Journal des débats 1998-mai-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): In the foreword to the 1997 The Progress of Nations, Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, wrote in part, "The day will come when nations will be judged not by their military or economic strength, nor by the splendour of their capital cities and public buildings but...by the provision that is made for those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged; and by the protection that is afforded to the growing minds and bodies of our children." It is in that context that I would like to begin our debate today.

Why, might you ask, would I propose such legislation? During the Christmas shopping season this past year, I was hurriedly buying presents for my family at Sudbury City Centre when an everyday, average father approached me and said, "I wish you could give me the present my family most wants." Knowing him I asked, "Alan, what would that be?" He said with all the love, courage and hope a father could muster, "Legislation which would protect my child from prostitution which she is involved in now."

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a real-life example of why I bring forth this legislation today. This is a real father, a caring father, a loving father, with a real daughter involved in a real problem. My fellow colleagues, this is not only a Sudbury problem, nor is it a Toronto, Windsor or Timmins problem. This is not only a big-city problem, nor is it a small-city problem. This is a concern for all Ontarians. Sadly, it is a problem which spans borders larger than Ontario. But today we in this Legislature have an opportunity to make a real difference in and for Ontario, a real difference for Alan and for his daughter.

The purpose of the bill is to protect children under 18 who are involved in prostitution. The bill gives police officers the power, with a warrant, to apprehend a child involved in prostitution and return the child to his or her family or to place the child in a protective safe house. The police officer may also apprehend a child without a warrant where the child's life or safety is seriously and imminently endangered.

If a child is brought to a protective safe house under this act, a child protection worker shall be responsible for the child and for determining whether to return the child to his or her parent, to a person who had care and control of the child before the child was apprehended or to another adult who is capable of providing for the child's needs. The child protection worker may also decide to apply to court for an order under section 57 of the Child and Family Services Act.

This bill would allow a child, his or her parent or a child protection worker to apply to a court for a restraining order against a person who has abused the child or who will have encouraged the child or is likely to encourage the child to engage in prostitution. The bill makes it an offence for a person to encourage a child to engage in prostitution. The penalty for the offence is a fine of up to $25,000, imprisonment of up to 24 months or both a fine and imprisonment.

As you can see, my fellow members, this bill works in tandem or in conjunction with the Child and Family Services Act, but let me be clear: It is an act that deals solely with sexual exploitation and child abuse through prostitution. It does not conflict with but rather enhances other pieces of provincial legislation to ensure that these vulnerable and exploited children are protected.

At the March 12, 1998, International Summit of Sexually Exploited Youth held in Victoria, BC, which was called Out from the Shadows, a declaration and agenda for action of sexually exploited children and youth was drafted. The conference's co-chairs Senator Landon Pearson from Ottawa, and Cherry Kingsley from Victoria, BC, a former teen prostitute who now advocates for their protection, along with the participants, concluded that not only was the realization of this problem important, but an agenda for action was necessary as well.

Their agenda was based on certain beliefs. Two of their beliefs are as follows: (1) that our laws must protect children who are sexually exploited or abused through prostitution; and (2) that we are all responsible for our children and youth, yet the issue is not ours alone. Governments, communities and society as a whole must be held accountable for the sexual exploitation of youth.

That's why it is imperative that today we act in a caring, responsible way.

Frankly, Speaker, I am quite enthused by the strong support this bill has been shown by a cross-section of the population of Ontario. Police services across the province - to date, 21 - have sent letters of support. Let me quote from only a few.

From Chief Julian Fantino of the London Police Service:

"I have reviewed the legislation and wish to commend you for your initiative in this regard and your efforts to enhance protection for our children who are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.... Recent high-profile cases, including our project `Guardian,' have brought this issue to the forefront. It is imperative that those who are capable of effecting positive change, especially our political leaders, appreciate and act on the critical need to improve the quality of life for one of the most vulnerable segments of our society....

"If I can be of any assistance...please contact me."

The chief from the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service, Brian Ford, writes:

"Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children is all too common in our society and there is a lack in legislation for authorities to take necessary action which would be in the best interest of the child.... This legislative void has been well covered in your bill."

