr148, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

MISSISSAUGA SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMING ASSOCIATION ACT, 1994

Mr Miclash, on behalf of Mr Mahoney, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr150, An Act to revive Mississauga Synchronized Swimming Association.

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

Mr Miclash, on behalf of Mr Mahoney, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr150, An Act to revive Mississauga Synchronized Swimming Association.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

1610

CITY OF LONDON BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT, 1994

Mr Winninger moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr151, An Act respecting the Board of Education for the City of London.

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

Mr Winninger moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr151, An Act respecting the Board of Education for the City of London.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

SIMCOE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT, 1994

Mr Wessenger moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr153, An Act respecting the Simcoe County Board of Education.

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

Mr Wessenger moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr153, An Act respecting the Simcoe County Board of Education.

The Deputy Speaker: Carried? Carried.

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

OSHAWA DEAF CENTRE INC. ACT, 1994

Mr O'Connor, on behalf of Mr Mills, moved second reading of the following bill:

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

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

Mr O'Connor, on behalf of Mr Mills, moved third reading of the following bill:

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

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

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

House in committee of the whole.

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

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

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any amendments, and if there are, to which sections are there amendments?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On section 1 of the bill, I have two amendments.

The Chair: Are there any further amendments? Section 1 of the bill, Mrs Caplan.

Mrs Caplan: I move that clause 90.1(b) of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) designating any area in which all highways under their jurisdiction, or portions thereof, are removal zones."

These amendments I'm putting forward were proposed by counsel for Metropolitan Toronto. They clarify the legislation and I believe there's agreement. The ministry has agreed, and other than that, I don't think they require any further discussion.

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

You have some more amendments, Mrs Caplan.

Mrs Caplan: I move that clause 90.2(2)(g) of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out "a valid licence" in the second and third lines and substituting "any applicable licence."

This is to fully and further clarify the legislation to make it clear that this will allow all the municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto to set up a permitting scheme for the distribution of vendors across their municipalities.

This amendment as well was recommended by solicitor for Metropolitan Toronto. The minister and the ministry approve, and I don't believe any further debate is required.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 2 and 3 carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

1620

LOAN BROKERS ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES COURTIERS EN PRÊTS

Consideration of Bill 152, An Act to prohibit certain types of payments to Loan Brokers / Projet de loi 152, Loi interdisant aux courtiers en prêts d'exiger certains types de paiements.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there amendments to the bill? If so, to which part of the bill?

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have two amendments. The amendments apply to section 1 of the bill and section 2 of the bill.

The Chair: Are the two amendments presented in the same document that you've given the table?

Mr Duignan: Yes, I tabled the two amendments, both the English and French version, with the table.

The Chair: Could you read your amendment, Mr Duignan, on section 1?

Mr Duignan: I move that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Definitions

"1. In this act,

"'consumer' means an individual who is acting other than in the course of carrying on business;

"'loan broker' means a person who,

"(a) carries on the business of providing services or goods to a consumer to assist a consumer in obtaining a loan of money from another person; or

"(b) holds oneself out to be a person described in clause (a);

"'loan of money' does not include a loan of money made on the security of real estate."

The Chair: Mr Duignan has moved some amendments to section 1. Are there any questions, are there any comments?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This bill is of some considerable interest to me and I am pleased the government is proceeding with the bill. I think the purpose of the amendment is probably right, and that is to define loan brokers clearly. It does ensure that we're dealing with loan brokers dealing with not business loans but personal loans, so I think it's a good amendment to make sure that we're tackling the right problem.

Frankly, I've gotten, as I think many know, probably 500 or 600 individuals who have been -- there's no other term for this -- ripped off by these loan brokers, and 99.5% of them are personal loans. I think we're dealing with the fundamental problem here if we limit it to personal loans and it avoids a problem we might run into where there are legitimate businesses out there dealing with businesses that could get swept up in this bill unless we're clear on it. So I think it's an amendment that's worth proceeding with.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments?

Mr Duignan: I agree with Mr Phillips that this particular amendment just narrows it down to exactly who we're dealing with. In fact, a good 90%, 95% of the problems we have received are on the personal loan problem, and we did not want to catch those legitimate business people that arrange loans for business.

The Chair: Any further questions, any further comments?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'd like to put a few comments on the record just briefly. I certainly agree with this member's Bill 152 and I commend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. But I also commend the government for bringing it forward, because I think it's an important bill.

In my area I had a lot of people that have been taken, and I think that to change this -- and the amendment number 2 that I want to refer to with regard to the name and address and telephone number of the loan broker and the name of the consumer and the names of the person from whom the loan broker will attempt to obtain the loan for the consumer.

I'm pleased to see these amendments brought forward to try and protect those people out there that this bill was intended to protect.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

I believe you have another amendment, Mr Duignan.

Mr Duignan: This is a fairly lengthy amendment. It's some seven pages in length, so you're going to have to bear with me while I read through it.

I move that section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Advance payments prohibited

"2(1) No loan broker shall require or accept any payment or any security for a payment, directly or indirectly, from or on behalf of a consumer in respect of a loan of money until the consumer has actually received the loan.

"Security arrangement void

"(2) Every arrangement by which a loan broker takes security in contravention of subsection (1) is void.

"Disclosure of charges

"2.1 Before providing services or goods to a consumer to assist a consumer in obtaining a loan of money from another person, a loan broker shall provide to the consumer a clear statement in writing showing,

"(a) the name, address and telephone number of the loan broker;

"(b) the name of the consumer;

"(c) if known, the names of the persons from whom the loan broker will attempt to obtain the loan for the consumer;

"(d) the amount of the loan;

"(e) the date by which the loan will be made to the consumer; and

"(f) the amount that the loan broker will charge the consumer for arranging for the loan, expressed as a sum or in dollars and as a percentage of the amount of loan.

"CIVIL REMEDIES

"Demand

"2.2(1) A loan broker who receives a payment in contravention of section 2 shall, on the demand of the person who made the payment, refund it to the person.

"Same, security

"(2) A loan broker who receives security for a payment in contravention of section 2 shall, on the demand of the person who provides the security, return it to the person.

"Form of demand

"(3) A demand for a refund or for the return of security may be made in writing, verbally or by any other means.

"Time of receiving demand

"(4) A demand for a refund or for the return of security shall be deemed to have been received,

"(a) on the day that it was sent, if it was made by registered or electronic mail; or

"(b) on the day that it was made, if it was made in the form of a verbal message left on a telephone answering device or system or left with a message service.

"Time for compliance

"(5) A loan broker who receives a demand for a refund or for the return of security shall make the refund or return the security, as the case may be, within five days of receiving the demand.

"Recovery of payment

"2.3(1) If a loan broker has received a payment in contravention of section 2, the person who made the payment may recover it in full in a court of competent jurisdiction, whether or not the person has made a demand for a refund.

"Judgement

"(2) In a judgement for the recovery of a payment under subsection (1), the court shall order that,

"(a) the plaintiff recover the payment in full without any reduction for services or goods that the defendant may have provided to the plaintiff in respect of the payment; and

"(b) the defendant pay the costs of the proceeding, despite section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

"Exemplary damages

"(3) In the judgement, the court may order exemplary or punitive damages.

"Amount

"(4) The amount of the exemplary or punitive damages shall be the lesser of,

"(a) $1,000 or the amount of the payment under subsection (1) that the court orders the plaintiff may recover from the defendant, whichever amount is greater; and

"(b) an amount that results in a judgement under this section that is equal to the monetary jurisdiction of the court.

"Return of security

"2.4(1) If a loan broker has received security for a payment in contravention of section 2, the person who provided the security may obtain a judgement from a court of competent jurisdiction, whether or not the person has made a demand for the return of the security.

"Judgement

"(2) Subject to subsection (3), in a judgement under subsection (1), the court shall order that the defendant return the security to the plaintiff without any compensation for services or goods that the defendant may have provided to the plaintiff in respect of the payment mentioned in subsection (1).