William Closs, the Chief of Police in Kingston, writes:

"Speaking as a parent and as a police professional, I have become saddened and shocked as to what is happening with children in our society. Child prostitution cannot be tolerated, and every effort must be made to eradicate it."

These are only a few of the many letters.

Social service groups as well as church groups throughout the province have also sent me letters of support. Let me quote from only a few.

The executive officer, Ontario Provincial Synod, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Rev Harry Huskins, writes:

"I wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your initiative...and to encourage you in pursuing this issue...this is a very difficult and complex problem....

"Please continue your initiative because it is an important one."

1010

I have letters from the Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario and the John Howard Society. Bishop Bernard Pappin, Auxiliary Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sault Ste Marie, writes:

"I am sure that Bishop Jean-Louis Plouffe, (who is presently in Rome), bishop of this diocese...would join me in support of your efforts to more effectively address this evil in our society."

There has been support from towns, cities and regions across Ontario for this legislation. Let me name only a few: Regional Chair Bob Chiarelli from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and over the course of the last few days the city of Sudbury council and the regional municipality of Sudbury council passed resolutions in support.

Finally, is this perfect legislation? Probably not. Does it need committee work? Yes, it does. Are there flaws in it? Probably. Is it fundamentally flawed in direction or in purpose or intent? Absolutely not.

If you believe in the preamble of the legislation; if you believe that the safety, security and wellbeing of children and families is of paramount concern to all residents of Ontario; if you believe children engaged in prostitution are victims of sexual abuse and require protection; if you believe it is the responsibility of families and communities to provide that protection; if you believe it is the duty of the province to assist families and communities in providing that protection; if you believe that legislation is required to ensure the safety of all children and to assist children in ending their involvement with prostitution; if you believe that fathers like Alan and their daughters are important - and the fathers are not only in Sudbury and the daughters are not only in Toronto but they are all over this province; if you believe that we can effect change today, if you believe, I implore you to support this legislation.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I am pleased to be able to speak to the bill this morning. I am going to be joined later in this hour by Wayne Lessard, the member for Windsor-Riverside, who will be speaking to it as well.

I've got to tell you and the member, Mr Bartolucci, that his having raised this issue, his having spoken to the desperation of a family that loses a son or a daughter to the streets is certainly a legitimate and real one. It's a very visceral one. It's one, as Mr Bartolucci indicates, that isn't unique to Sudbury, isn't unique to Toronto but indeed has become increasingly pandemic.

Mr Bartolucci is quite generous in his comments that this may well be flawed. I fear that in many respects it is, and Mr Lessard is going to speak to that more precisely. I agree this is perhaps the lawyer in me coming to the surface, not necessarily a pleasant experience all the time, but one takes a look at the Criminal Code and the intrusion of this legislation as it currently stands on what is basically federal jurisdiction. Mr Bartolucci, as I say, has conceded that there may well be issues that have to be ironed out.

Let's talk about a few other things, though, to broaden this a little bit. Once again I want to make it clear that I'm commending Mr Bartolucci for bringing this matter forward, not only on behalf of his own constituents but on behalf of families in similar plights all over this province, all over this country; indeed, as we've become so sadly aware, internationally.

Again, I understand that the thrust of this legislation is to find a away of intervening and apprehending the abused. I can see once again that it isn't intended to address the issue of the abusers.

Let's make this observation: I'll tell you that prior to my election 10 years ago, in my practice of law, my clientele consisted primarily of a number of women who were charged under the Criminal Code with soliciting. Also, in my experience in the courts I was able to observe the court's treatment of the exploiter and the exploited. What's fascinating is that we've got john schools for guys who would want to go out and pick up women or young men, I suppose, or men. Prostitutes aren't given the same options.

Our criminal justice system is one which - and I speak to women, although it's women and men as well - turns a blind eye to the scenarios and the circumstances wherein women, young women and more mature women, are drawn into the sex trade, refuses to look at the plight of those women, the despair that they face. It's not a pretty picture. You've got to understand that, and I think most people do. But somehow the pattern when it comes to the penalties imposed upon johns is one where they're treated far more generously than the sad, desperate women engaged in a very desperate, for most of us perhaps even unthinkable, way of earning income, for any number of reasons, who find themselves inevitably with no option, no john school for women, but with increasing fines and ultimately jail sentences.