"Same, no security

"(3) If the defendant has disposed of the security in whole or in part, the court shall order that the plaintiff recover from the defendant the monetary value of the security without any reduction for services or goods that the defendant may have provided to the plaintiff in respect of the payment mentioned in subsection (1).

"Same, costs

"(4) In the judgement, the court shall order that the defendant pay the costs of the proceeding, despite section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

"Exemplary damages

"(5) In the judgement, the court may order exemplary or punitive damages.

"Amount

"(6) The amount of the exemplary or punitive damages shall be the lesser of,

"(a) $1,000 or the amount that the court orders, whichever amount is greater; and

"(b) an amount that results in a judgement under this section that is equal to the monetary jurisdiction of the court.

"Officers, directors

"2.5 The officers and directors of a loan broker that is a corporation are jointly and severally liable for the remedy in respect of which a person is entitled to commence a proceeding against the loan broker under section 2.3 or 2.4.

"No waiver

"2.6 This act applies despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary.

1630

"ENFORCEMENT

"Investigators

"2.7(1) The minister responsible for the administration of this act or a person authorized in writing by the minister may appoint any person to be an investigator for the purposes of this act.

"Certificate of appointment

"(2) The minister responsible for the administration of this act or a person authorized in writing by the minister shall issue to every investigator a certificate of appointment bearing the minister's signature or a facsimile of it.

"Police officers

"(3) Police officers, by virtue of office, are investigators for the purpose of this act, but subsection (2) does not apply to them.

"Proof of appointment

"(4) Every investigator who exercises powers under this act shall, upon request, produce a certificate of appointment as an investigator or identification as a police officer, as the case may be.

"Investigation

"2.8(1) For the purpose of carrying out an investigation, an investigator may,

"(a) subject to subsection (2), enter any place that the investigator believes on reasonable grounds contains evidence of an arrangement under which a loan broker is to assist a consumer in obtaining a loan of money from another person;

"(b) inquire into all financial transactions, records and other matters that are relevant to the arrangement under which a loan broker is to assist a consumer in obtaining a loan of money from another person;

"(c) demand the production for inspection of anything described in clause (b).

"Entry to dwellings

"(2) An investigator shall not, without the consent of the occupier, exercise a power to enter a place that is being used as a dwelling, except under the authority of a search warrant issued under section 158 of the Provincial Offences Act.

"Time for exercising powers

"(3) An investigator shall exercise the powers mentioned in subsection (1) only during business hours for the place that the investigator has entered.

"Written demand

"(4) A demand mentioned in clause (1)(c) shall be in writing and shall include a statement of the nature of the things required.

"Obligation to produce

"(5) If an investigator makes a demand, the person having custody of the things shall produce them to the investigator.

"Removal of things produced

"(6) On issuing a written receipt, the investigator may remove the things that are produced and may,

"(a) review or copy any of them; or

"(b) bring them before a justice of the peace, in which case section 159 of the Provincial Offences Act applies.

"Return of things produced

"(7) The investigator shall carry out any reviewing or copying of things with reasonable dispatch, and shall forthwith after the reviewing or copying return the things to the person who produced them.

"Admissibility of copies

"(8) A copy certified by an investigator as a copy made under clause (6)(a) is admissible in evidence to the same extent, and has the same evidentiary value, as the thing copied.

"Assistance

"(9) An investigator may call upon any expert for such assistance as he or she considers necessary in carrying out an investigation.

"Computer search

"(10) For the purpose of carrying out an investigation, an investigator may use any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system belonging to the person being investigated in order to produce a record in readable form.

"Assistance required

"2.9(1) An investigator may require information or material from a person who is the subject of an investigation under section 2.8 or from any person who the investigator has reason to believe can provide information or material relevant to the investigation.

"Disclosure

"(2) Despite section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and section 10 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the head of an institution within the meaning of these acts shall disclosure to the investigator the information or material that the investigator requires.

"No obstruction

"(3) No person shall obstruct an investigator who is exercising powers under this act.

"Records

"(4) A person who is required under this act to produce a record for an investigator shall, on request, provide whatever assistance is reasonably necessary, including using any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system to produce a record in readable form.

"Disclosure of information

"2.10(1) A person engaged in the administration or enforcement of this act may disclose personal information to a consumer if the information is relevant to the consumer's rights under this act.

"Non-compellable witness

"(2) No person engaged in the administration or enforcement of this act shall be required to give testimony in any civil proceeding with regard to information obtained by the person in the course of performing duties or exercising powers under this act.

"Offences

"2.11(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 2(1), section 2.1 or subsection 2.2(5) or 2.9(3) is guilty of an offence.

"Same, corporations

"(2) Every officer or director of a corporation is guilty of an offence who,

"(a) knowingly causes, authorizes, permits or participates in the commission by the corporation of an offence mentioned in subsection (1); or

"(b) fails to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from committing an offence mentioned in subsection (1).

"Penalty, non-corporations

"(3) A person who is not a corporation and who is convicted of an offence under this act is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both.

"Same, corporations

"(4) A corporation convicted of an offence under this act is liable to a fine of not more than $100,000.

"Limitation

"(5) No proceeding shall be commenced under this section more than two years after the time when the subject matter of the proceeding arose.

"Regulations

"2.12 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

"(a) exempting any person or class of persons from any or all of the provisions of this act and the regulations;

"(b) respecting any matter necessary or advisable to carry out effectively the intent and purpose of this act."

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Questions and comments on Mr Duignan's amendment to section 2?

Mr Phillips: First I want to commend the member, who I thought just gave quite an inspired reading of the amendments. I'd want to first congratulate him on the speech and say that, as we discussed earlier, the whole purpose of this bill is to prohibit organizations from promising they will get an individual a loan -- we've clarified that: this is for individuals, it's not for business loans for individuals -- demanding an upfront fee, telling people that they will get a loan in return for that fee, never getting the loan and keeping the fee.

I'm sure many members in this House -- I think virtually every member in this House -- have had many people in their own riding come to them having been ripped off as a result of it. So the second section of the bill is designed to specifically prohibit that and to have the recourse, if an offence has taken place, to recover the money and to make certain that the money is recovered.

I am supportive of the amendments to the second section. I understand these are not unusual proceedings, that they'll take place in other similar areas of commercial law, so we're not kind of plowing brand-new ground here. But we do have in this amendment clear procedures where, if somehow or other an individual has paid an upfront fee -- and it will be illegal now to demand and get an upfront fee -- they can recover it on a reasonable basis, and where businesses will clearly understand that they no longer can demand of individuals an upfront fee and then never, ever get them a loan.

1640

I'm frankly pleased that the government has spent time on getting the language that it's comfortable with here. I think it's important that we not only pass a bill, obviously, that reflects the intent of the bill but actually will be workable, and I'm satisfied that this bill will in fact be workable in law.

So I'm very pleased. I think we are now within sight of a solution. I think it happens to be timely, because my experience is that the time when sometimes people are most desperate for money happens to be this time of year, and when people are perhaps most susceptible is in the next few months. I think it's not only a good bill but it also happens to be a timely bill.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions or comments to this amendment?

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): If I might, I'm wondering whether there is a process by which we could find out whether this is the longest amendment ever placed in a Legislature in the world and might qualify as an addition to the Guinness Book of Records.

The First Deputy Chair: Perhaps the clerk, maybe at her leisure, might be able to respond to you at another time. Thank you. The parliamentary assistant.

Mr Duignan: I'm, again, very pleased to support this bill. Indeed, section 2 also provides for civil remedies, that someone actually can go to court and get redress in the court. We believe that this is very important, and it also empowers the individual to do this as well.

It also makes it very clear that not only a corporation that acts as a loan broker but any individual who works for the corporation and knowingly offers a service is committing an offence as well. So we also cover that particular part of it. I believe it's a good bill, I believe it's time and I believe it's long overdue. I'm very pleased, on behalf of the government, to support this bill.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments to Mr Duignan's amendment? Seeing none, shall Mr Duignan's amendment to section 2 of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 3 and 4 carry? Carried.

Shall the title of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

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

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

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Are there any amendments to this bill, and, if so, to which sections?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have an amendment to subsection 3(4) of the bill, an amendment to section 12 --

The First Deputy Chair: Excuse me, Mr Wiseman, before we proceed, you will need to send the table a copy of your bill.

Mr Wiseman: The bill or the amendment?

The First Deputy Chair: No, the amendments. Mr Wiseman, before we proceed, could you indicate which sections you have amendments to?

Mr Wiseman: There are amendments to subsection 3(4), subsection 12(1), section 12 and section 14 of the bill. Are we all set over there?

The First Deputy Chair: Before we proceed to section 3, I would like to ask if there are any amendments. There are no amendments, but are there any questions or comments to either section 1 or 2 of this bill?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Is this the second bill that we're looking at in committee in the whole?

The First Deputy Chair: It's the third bill.

Mr Murdoch: Okay. We've done the other two. I just wanted to make sure of that because we were told that this would be the last one in committee of the whole, and that's fine. This is the third one that we've done in committee of the whole? I just want to make sure. I have a few comments I'd like to make about the bill.

Mr Wiseman: Do I not get to make some comments first?

The First Deputy Chair: At this point in time I have asked if there are comments to either section 1 or 2 of the bill.

Mr Murdoch: I believe the mover of the bill wanted to make some comments on the bill first and I thought I would like to make my comments on the purpose of the bill also, but I certainly would give way to the mover first to make his comments.

Mr Wiseman: I'd like to make some comments.

The First Deputy Chair: What I'd like to do, with the committee's indulgence, is to allow the mover or the author of the bill to comment on sections 1 and 2 and then I will ask for your comments.

Mr Murdoch: All right. I'll let the member make his comments on the bill.

Mr Wiseman: I can make some comments on the bill. I'd just like to thank the committee for bringing this bill forward.

I'd like to just briefly talk about the bill because it's important to understand that this bill is different from the current endangered species bill, which is very short: one and a half pages. It expands the current bill by adding "threatened and vulnerable species," which I think is important because if we can start the remedial action to protect species before they become on the verge of extinction, this will save money and effort in the long run.

I'd just like to talk a little bit about this bill in terms of what it's set to do. It begins by allowing the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations with regard to declaring species or animals or plants to be endangered if, on the basis of biological assessment, the species is determined to be at risk or extinction by reason of destruction of its habitat, over-exploitation, disease, predation, use of chemicals, or any other factors that are considered relevant.

It also declares a species or animal to be threatened on the basis of all of the previous assessments as well, and it also allows a species to be declared vulnerable if on the basis of the above they look like they're on the verge of being reduced in terms of numbers.

It also allows the Lieutenant Governor to make regulations governing the protection, conservation and survival of these species. In order to do that, the Minister of Natural Resources may establish an advisory committee. Now, this is different from the current bill. The current bill just gives the minister the ability to declare something on the verge of extinction, whereas the advisory committee will allow the minister to strike a committee which could include farmers, could include hunters and anglers, could include people for Ducks Unlimited; a whole host of people who could be on this committee to advise the minister as to the status of the species that is proposed to be declared endangered, threatened or vulnerable, and that committee would advise the minister.

It would also be a committee that could review the status of the species declared to be endangered, threatened or vulnerable, and review the process made in the development and implementation in recovery plans. So they would be involved in that process, which is important because they're not involved now. I've heard a number of complaints from a number of different groups that they need to be involved, and so the ministry's advisory committee is a forum where they can have improved access to the minister and to the minister's committee -- something they have not now -- and they could also examine the report to the minister on any matters that he or she refers to it.

Not only would they be part of the process, they would also be able to be part of the critique of the process in terms of what the advisory committee would be recommending to the minister.

Further to that, this advisory committee would conduct a review at least once every five years -- something that is not happening now -- and then a status report would have to be created and then the minister would have to declare whether it's an emergency situation or what exactly the minister was going to do. The minister would also be able to create a recovery plan, and that recovery plan would have to be done in consultation with the groups that are involved in the entire process of protecting the habitat and so on.

1650

Another aspect of this bill is that the bill would also curb the trade and sales of endangered species. I think this is an important issue when you start to consider that wildlife is being killed for its organs to be transported out of the country or to be used by different groups of people for medicinal reasons. They think it's going to help them. So there is a prohibition in the taking of endangered species and there is a prohibition against the destroying of and the interfering with these habitats, and there's also a section that says, "No person shall buy, sell, possess or transport endangered or threatened species of plants except under the authority of an authorization obtained in accordance with the regulations."

It does not say that farmers cannot continue to grow plants. It says that what is there will continue. But what it does say is that where these species are becoming threatened or vulnerable, then there has to be some care taken, and if there isn't, if reasonable precautions to conserve wildlife are not taken and where there is a deliberate destruction of habitat of species, then there are fines.

These fines are $100,000 a day for an individual and $200,000 a day -- up to, but that's up to the courts to decide. That court could also say that you have to rehabilitate the area. So it does give the courts the option of protecting species by authorizing and by implementing a restoration or a rehabilitation.

Now, these fines are in line with some of the other fines that are out there today, for example, $2 million for a corporation that spills hazardous waste, $150,000 for species at risk. The federal Fisheries Act has $1 million for destroying fishing habitat, and the Ontario Water Resources Act is consistent with the Environmental Protection Act; it has fines of $2 million or more. So these fines are in keeping with the fines that are already possible.

The minister has a year to decide what to do, but if there is an endangered habitat, if there is an endangered area, then the minister may acquire the land, and there's a section, section 15, that says it "may acquire land or any interest in land, or enter into agreements relating to land management, for the purpose of protecting, managing or restoring species of animals or plants declared by regulation to be endangered, threatened or vulnerable...."

So when you talk about this, there is a recognition that property rights are important. There's a recognition that property rights have to be recognized, and this bill says to the minister very clearly, "You must talk to these people, you must have an agreement with these people and you must compensate them in some way or come to some kind of agreement that would allow them to continue to" --

The First Deputy Chair: To the member for Durham West, I would just like to remind you --

Mr Wiseman: I'm just wrapping up. I'm just about done.

The First Deputy Chair: -- that this is not a third or second reading debate.

Mr Wiseman: Yes, and I'm just trying to outline to the members that this bill is a bill that fulfils a lot of the needs that are out there in terms of endangered species. I would like to respond to some questions in the future.

The First Deputy Chair: We are dealing with sections 1 and 2 of the bill, and section 1 does include the purpose clause, so I have allowed a little leeway here. Are there any other questions or comments to sections 1 or 2 of the bill?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I think what Mr Wiseman's proposing here today is a valuable idea. On second reading I suggested that what he had put forward was supportable at least in principle. But we had some concerns, and one of the concerns I think is the same as the Canadian Environmental Law Association. In writing Mr Wiseman, they suggested that what needed to happen, to paraphrase them, is that we needed to have committee hearings so that we could understand where improvements might be made in Mr Wiseman's bill and what unexpected ramifications might come upon us through this bill. There are some people I think we should hear from.

It's a private member's bill. I commend Mr Wiseman for bringing that forward, but the problem with it is that members have not had the benefit even of having the Ministry of Natural Resources before us to answer questions and to explain how they might enforce it, how it might work in the real world, what regulations would stem from it, those kinds of concerns. We haven't had the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs before us to represent its views on this particular bill. We haven't heard from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They may have some views that would be helpful in this regard. We haven't heard from many, many groups. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists themselves, many of the environmental groups, may have been helpful to members.

I think at this point one of the problems members have with dealing with this bill, to be frank, is that we haven't had the opportunity to sit at committee and to hear deputations from people who have suggestions on how this bill may be improved and what ramifications or unintended ramifications it might have.