I would welcome this going to committee so there could be a broader discussion about this whole phenomenon, the phenomenon of the street sex trade - who's in it, why they're in it and the difficulties and despair that they face. We have to of course incorporate recent news coverage of the good efforts on the part of police to bust up basically sex slave rings where women are brought into this country from out of the country. Their passports are held by pimps - there's no other, polite way to refer to it - and these women are forced to earn their way out of that indenture or out of that slavery before their passports are returned to them and before they're entitled or enabled to return to their own country.

When Mr Bartolucci raises this matter he also forces us to reflect on the pathetic underfunding of family and children's services. He proposes in his bill the intervention by, obviously, family and children's services and I put it to the government members, who I presume are going to be participating in this debate, to talk about - because I'm confident that they're going to support the premise here - the inadequacy of funding of family and children's services, this government's abandonment of those agencies, FACS among them, whose mandate is to protect children, to protect our youngest people, our most vulnerable people.

I suppose it also - not "suppose" - I tell you it does beg the question about the whole issue of policing. We know how the police are required to engage in apprehension of this sort of activity. It's a rather complex, labour-intensive, costly sort of exercise. When they do a sting in a particular neighbourhood or a particular area, you need a number of police officers working over a protracted period of time if they're really going to deal with this issue. Again, the grossly inadequate funding, the underfunding that this government has imposed upon police forces across this province leaves police officers and police services boards with their hands tied when it comes to doing that very labour-intensive and protracted sort of investigation that's necessary.

I'm going to support this bill. Mr Lessard is going to speak to some problems, very obvious problems, in terms of the legalities. If this gets to committee, and I hope it does, we'd better have some clear responses from the government about some adequate resources for those institutions like FACS that are committed and that are mandated to protect children and that will be called upon in the exercise of the application of this legislation. We'd better have some answers from this government about the gross underfunding of police services across this province, where the cops simply don't have the resources and the personnel to go out there and do the job that they very much want to do.

1020

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): It's my pleasure to participate this morning in some small way in the debate on the member for Sudbury's bill for the protection of children involved in prostitution. There's no question that the concept Mr Bartolucci is putting forward is one that we all feel very strongly about and all can support, and certainly I will be supporting his bill.

However, I would like to point out a couple of practical issues that I think are worthy of discussion here. I am not so sure that more legislation is in fact going to help solve this problem. We already have a situation where to take a young person who is living off the avails of prostitution and put them back in their home - they've already left that environment for some reason.

These folks need some help and they probably need the help long before they get to the point where they leave their home and go on the street. It's a societal issue. We can make all the rules and regulations we want, but if society's standards and society's norms don't change somewhat, we will continue to deal with this issue.

We currently have the Child and Family Services Act that deals with the abuse of children. Under that act the age is under 16, and under that act police have the ability to report to the children's aid societies if a child under 16 is involved in prostitution and needs protection. That act already exists.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of children out there under 16 who are working as prostitutes and being abused by their pimps and by those who would use their services. The bill is there, the act is there, the powers are already there and it's a question of enforcement.

Under the Criminal Code, if somebody is suspected of abusing a child under 14 in a sexual way, there is a restraining order. Interestingly enough, only a restraining order can be sought. We do have several mechanisms available to us now to deal with this issue. To add another piece of legislation on top of what we have I'm not so sure is the answer.

Mr Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, made reference to the fact that we need more money spent. The third party's answer to every problem is to spend more money on it. We tried some of their solutions and they didn't quite work over the period from 1990 to 1995.

We have announced in the last budget $170 million extra for children's aid societies and we have announced $150 million for new policing initiatives, so we are putting some more money into the system. But creating some new laws to deal with this I'm not sure is the answer.