Secondly, I think Mr Wiseman's aware that there's a federal initiative going on as we speak, and I think it was announced the exact same day that Mr Wiseman's bill received second reading in this place. What I understand the federal initiative to be is to establish a framework so that we can have laws related to endangered species consistently across the country. Right now, there are but four provinces that have any type of endangered species act. It seems to me to make good sense to have a framework which all provinces can agree with so that the rule in Quebec is the same as the rule in Ontario and the rule in Manitoba, so that we can end up with a consistent pattern of dealing with endangered species.

I also recognize there's some urgency in dealing with this issue. We've waited quite a while for improvements to the present act, and I congratulate the member. I just have some questions, and I would like to know from the member, when he has a chance to respond, what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has said, what perhaps the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, some of those various groups that we tend to see in committee all the time about issues that relate to the management of our resources, have to say about this particular bill, if they are in fact in favour of this bill and how it might actually work.

The First Deputy Chair: Further comments on sections 1 or 2 of this bill?

Mr Murdoch: It appears to me that the government is making yet another covert attempt to undermine the property rights of Ontario taxpayers. Under the auspices of a bill to protect endangered, threatened and vulnerable species, what this government is really asking for is more power to expropriate any piece of private land it may haphazardly desire to get its hands on.

Last week, my colleague the member for York Mills made a very interesting point about the development of legislation by this government. Mr David Turnbull pointed out that this government employs people with an incredible ability to make up emotionally invoking names for bills brought forward in this House. David Turnbull was referring at that time to Bill 171, sustainable forests, asking how anyone could possibly disagree with a government bringing forward a bill to ensure sustainable forestry. Today we are witness to the exact same tactic with Bill 174, which proposes to protect not only endangered species but now threatened and vulnerable species as well. Who could possibly disagree with this well-meaning proposal?

I have to agree that we should have a minister of good titles of bills, because the name of this one is nothing short of brilliant. What the title of this bill does not point out is the increased power it gives to the minister to acquire private lands, not unlike the ministerial authority to designate wetlands and areas of natural and scientific interest, basically amounting to any piece of land the minister may desire, using extremely subjective terms such as "vulnerable and threatened."

1700

The rights associated with property ownership form one of the basic foundations of a democratic society. It is no secret that I am a strong supporter of private property rights, which I feel are intrinsic to the free enterprise economic structure of this country. Last year even Russia enshrined property rights for their first truly democratic constitution. Apparently the Russians understand that property rights promote social stability and economic growth. Unfortunately, this strand of logic, accepted by countries around the globe, continues to elude the Ontario government.

Good legislation should provide for balance and fairness between competing interests. I support the goal of environmental protection. However, this goal needs to be balanced against the legitimate rights of property owners.

Fairness demands that, at the very least, if individual rights are taken away for the so-called public good -- or stolen, as the case may be, using this government as an example -- then public funds should be used to compensate those whose rights were taken away. I've argued this point before and I will argue it again: The government has no right to promote its own socialistic theory through what amounts to expropriation without compensation.

Even though the title sounds all fuzzy and nice, this bill is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing. The increased subjective authority it offers to the minister and his bureaucrats is downright dangerous for land owners in this province. I understand this is hard for you to understand over there, because you have no democracy left over there.

This government is continually bowing down to pressure from special-interest groups. It's not surprising that you have the support of the extreme environmental groups on this one, the same as several other pieces of legislation which you have managed to ram through over the course of your socialistic regime.

What happens when we add all those environmental regulations together is that there is absolutely no balance or fairness left between the competing interests of environmental protection and legitimate property rights. Once again, you've gone way overboard in your ever-increasing quest to be the champions of the environment.

The name of your party should be changed from the New Democratic Party to the No Definition Party. Vague is better; less is more. I know it's going to be hard for you people to understand across the floor.

For example, the bill now includes vulnerable and threatened species. Exactly who defines vulnerable, threatened and endangered --

Mr Brown: That's New Democrats.

Mr Murdoch: -- and when does a species fit into either of these categories? Yes, my friend from the Liberals says maybe endangered is some of the New Democrats.

"A status report shall be prepared" on proposed species, but which species? How many will be included? Why don't we just say that everything is endangered, threatened and vulnerable and leave it at that?

"Every person shall take reasonable precautions...." How exactly do you define reasonable precautions?

The problem with this bill is it has been thrust through us here today, again, a lot like the bill they put through the House, the ammunition bill. No chance for discussion, just rammed it through the House also. Again, we've had not a chance to hear from the affected groups, like the OFA, like the OFAH. This bill will affect them directly, and they are going to have no chance to even talk about it, to even have a chance for us to listen to them.

So I can't support this bill, and we will have some more questions as the day goes on. I know some of the rest of the people in our party want to make some suggestions, so I will turn it over to Chris, if you want to say a few words.

The First Deputy Chair: Now we're looking for further questions or comments to sections 1 or 2. Are there any further questions or comments, in rotation?

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): It gives me pleasure to stand up to address Bill 174, a private member's bill. I find it strange, with such a title, the Endangered, Threatened and Vulnerable Species Act, the NDP wouldn't want to bring this in as their own government bill.

When you look at the history that there was a private member's bill similar to this introduced by Mr Wildman when he was in the opposition but he didn't act upon it when he was the minister, again, Mr Hampton hasn't acted upon it as the minister, yet we see a private member's bill wanting to be rushed through at the last minute without any committee hearings or public hearings to hear how this bill is going to affect the people in Ontario.

We received a fax into my office from the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition and I'll just read it:

"On behalf of the Canadian Endangered Species Coalition, I'm writing to urge you and your colleagues to support Bill 174, amendments to the Endangered, Threatened and Vulnerable Species Act. We are aware Bill 174 will receive second reading and be put to a vote in the Legislature tomorrow."

I received this from the government side. What's so strange about this is that they're assuming that this bill will be voted upon. Why is it that the opposition's always expected to approve? We don't set the government timetable; the government sets that. They want us to vote without hearing how this act will affect farmers in my riding or right across Ontario, or anglers or hunters, or people who are intimately involved and earn their living from or whose recreational activity is spent in the wild or rural Ontario.

This act, as my colleague from Owen Sound summed up, has the potential to seriously further erode property rights in this province. I'd like to hear the response of the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I think this bill should have been put to committee long ago to have public input and government input, to find out what the costing of it's going to be, what the future impacts are going to be. It's fine for the member, in his private member's bill, to stand up and assure us that everything's going to be fine with this, but it's not responsible for us to just rush this through in one day.

This bill needs further examination, and I just want to say that I concurred fully with my colleague from Owen Sound when he eloquently summed up his opinions about the purpose of this bill. We look forward to further discussion, but we feel that this bill is inappropriate to be rushed through in one day. It should have gone out to committee hearings long ago and had the people of Ontario examine it in detail.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I'd like to take a couple of minutes to talk about this bill. I think anybody agrees that we all want to take care of our country and our environment. As a farmer, I know we spend a lot of time worrying about the future. I'm the fifth generation living on a farm. My great-great-grandfather came here because their country actually at that time wasn't taking care of their environment very well. I think taking care of the environment has been drilled into many of us.

However, this bill is, I think, being rushed a little bit too fast. I do think that we need to talk about this bill more. Just to remind people, it is a private member's bill. This government actually has done more for private members -- this house is represented by 130-plus members, each in their own riding. Political stripes aside, they're members of Parliament and they do their job, as this member is doing on an issue which he cares about and which I think we all care about.

But I think at the same time we need to walk slowly and carefully. A lot of good ideas have been rushed and end up that you fall and you trip. I have not heard anything from the CFFO, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, and the OFA and other commodity groups, and I think that's the very least that we should do. If it's a good bill and it goes through that process, then so be it, then it can pass.

But at this point in time when I think of those things people in my own riding haven't had the opportunity to discuss -- it says on page 4 of the bill, section 13, "Every person shall take reasonable precautions to conserve vulnerable species of plants and animals and their habitats." That's great, I totally agree with that, but then when you go on to who's going to decide -- again, farm organizations, which also care, have not had an input. I don't even recall anything coming from the Ministry of Natural Resources, from different views. It has been pointed out by some colleagues across the floor and all sides that this issue has not been thoroughly discussed, and that would be very unfortunate.

I recall that many bills do have amendments, friendly amendments, because we don't always get it right as members of Parliament on all sides of the House. Although the intent is good and it passed first and second reading, I think there is a process that we have here in committee of the whole and I firmly believe that the best thing to do is to walk slowly and do a little bit more homework. I think the member himself would like to know that he has a bill that everyone would like more.

1710

There are groups out there that don't care about the environment, and no one's discussing that. I have no time for them and I don't believe anybody in this House has any time for those kind of people who put greed ahead of conservation. The good news is that many, many corporations now, the multinationals even that I have many troubles with because they don't care, they go from country to country, even them, the odd one has discovered that the global marketplace is also getting to be a global marketplace that cares about the environment and they have realized they just can't do so much against the environment.

This government has done a lot to make companies be self-respecting of the environment. I think we've been blamed by opposition members that we've done too much on that, but the fact of the matter is, we need to do that for the environment. This bill, though, at this time, does not have enough discussion. I feel that for those reasons we need to walk slowly and more carefully, and that's the reason I won't be supporting the bill.

I take a little offence with some of the discussion that it's a government bill and it's some kind of a sneak-it-in-the-back-door. I remind all members that it is a private member's bill and we're all entitled to do what we would like to do because that's what one of our jobs is, so let's leave it at that. As Mr Hodgson pointed out, it is a private member's bill, so let's remember that. But in weighing everything, I can't support the bill now and I won't be supporting the bill at the present time.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to relay some questions to the member who's supporting this bill. It's Mr Wiseman's bill. There are some questions to be asked with regard to this bill and I thought I could put them on the record and you could give me some answers when you get the opportunity in committee of the whole.

I agree with the purpose, but to a certain extent we're already doing what this bill calls for under the current Endangered Species Act and under agricultural and natural resources policies which dictate methods of species management and interaction.

We go on to section 3, the three classes. Inclusion of "threatened" and "vulnerable" may create further confusion, such as, will regional fluctuations in species populations cause restrictions across the province? Who decides? These categories are far too subjective. Is a species vulnerable just because somebody says so? When does it move from being "vulnerable" to being "threatened"?

Subsection 5(1), the status reports: "A status report shall be prepared" on proposed species prior to when final declaration is made. How many species will be covered in total? There are already hundreds of endangered species. How big will the list become when we factor in "threatened" and "vulnerable"? Is this not a duplication of work, since the federal government and many conservation organizations already compile these data? Is there really a need for the province of Ontario to reinvent the wheel if the data already exist? How much will these status reports cost?

We look at section 6, the mandatory recovery plans. "The minister shall prepare and implement a recovery plan" upon notification that a species is threatened or endangered. The minister is bound to act. Does such action take precedence over other ministry business or other recovery plans? Will reasonable limits be placed on cost considerations? Should spending on social programs be curtailed to meet the requirements of this very bill that you are presenting?

Section 7, order to cease activity: Within what limits? How far-reaching is this power? Can an agricultural/mining/lumber operation be halted indefinitely to meet the requirements of this section?

Section 13, duty to conserve: "Every person shall take reasonable precautions to conserve vulnerable species...." Again, who defines "reasonable precautions"? Is this not highly subjective and subject to the judgement of the minister and/or the bureaucrat of the day?

Section 14, the offences and penalties: $100,000 a day for individuals and $200,000 a day for corporations. Given the extensive definition, all-encompassing, of plants and animals in section 2, a person or corporation could easily violate this act for an extended period of time without even knowing it. In such a case, the proposed penalties could far exceed the damage.

Without a full inventory of absolutely every plant and animal species, this act would be used to effectively shut down agricultural, mining and lumber operations across this province for an indefinite period of time, often without conclusive evidence.

Overkill on the part of the ministry personnel and legal staff must be prevented. There must be reasonable limits on the part of the ministry in obtaining a conviction. Due process must be adhered to. Just because the convicted individual must pay the legal expenses doesn't mean that the ministry has carte blanche to do whatever it pleases in order to obtain the conviction.

Ministerial authority to acquire land: The member touched on that in his opening remarks. How does this infringe upon private property rights? It's similar to the ministerial authority to designate wetlands and other significant features. This provision is also included in Bill 175. It effectively places restrictions on subsequent land owners whether or not they change their minds. So if you change your mind after owning a piece of land for 20 or 30 years, you're still bound by the original agreement that was entered into with the government.

In summary, as expected, the bill has received support from environmental groups like the Wildlands League and the Save the Rouge Valley System. As was seen on other occasions, the government is trying to wrap itself in an environmental flag and claim a monopoly on environmental sensitivity.

While the purpose of this bill may be commendable, its discretionary and subjective nature is rather suspicious. In its present form, Bill 174 is entirely prohibitive and extends too much subjective authority to the minister and his or her bureaucrats. This bill follows in the footsteps of several pieces of NDP legislation which tilt the balance too far in favour of environmental protection. The NDP is again demonstrating the preference for non-use as opposed to wise use.

I have not seen a report from the Ministry of Natural Resources or any comments that it has. Nobody has seen a report from the Ministry of Environment and Energy or any comments that it may have. I have not seen any report or even any interaction with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Why have these people not been contacted and talked to? Why don't we have a report from them on this bill?

The only place for this bill to be is in committee, where we can have open and full hearings on it. I wanted to put those on the record so the member will have the opportunity to answer some of those questions.

Just briefly, with regard to section 2:

"'plant' includes any stage in the biological development of a plant, fungus or lichen, alive or dead, and any parts or products of plants, and derivatives or goods made from plants;

"'species' includes any subspecies or separate population."

Explain to the people what this is in that section.

Mr Wiseman: I just want to answer some of the questions from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. He said that CELA does not support it and wants it to go to committee. That's not correct. I have been informed by CELA that they want this bill passed and they'd like to have it passed today.

I have here faxes from the World Wildlife Fund to Mr Hodgson, Mr McLean and Mr Jordan, and they say: "We understand that you intend to oppose this bill and possibly filibuster it at the legislative committee reading of it. We urge you not to do this." It's very strong support to have this bill passed, and passed today.

A couple of comments about some of the issues, cost: I think that's a legitimate question. Right now under the current Endangered Species Act everything that you say this bill will do it can do, but it does it when the species becomes on the verge of extinction. The only difference is that my bill says: "Don't wait that long. The costs become too high." How much does it cost to replace the hawks in the Temagami area? It's in the thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars range, and we had to fly them in. We had to fly them in by plane. We had to fly them into the Sault area by plane. We protect whooping cranes because they're on the verge of extinction; hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent. There's a list. You can go through a whole list of how much it costs if we wait till the species are on the verge of extinction. So we're going to pay more; if this bill does not pass, we are going to pay more.

1720

The other thing that you talk about is property rights. I think that's a very important point because right now, under the Expropriations Act, you could be expropriated. What this bill says is that an emergency order under section 1 expires on the day that is one year after the day on which it is made. I haven't known Tories in the past to be shy about expropriating. If you look in North Pickering, we have 23,000 acres of expropriated land to prove that.

Currently, there are 256 endangered species on the list. I don't know how many threatened and vulnerable species there are. That would be determined by the minister's advisory committee, and that committee is more democratic than what currently exists in the Endangered Species Act.

I would like to just make those comments and hope that we can move on and pass this bill.

The First Deputy Chair: Further questions or comments on sections 1 and 2?

Mr Brown: I would just like to thank the member for Durham West for that clarification. I had not received a letter from the Canadian Environmental Law Association saying that it had changed its intent from the original letter, but I believe he did not address my questions regarding the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and their input and what they were telling us about this bill. I think it's important that we get as much of the information out here before members this afternoon as we can.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments?

Mr Murdoch: I don't think anyone here in this House objects to the principle of this bill. I think, again, the objectionable part about it is the way it's come into the House. The member who brought the bill in is here, so maybe we should have some more questions answered.

I'd like the member to tell us how much input he's actually had in discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I see the minister is here tonight, so he may want to comment on this later on and tell us about the communication you've had. Obviously, we haven't had a chance to have that communication because it hasn't sat in committee.