Then of course we come up with the old chestnut of the Charter of Rights challenges. Under this particular piece of legislation there would be several, because what Mr Bartolucci speaks to is protecting children from the abuse of prostitution, but from no other abuse. Quite frankly, if we deem it necessary to protect children up to age 18 from the abuses of prostitution, then we should see fit to protect them from all the other abuses that could be out there too. There's an inconsistency there that I think would not survive any kind of a charter challenge.

He also talks about detaining them against their will. Of course, we've been down this road several times, both on the mental health issue and so on and it's another one where the proverbial charter challenge would probably not put us in very good stead.

In summary, as a father and a grandfather, I am absolutely totally supportive of the concept of protecting not only children from prostitution, but those people over 18 who find themselves stuck in that lifestyle and taken advantage of by their pimps and by their customers. I think we should figure out some ways to protect all of those people. But it is a societal issue. It has to do with our standards and our norms. Another piece of legislation added on top of what's already there, I'm not so sure is the right approach.

I commend Mr Bartolucci, the member for Sudbury, for his thoughtful presentation and the fact that he believes something should be done. I certainly support him in that respect and I will be supporting his bill. Maybe a discussion at committee is what we need, but I do think we need to look at something other than a new piece of legislation that probably can't be enforced.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I am pleased to be part of the debate and, first of all, to commend my colleague from Sudbury, Mr Bartolucci, for the bill that he has put together, the effort he has put into this. I know how deeply committed he is to the elimination of this problem and to looking at some ways that we as a government can have the ability to deal with what is a very serious threat, a threat to kids, a threat to our community, a threat to our province.

I appreciate the tone of discussion of the government and the opposition in dealing with this piece of legislation. I think we all understand the problem with the issue of prostitution, the impact it has on people's lives and often the reasons why people are involved in prostitution.

It's easy for us to look at people on the street and pass judgement and see them in a different light because of the trade they're involved in. We also have to understand that often there's a history there. There is often a history of sexual abuse, there is often a history of drugs, there is often a history of family problems that leads people into the field of prostitution. That's an area we've got to work on. Beyond simply looking at the solution, how do people get in those situations and what we can do to help them before it happens?

When it involves kids, I think it's a much greater problem. I don't think there is anything more vile or anything more disgusting than individuals encouraging young people - kids, 11-, 12-, 13-year-old girls - to work the streets as prostitutes. I think exploitation by these individuals, who in my view are nothing more than scumbags, forcing young people into doing this is disgraceful. These individuals who force kids and live off the avails of kids prostituting themselves should be dealt with, in my view, much more harshly than they are by the courts today. It is disgraceful. They are slime who frankly do not deserve the ability to freely walk the streets and should be put away for a long time when they're caught in this.

We also have to ensure that we give the authorities - the children's aid societies, the police - the powers to take extraordinary measures at times in these extraordinary circumstances. Often the hands of the police are tied when it comes to dealing with young kids, particularly when you get to the grey area of 16- to 18-year-olds, as to how to deal with the problem when they can get the kids off the street one day and they're back out hooking on the same corner the next night. Children's aid societies are somewhat tied in how they can deal with this problem. Again, this is not a problem that can be dealt with in the normal legal circumstances we have today within the laws of this province and this country.

I think this bill will give that extra power that is necessary. Often, in order to protect those young people, we have to take that extra step. We've got to give the police and the children's aid societies the resources to be able to take some measures to ensure that whatever action is necessary to ensure the best interests and the safety of the young person comes first. This bill gives us some of the tools to do that.

As expressed by some concerns of my colleagues across the floor, it is not a perfect bill. I think changes can be made; improvements can be made to the bill. I think committee would be the opportunity to make those refinements. But I think all of us in this Legislature certainly can agree with the concept, with the general overall direction and with the theme of this bill because very clearly it is meant to protect young people. We've seen many pieces of legislation that have been introduced in this House, particularly in private members' hour, with that intent of protecting young people. This fits right into that.

I think this will be widely accepted by the community as a whole. I think it has been well received, as my colleague has said, by police departments across this province, it has been well received by child advocates and it will be well received by organizations and individuals who work with children on the streets and who often are frustrated by their inability to take some action to take these kids off the streets and put them in a safe environment.