There's the Minister of Agriculture and there's also the Minister of Natural Resources. I'll let you answer those two questions, and there are many, many more that we'll get to in a minute. If you could tell us the times you've talked to them and sat down with this bill and said, "Do you like it or don't you?" and maybe even give us some notes that they've given to you that show they do support this -- as I say, this is the objectionable thing about this whole bill, the way it's come into the House. So maybe you could answer those two.

Mr Wiseman: This bill was introduced originally in 1992, so it's been floating around out there for a long time. Every member has had a copy of this specific bill since June 6, 1994. I have mail. I have done what I can do in terms of me, the individual member who does not have the staff available.

I have not heard comments back, I will tell you that, and in English law, in the tradition of this place, silence means consent. As far as I'm concerned, it's been out there. It's been circulated. I don't know if they've read it. I have not the resources to follow it up. I'll be honest about that. I followed it up with the people who have contacted me and they have made some suggestions and that is basically what I have done.

I'd also like to point out that this bill will be subject to the Environmental Bill of Rights. In other words, eventually it will be on the registry and the whole population will have the opportunity to comment on it.

I know that the Ministry of Natural Resources has reviewed this bill. I have been in contact with people at the Ministry of Natural Resources. I have spoken to the Ministry of Natural Resources with respect to this bill. I can tell you that they have been very helpful. As I said, I don't have the resources; they do. I've talked to them; they've been very helpful -- on their time, I might add. The bill has gone through some vetting. If people don't choose to come back to me, I can't chase everybody.

The First Deputy Chair: Further questions or comments.

Mr McLean: I just wanted to say that I'm not so sure that I got many answers to some of the questions that I have put forward to you.

I wanted to say that, mostly people who have private members' bills -- and my boating bill, I contacted the marine operators and got input from all the people who would be involved in that bill. I would have thought that we would have had some comments here today in writing from the federation of agriculture or from some groups other than phone calls that were made to our critic of Natural Resources. We haven't seen much.

I'm also curious to know if perhaps the Minister of Agriculture didn't write that speech for his parliamentary assistant. If he did, it's not a good indication that you've got much support on your side.

The First Deputy Chair: Further questions or comments on sections 1 and 2.

Mr Hodgson: I just want to follow up on my colleague from Simcoe. I believe that the member from the government who's introducing this private member's bill suggested somehow that there's filibustering. He read into the record a letter from the World Wildlife Fund about a filibuster. I highly resent that. This is a private member's bill. The government sets the government agenda. This is in committee of the whole. We have a right to get answers to our questions.

If he's somehow spending more time on politics to try to make it look like they have a monopoly on what's good for the environment with the special interest groups that have a legitimate concern for that, I believe it's misleading to those people as well as to this House to suggest in any way, shape or form that there's a filibuster.

This government, as everyone in Ontario knows, has changed the rules to allow for time allocation and closure. They've introduced closure 20 times since 1991. In the last two weeks, they've introduced closure four times on bills which they feel should have a priority and they don't want the public to have a closer look at.

On this private member's bill, the government's had, as mentioned by the member, over two years to introduce this into committee and bring it forth in a reasonable manner where the full light of day and scrutiny would show the people of Ontario the impact of this.

My colleagues have just mentioned a few of the questions. I have two pages of questions that I think that the people of Ontario need answers to before we can go ahead and say, "Yes, this bill lives up to its nice title."

I'm sure that the member opposite would have provided us with written documentation from all the groups that would be affected. I have nothing, other than his word that he received a fax from the World Wildlife Fund telling us not to hold it up.

We're supposed to, without knowing the details, allow this just to pass through and say, "Be happy; don't worry." I'm sorry, that's not what we're here for.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments?

Mr Murdoch: I asked a few questions there and the member was kind enough to try to answer them for me, even over the heckling of his own members behind him who wouldn't let him answer the questions. That's unfortunate your own members won't let you answer. I can understand them heckling us and then saying we're filibustering. But when your own members behind you filibuster, it's unfortunate. But maybe he doesn't have the approval of all his members.

But what I heard from you then is, because the Ministry of Ag and Food and because the Ministry of Natural Resources didn't bother responding to you that you think they're in favour. If that's what you think, that's fine. I mean, that's your prerogative. I don't think that's right.

The other problem I have with you is, you mentioned how this bill's been around since 1992, first of all. But your bill was introduced in June, I believe --

Mr Wiseman: Reintroduced.

Mr Murdoch: Reintroduced as your bill. I don't know whether you had the first bill. But whatever, the bill we're dealing with today was introduced in June. I believe there's one more day left in this session. But we came back five weeks late. As it's been expressed in this House many times by the member right in front of me, that maybe you fellows could have got out of bed and come back in for those five weeks. We could have had this bill in the House and debated it. Maybe even a committee could even have had a couple of days.

You're saying that the Ministry of Natural Resources is on side because it didn't comment; Ag and Food is on side because it didn't comment.

Mr Wiseman: They did comment.

Mr Murdoch: Well, if the Ministry of Natural Resources commented -- the member is yelling at me -- I don't have the papers. Maybe it would have been a good idea to send them over to us and we could have understood a little better then, but you haven't done that. This would have been something that maybe you should have done.

1730

But let's look at some of the other organizations then. Where are the letters from the OFAH? Where are the letters from the OFA, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario? Even your own member mentioned that, which I forgot to do and which should have been mentioned. I ask you now then, member, are they on side? Have you got letters from them? I understand that you don't have a lot of staff, but you want a bill to go through here the second-last day of the House and you're telling us, "Well, it's fine because everybody likes it because nobody's said anything." Did you send copies of this bill to the OFA, the Christian Farmers and the OFAH, and what response did you get back?

Mr Wiseman: None.

Mr Murdoch: I'm asking you and you should explain that. He has yelled across the floor, "None," that he didn't receive any. In his wisdom, that means they don't care and they think it's all right. You realize that those three groups I just mentioned again commented quite extensively on Bill 163, so obviously they had concerns there. They weren't given a chance on this one. So how do you justify that you come back to this House five weeks late and now you're trying to put a bill through the House the last day and have had no consultation on this bill? Can you justify that? I'll ask you that question. That's a question.

The First Deputy Chair: Further questions or comments? We have the member for Durham West.

Mr Wiseman: I'd like to make a couple of comments and then I'm just going to sit down. First, this bill was originally introduced back in 1992. It died on Orders and Notices, which was okay, because I'd heard a lot of feedback on that bill. Then I had the bill rewritten and reintroduced.

I gave copies of the bill way in advance to the member for London North and she assured me that she would take it and advocate on behalf of that bill in your caucus. I gave a copy to the member for St Catharines, who assured me that he would take it back to his caucus and lobby on behalf of this bill in that caucus. In fact, I was assured by those two members on a regular basis that they were circulating this bill in your caucus. If they didn't do that, then that's unfortunate. I guess that's my problem. It's my fault for trusting people to do what they said they would do.

The other comment I would like to make is that this is a private member's bill and you need private members' hour to do it. My private members' hour was not going to show up until the spring, and the member for Muskoka-Haliburton was kind enough to swap with me so I could bring this bill forward because it's an important bill. I've pointed out and I've tried to show that a lot of what's in this bill is in the current act without the protections for the individuals that are in this bill. The advisory committee, the length of time that you can declare an area as an emergency area, these are all in the bill that do not exist in the current act.

I believe that this bill, more than anything, protects the rights of the individuals and protects people's rights. Because it's becoming abundantly clear that the opposition does not want this to go forward, including some of my own members, this bill isn't going to go forward. I regret that, because it seems to me that within this bill, had it been studied -- and it's been around long enough -- knowing that it's going to come forward, I think you would have found that within the context of this bill are more rights and more protections than people currently enjoy within the Endangered Species Act as it exists now. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there may be greater rights built into this bill than exists in other forms of legislation, the federal fish act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Expropriations Act or any of these other acts.

So I would say to the members that it is a disappointment to me, and I know it's going to be a disappointment to all of the environmental groups who are here or watching it on TV or will find out about this, that this bill has been talked to death and that the problems that it would solve and the costs that it would avoid will not be avoided. We are standing here today with a bill that would prohibit the destruction of species long before they got to the really expensive level of being labelled extinct. I think that is something that is regrettable.

I don't accept your arguments or your excuses that this bill somehow or other should be vetted by everybody in the province. It's been out there. We are members, we are elected, we are expected to read this stuff, the legislation that we bring forward, and to determine on the basis of what's good for the entire province whether or not we're going to pass bills. This bill is a good bill. Unfortunately, it's a bill that the opposition do not want and are not interested in passing at this time. I regret that. It's unfortunate.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions or comments to this bill on sections 1 and 2?

Mr Brown: Just to be helpful, I wonder if the member could help me understand -- I mentioned this in my opening question and it's just a question of clarification -- the federal processes now ongoing to set up a framework for all provinces. I think there are advantages to that, as we know. People can move across borders, do other things in this province that they can't do in the next etc. I just wonder, from Mr Wiseman, how he would see passing his bill before the framework is established some time around, I suspect, June or July.

Mr Wiseman: In response to that, if I understand the context of the Rio article, it was to say that it would pass the federal context to protect the migration of species transborder. It's absolutely essential that that happens in order to protect species from being passed back and forth and to be maybe extinct in one area or endangered or threatened in one area and not in another and so you get some kind of trade taking place.

But also within that context, it's expected from the Rio agreement, article 8(k), I believe, that the provinces would pass legislation. This bill would fit within the framework by pre-empting it. We'd be ahead of the game if we passed this, but the species that are becoming threatened, vulnerable and on the verge of extinction, and we added three this year, can't wait for the federal government to decide what it is that they want to do.

I've been in contact with the federal minister, her office and the opposition office in Ottawa. They know what I'm doing. They've had the opportunity to comment. I haven't heard anything from them either. I assume that if they didn't want me to go ahead they'd say, "Hey, don't do it," but they have not said that in any way this bill pre-empts anything that they're doing. I would say, to the contrary, that the passage of this bill would be a good place for them to start in order to look at what they're doing federally in order to come up with regulations, with legislation that is consistent, given the size of Ontario. Also, I might add that the Rio accord was signed by federal Tories so I can't understand what the problem is here.

1740

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments on sections 1 or 2 of this bill?

Mr Brown: Just to be helpful, I'm just reading some of the press releases that came out of the federal announcement and looking at some of the newspaper reports of those announcements and trying to understand how us going ahead at this time will actually help that process.

As it clearly indicates in the press releases, they are hoping to set a framework that will work across Canada. As you know, the Minister of Natural Resources -- well, resource issues are primarily a provincial domain. Now, the migratory birds act and other acts like that which are federal acts -- obviously birds cross borders on a regular basis. We even had some snowbirds around here that leave and come back on a very close cycle.

I was just interested, reading from the Globe and Mail's report, they noted that, globally, species may be extinct at a rate of 74 a day -- that's astounding -- 74 a day according to one estimate, whereas only nine species have been rendered extinct in Canada since the arrival of Europeans, according to this article. I just wonder if that's the correct information.

Interjection: How many species?

Mr Brown: Nine. I mean, nine is too many, but I just wonder if that's the right number.

Mr Wiseman: I believe that that number is correct. We now have currently 256 species on the endangered list and that grew by three this year. I'm sure that it will continue to grow as the habitats of these species continue to be destroyed and eliminated, not just here in Ontario but in all of the world. I think that we have to examine that and understand that.

In fact, article 8(k) of the convention states that: "The contracting parties," which is Canada, "shall as far as possible and appropriate in reference to its in situ conservation," and I quote, "develop or maintain necessary legislation and other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations."

That's what my bill does. That's what we said we would do and that's what I'm trying to do this afternoon.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I move that the committee rise and report progress on this bill.

The First Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I move that the committee rise and report on all three bills.

The First Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry? Carried.

The committee of the whole House begs to report progress on one bill and to report two bills with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mr Hansen moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 179, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 179, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): The story is all too familiar: A shipper purposely overloads a trailer. A trucker is then told to take the load or leave it for someone else to haul. Because the trucker has bills to pay, children to feed, he takes the risk and hauls the load. Fifty miles later, he hits the weigh scale. Guess what? His truck is over the allowable axle weight and he is fined upwards of $2,000, yet the shipper gets off scot-free.

My private member's bill will put an end to this injustice. It will create shared responsibility between shippers and motor carriers, namely, truckers, for compliance with Ontario's laws governing allowable truck axle weights. For the first time shippers will face fines too.

This act to amend the Highway Traffic Act is crucial to the long-term viability of Ontario's trucking industry and to the lifespan of our highways. Right now, truckers are taking the heat for overloaded trailers. This is because shippers do not have to comply with current legislation respecting allowable truck axle weights, but truckers do. That's just not fair to the trucking industry and it's not fair to Ontarians who have to pay big tax dollars to maintain our efficient and expensive highway system.

The NDP government has studied the issue for five years now and it's about time we did something about it. A government-industry weight review committee comprised of shippers, carriers, owners, operators and government was established to resolve this long-standing issue. Their key recommendation was to have this legislation brought forward as soon as possible and that's what I've done here with my private member's bill, which is officially titled the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1994.

Truck axle weight laws may not seem to be of great significance to some, but the wear and tear on our highway system can be impacted to a great degree by the level of compliance with these laws. I think it's only fair that shippers and truckers should share responsibility for complying with axle weight laws. It's good for truckers -- they are good working people too -- and it's good for all of us. Why? Because it's another step towards our goal of making Ontario's roads the safest in North America. Shared responsibility was identified in the province's road safety agenda and now we're dealing with it.

I'd like to share with you some comments from Ed Roseman, who operates Roseman Transport in St Catharines. In a letter faxed to me this morning, Mr Roseman said:

"With longer trailers now legal in Ontario, shippers will fill them to their capacity....Under the present system, carriers that deliver the goods will find themselves subject to more overloads....This makes good carriers guilty of an offence and will get recorded on their commercial vehicle owners registration....Therefore, a shared responsibility would help solve this ongoing problem."

Bill 179 will help companies like Roseman Transport to remain competitive in a tight market, as it will help independent owner-operators, and it will help make our roads safer.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Frankly, it's a pleasure to contribute to this debate, because the bill we're discussing tries to implement a measure that certainly we in our party have been asking for. I presume the third party will be speaking very shortly as well and they have been asking for it too. The only point we could criticize is the length of time it has taken to come to this step.

I do want to say first of all that we do appreciate and we do support the private member's bill that is before the House in the name of Mr Hansen. I think he has done well to formulate it and to get it through the system of the House just before Christmas. In fact, I think as late as Monday afternoon I was at a committee and we were looking at another private member's bill, which I presume we'll be discussing later on or tomorrow, and I was asking Mr Hansen why it was that the bill on the slow-moving-vehicle sign made it to the committee and did seem to come on the roster of the House, but Mr Hansen's bill didn't get the attention that I thought it deserved.

Even though I certainly didn't have anything against the other bill, which is of great impact, of significant impact to the agricultural community across the province, I still thought the measure that Mr Hansen, the member for Lincoln, put forward also deserved the support of the House. Perhaps it was this final push from my side, and I saw he had several of his colleagues at the committee, that made him able to convince his House leader and say, "There is support for my bill from the other side of the House and this would be a good way to get my bill forward before Christmas." I'm glad to have second reading debate. Of course, there still has to be third reading, but I presume, in the wisdom of the House leaders, that they will want to do that before Christmas as well.

1750

I am glad to see this. It was somewhat unexpected, because I think it was just yesterday that all of a sudden the decision was made that it appear and I got that phone call that all of a sudden I had to be prepared to speak to this bill today, which of course I am pleased to do. But just to indicate somewhat the way this Parliament operates, you really have to be constantly pushing, and if you have enough persistence, heaven knows you can achieve something.