I urge this House to support this bill. I urge the government to allow this bill, with the refinements that are necessary in committee, to go through the House. I think it is clearly a step in the right direction. I also hope that following this bill going through, we will also look, through our efforts or the federal government's, at some very, very serious efforts to go after those individuals, those evil people who believe it is in their best interests to exploit and use young kids for financial purposes, for benefits, and to put the kids on the street for a life of crime, drugs and prostitution. We've got to nail those individuals early. We've got to nail those people to help take care of the problem of young kids.

I support this bill and commend my member. I hope the House as a whole will support the bill that is in front of us today.

1030

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to commend the member for Sudbury for taking the initiative that he has. We have seen the Tory Crime Control Commission travel around this province trying to heighten people's fear of crime to justify some of their ideas, but they have never introduced legislation like the protection of children involved in prostitution acts that the member for Sudbury has introduced. So I applaud him for beating the Crime Control Commission to the punch.

We in the NDP share his concerns with respect to the welfare of children. In fact, that's the reason that Frances Lankin travelled around the province about a year and a half ago and after that and prepared this report, Putting Children First, a report that's available to anyone who is interested by contacting the NDP caucus office. In that report, a number of criticisms of the current government's cuts to programs that provide for the improvement of children's welfare are outlined, with some of the suggestions that we would make to improve the welfare of children.

But I want to speak generally about what I support in the bill that Mr Bartolucci has introduced and to bring some criticisms as well. I hope the member takes them as constructive criticisms, because that's how they're meant to be.

First of all, I think we all agree with what's set out in the preamble in that "children engaged in prostitution are victims of sexual abuse and require protection." I don't believe anybody can disagree with that. I also strongly agree that it is the duty of the province to assist families and communities in providing protection to persons who find themselves in that position. I want to comment on that a little bit later, if I have the opportunity.

It also expands the definition of a child who is in need of protection, and that is a child who is "engaging in prostitution or attempting to engage in prostitution." Once again, I think that's something we can all agree to. The member from Chatham says there are many other situations where children may be deemed to be in need of protection as well, and I agree with that, but that's not the thrust of the legislation that's before us.

I don't have any concern about children being arrested with a warrant after a judge has been apprised of all of the facts, but I do have a concern with respect to the apprehension of a child without a warrant. Although the wording seems to provide protection to police officers in that they can do that if a child's life or safety is seriously or imminently endangered, it goes on after that to place some pretty onerous requirements on child protection workers to follow up after the police.

We know that the police have wide powers of arrest without warrants, but what happens after a policeman or a police services person arrests a child whom they find engaged or attempting to engage in prostitution is they're required to notify a child protection worker immediately that a child has been apprehended. They can deliver or convey that child to a protective safe house, and a child can be confined for up to three days in the child safe house. Then it places this onus on the child protection worker to show cause why the confinement was necessary.

The member for Chatham-Kent mentioned his concerns with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this is something we really would need to look at closely at committee, because what this does is set up the confinement without a warrant of persons who may or may not have been involved in a criminal offence and puts the onus on the child protection worker to justify why that confinement was necessary. That's something that I think we have to have a close look at because, as we all know, section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms indicates that, "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned."

In section 10, it says that everyone has the right, on arrest or detention, to be informed of the reasons and to retain and instruct counsel. I know that my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold would be very interested to ensure that right to counsel continues to be maintained and respected.

Also in section 10 they have the validity of that detention to be determined. It needs to be determined forthwith, in my submission. It can't wait for up to three days for a child protection worker to make that application before a court.

That is one of my major concerns with respect to the legislation. It doesn't take away from what I'll be supporting here today, however.

There are some other good things in here as well, and that is that there's a break to children who are participating voluntarily in programs that will assist them in getting out of the business of prostitution. It also provides an opportunity for the minister to establish programs that are necessary to assist children in ending their involvement in prostitution and also to designate protective safe houses under the act. Those are all very good intentions and they are ones of course that we concede will require the allocation of resources.

The member for Chatham-Kent has expressed his concerns with respect to that and we have seen this government's approach to increasing the welfare of children over the past few years. We know that one of the most disastrous things has been the cut in social services benefits by up to 22% for children, families, and young mothers as well, the $37 for pregnant women, that they were somehow going to be spending this money on beer, for example. That fails to take into consideration the needs of young women in many cases.

We've seen the absolute mess that's been made in the family support plan. Once again it's mostly women who are being deprived of their resources because of the disastrous situation in the family support plan.

Let's face it: Women don't get involved in prostitution because that's their choice of occupation. They get there because often they're in desperate situations. They're not getting the support they need. They're not getting the support from the community, they're not getting the support from the government, and they are forced to take desperate measures. That's how they end up in these situations. That's something we need to address, and I hope the government has some suggestions with respect to that.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise to speak to this bill this morning. At the outset, I'd like to say to the member for Sudbury that I will be voting in support of this bill because I do agree strongly with the intent. I think it's the kind of legislation that we should be seeing more of in this House because it goes to the heart of our communities; it goes to the heart of our society. Certainly regardless of how successful we might be in this province in returning economic strength, if we don't address the strength of our family and of our community and our society, we, as legislators, will have failed. So I commend the member for bringing this forward.

I would like to confirm as well that I particularly like the fact that in the preamble, clause (c), the member has articulated that:

"The people of Ontario believe that,

"(c) it is the responsibility of families and communities to provide that protection."

This is a fundamental principle that deserves focus and attention. I think in the past all too often the focus has been on government or government agencies or on the police force. I think this returns, rightfully so, the focus on the family and on communities. I want to commend the member for giving this House that focus, and I would like to see us have more discussion around that principle. Clearly, the province has the duty to assist families in doing that, another reason why I will be supporting this.

1040

In the definitions, I want to draw attention to the fact that this legislation defines "child" as "a person under the age of 18 years." This is on the one hand being represented as perhaps a problematic issue for this legislation because it finds itself in conflict with other pieces of legislation in existence in the province that define the child as 16 years of age or under the age of 16.

I would like to say that if this is in conflict with other pieces of legislation, it isn't a reason to set this aside. I believe it perhaps gives the Legislature the focus to reassess whether we should be looking at the other pieces of legislation, the framework, and redefining in the Child and Family Services Act the age at which children are children and deserve the protection of families, and not only of families but of agencies within the province. I think that is a good reason for us to perhaps take this bill into committee and have that discussion.

I would like to take this opportunity to suggest, as reference has been made previously by, I believe, Mr Bartolucci as he read into the record comments from police officers and police chiefs in terms of their lacking the authority to deal with these issues, that not only do police not have the necessary authority they should have and which we as a Legislature have a responsibility to give, but I believe that parents have been eroded of that authority as well. Other governments in this province have introduced legislation in this place that has taken authority away from parents that I believe should be restored to parents.

The member opposite will remember a piece of legislation I introduced into this House in 1996 called the Parental Consultation Act. I am sorry that the member at that time chose not to support me in that, because it goes to the heart of this very principle of involving parents in discussions around issues of importance to their children. I will be supporting this legislation and I hope to be working with Mr Bartolucci and other members of this House to bring this matter forward in a way that it can be constructive, that it can support children in our province and strengthen families and strengthen our society.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I am pleased to join the debate today on the bill of my colleague the member for Sudbury, An Act to protect Children involved in Prostitution. Let me state at the outset, I believe that all members of this House are concerned about an issue of this nature and want to advance the province's, our police officers' and our municipalities' ability to deal with this problem, a problem that, as our member has pointed out, is not only prevalent in large cities but is prevalent in small cities. Indeed, it's prevalent right across Ontario.

The bill attempts, in my view, to codify and then expand our police services' ability to deal with difficult circumstances. The member for York-Mackenzie spoke too of subsection (c) under the preamble which talks about families' responsibilities. I share in that comment because all of our families have a responsibility to their children and people ought to be involved in looking after these issues.

I want to take a few minutes to address some of the issues that I know have been addressed particularly by the member for York-Mackenzie; first of all, the definition of "child." The member for York-Mackenzie is quite correct. The various provincial statutes and regulations define children differently. Some define children as those under 16, others under 18. Indeed, between the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services there are often terrible difficulties in terms of applying funding to programs and in terms of applying regulations, particularly with the grey area of 16 to `18.