Certainly, Mr Hansen is to be congratulated for his persistence and as well the opposition parties, which have been pushing for this for quite some time. I must not forget the Ontario Trucking Association, because they have been putting this forward as a serious concern for many years. As the member already indicated, there was a committee that looked at this question and made recommendations. I think it was very early on in the mandate of this government that the Minister of Transportation already assured the trucking association that yes, the government was going to proceed with this. So if I have one criticism, it's perhaps only that this really should have been put forward by the Minister of Transportation himself and should have been part of the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act that we did look at previous to the debate today.

But be that as it may, I think this is really nitpicking. What is important and what I support is the measure that's being put forward. It stands to reason that those who make the requests of the truckers to take a certain load should share in the responsibility. I can understand, with the heavy competition, that there would be perhaps some less-than-scrupulous shippers who would go to the competition and say to the driver, "Well, if you don't take the load, I'll go to someone else or to a different company." Frankly, that's not fair and we're certainly not in favour of that.

That's why this shared responsibility, and if there is a violation it wouldn't just be the trucker or the trucking company but also the shipper who was putting forward the request to move the goods, that he too -- or she, for that matter -- would be sharing in the penalties that apply to this violation. I think that's fair, that's reasonable and I support it.

I've been the critic for Transportation for a bit more than a year now and I've been very impressed with the lobbying ability of the Ontario Trucking Association. They always make a very good case, they do their research very well and they put forward solutions and alternatives that can be practically implemented. That's appreciated, certainly, on this side of the House. I'm sure the government appreciates it as well.

They are also very persistent and they don't give up. Even though it takes a while, they keep coming back to that, and the shared shipper responsibility for axle weight violation is one of those issues that the Ontario Trucking Association has been pushing for for a long time. They've been reminding us on the opposition side and they have also been reminding the government that this is a measure that's outstanding and has been looked at by a committee, in fact.

So it's not as though this is just coming out of the blue. It had in fact been studied and a recommendation had been made to the government. Some hearings have taken place, and of course Mr Hansen's bill has been now on the order paper for some time. So, really, there has been an opportunity for the public to, if there were any serious concern with the member's bill, address either the government or the opposition members. I must say, I've only received the support of the Ontario Trucking Association. I spoke again with them as early as this morning just to see whether there was anything that perhaps they didn't like in this particular bill and perhaps any kind of amendment that they wished to see. But, no, they're satisfied with the bill as it is, and I'm glad to support it there as well.

I must, just because the opportunity's there, indicate to the Ontario truckers that there were a number of changes that, with the support of the opposition parties, the government has been able to implement; the longer trucks is one of them, and now this particular bill. I do think now that we have been quite supportive of the industry. I think there is that responsibility on the industry itself now to be very concerned about safety, and that's frankly a little bit of an area where I'm not fully satisfied with what's happening among certain truckers.

I do know that the Ontario Trucking Association is very concerned about that as well and has made certain proposals to improve the situation. In fact, they would like to introduce a certain safety rating system that clearly identifies those who are responsible for the violations. But I must express the sincere hope that the trucking industry will not weaken its commitment to further improve its safety record and that any kind of violations, be they axle weight violations or any others, be reduced as much as possible and that it will continue to do its very, very best to improve the safety.

I see the members opposite are cheering me on and I'm glad to see that. I certainly hope that both the association and the individual companies and the truckers will do their very best to observe the law and to improve the safety, because even this axle weight bill that we have in front of us is a measure that is ultimately meant to improve the safety of our roads and improve transportation generally for all the people in this province.

So with this little caveat, I would like to indicate that certainly on this side of the House we are very supportive of this measure. We would have liked that the government bring it in on its own, but since it is a private member's bill that we have before the House, I am glad to support the member's bill and I wish it well.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm absolutely delighted to rise today in support of this bill. It's good public policy. It's policy that we should have had some three years ago. Indeed, the Ontario Trucking Association has been pressing for this legislation for many years. I myself, since I have been our critic for the Progressive Conservatives, have consistently pushed for this and anybody who has followed this issue will know that my voice has been raised most consistently on asking the government to bring in this legislation. It should have been brought in in 1991. There was a report which was commissioned. It was the joint government-aggregate industry liaison committee, which recommended that amendments to the Highway Traffic Act should be made with respect to shared responsibility so far as axle loading is concerned.

The reason that this is so imperative is that if you have overloading of a truck there is undue wear and tear on the roads and there is also a safety concern in terms of the ability of trucks to stop. The reason that this has been so important that we amend the Highway Traffic Act is that at the moment the trucking company bears all of the responsibility. This has led to the situation where some shipping companies have in fact put undue pressure on the truckers to overload the truck, and since there was a severe recession and deregulation had occurred in the trucking industry immediately before the recession, it led to the situation that unscrupulous shippers were in a position to say to truckers, "If you don't want to take this weight, we'll get somebody else who will do it." This led to deterioration of our roads in the province and, as I've said, safety issues.

1800

The chronology of events leading to this, as I've mentioned, start back in 1991 with that report which the government was responsible for. In December 1993 there was an omnibus bill which the government proposed to amend the Highway Traffic Act which included graduated licensing, longer truck lengths and indeed this particular concern. While I understand anybody's distaste for omnibus bills which are all-encompassing, our party said that we went along with it because we agreed that these were all vital issues that we should have legislated. The Liberal Party unfortunately objected to that approach and consequently it died at that time.

Again in June of this year I asked the minister to bring forward legislation before the end of the summer session, and the minister gave me such a garbled response, which was not untypical for him, that I think it is worth reading into the record, and if anybody can understand what he's saying, good luck. He said that my question was "fully commonsensical" and that his government had established "a reverse onus" to correct the fact that in the past the driver carried the guilt and paid the fine for surpassing capacity with the shipper bearing no responsibility. Gobbledegook. What does it mean? Nobody was interested in this drivel from the minister. We wanted legislation. And I commend my colleague, my friend, Mr Hansen, the member for Lincoln, I believe, for bringing forward this legislation.

As I've said, this is good public policy but there is a concern that this government has on several occasions allowed public policy matters to be brought forward by private members in, I think, the mistaken conviction that they could slide things through the Legislature with the least consideration of it. Now, this particular matter doesn't require any great consideration of it. Anybody who understands the matter knows that it is good public policy. So why we have had to wait so long is beyond me.

I would urge the government, if indeed we come back for another session, because there is the suspicion that perhaps an election may occur after tomorrow, at some point before the Legislature reconvenes, but if it does reconvene, this is the wrong way of conducting business. I put to you that when the private member's bill was brought forward for first reading in the last couple of days of the last session before the summer, they were asking for all-party agreement to pass second and third reading at that time. There was a great deal of difficulty that both the Liberals and the Conservatives had with that approach because it would establish a precedent that any private member's bill, because of some pressure group, could be pushed through.

But I commend my friends at the Ontario Trucking Association for being probably just about the most responsible trade association that I've had contact with. They'd bring forward well-researched, intelligent papers which speak to all of the concerns that are brought forward with respect to their industry in a sensible, balanced way, and they have consistently said they wanted this legislation.

I'm delighted to say that they are finally going to get this legislation which equally shares the responsibility for truck loading between both the shipper and the trucking company. It's good and I'm delighted that finally, after many, many questions in this House, to the former Minister of Transportation and indeed the new one on this very issue, questions which I've had in question period and indeed questions off-line as to when we would get this. We're finally getting it, and I believe we're going to have third reading tomorrow. So at last, we can give the trucking companies the ammunition they need, when a shipper says they want to overload a truck, to say, "No, this will be a fine on your head," and that's a very appropriate way of handling it.

I'm delighted to support this, and I compliment my friend Mr Hansen for bringing forward this much-needed legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any further debate?

Mr Hansen has moved second reading of Bill 179, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Mr Speaker, committee of the whole.

The Deputy Speaker: Committee of the whole.

Report continues in volume B.

7 décembre 1994