I think the member for Sudbury has made a very definitive statement about what this Legislature views as being a child. It would be my hope that if the House sees fit to adopt this legislation, we will look further at that whole definition of what a child is in terms of our ability to deal with a number of different circumstances, particularly in the health care and social services field.

The bill takes great care, in my view, to protect the interests of individuals as defined in sections 9 and 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, what I think makes this bill particularly appealing as a piece of legislation is that in a responsible fashion it takes us further in terms of what our police officers can do in a situation where a child is in imminent danger. It very carefully sets out the circumstances under which a police officer can take action.

While I certainly recognize that those issues are pushing the frontier of law, I believe we ought to be pushing that frontier in order to give our police officers and our peace officers the opportunity to deal in circumstances that are at the very best difficult. I applaud the member for Sudbury for that particular effort.

The bill contemplates a couple of other things, starting in section 6, where it deals with safe houses. What the bill contemplates but doesn't give explicit definition to is what our responsibility is once we've apprehended a child, that it's simply not enough to apprehend a child involved in prostitution or, for that matter, in any other crime and then somehow deal with it.

We have an obligation as a society to go beyond that. Where a child is involved in prostitution, we have an obligation to get that child out of prostitution, and yes, families do as well. But our experience and our view is that children who are involved in this type of activity generally don't have those supports.

I applaud the member (a) for responding to an obvious need in terms of expanding the law; (b) for pushing the law to a point to give our peace officers and our police officers new but well-controlled rights with respect to dealing with this; and finally, I applaud the member for Sudbury for recognizing that our obligation to society does not stop when a child is arrested. It doesn't stop until that child is rehabilitated and taken out of a very dangerous industry.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I am quite happy to join with my colleagues this morning to focus on the member for Sudbury's bill dealing with keeping and protecting kids who get involved in this nasty proposition about prostitution. I'd like to congratulate him with laudable intent. I will be supporting the bill.

This bill needs to go to committee and it needs an awful lot of work. If you are going to make this bill workable, I would make the following suggestions to the member, or if it gets to committee, that one of the areas of focus ought to be the following: In Alberta a piece of legislation has been passed that is somewhat similar, but what seems to have happened in that particular bill is that there was a greater consistency as to the definition of children in terms of age.

I think it included up to age 18, so that kids who are in their most vulnerable years of 16 to 18 also continued the protection we have in Ontario under the Child and Family Services Act. I think that's one of the major remedies. We have to bring into harmonization or concert those particular provisions, because you already have in other pieces of legisalation in Ontario that children 16 to 18 get access to driving on our highways. They get other opportunities, to get a health care card, in certain instances. I think that's one of the areas we need to look at.

The second fundamental area that concerns me, and I think the committee could do an awful lot of work in this particular area, is that instead of loading up the courts, which requires more resources, we be a little more creative or innovative, perhaps, in seeking another remedy. I would suggest to the member for Sudbury that one of the places the committee could look at is that we could do some interesting experimentation in seeking civil remedies to this particular situation, particularly where the abuser was involved in a first-time incident; or, if not the civil courts, that at least we try a mediation approach before we ramp it up into the provincial courts completely.

In those instances we may not only save resources but we may be more preventive than the traditionalist legal approach that is in this bill. That does not take away from the principle the member for Sudbury has put forth, which is an effective one, I believe. It's the implementation issues I'm primarily concerned about.

1050

The third thing I would like to see fashioned in terms of penalties where you end up having to go to court, the traditional fine for the desperate souls, if you will, who are pimps or however they end up engaging in this business, and there are a lot of pimps out there - a $25,000 fine doesn't even start to touch the damage they have done to young people. I think the fine not only needs to be ramped up probably to $100,000 minimum, but I would also propose and advocate very vigorously with the member for Sudbury that we ought to have some kind of lifelong mandatory commitment, a court order, even if it's in the civil courts, or the criminal courts, and that is that this particular example of a human being, if you could use that term, would have to not only pay money but be involved in community service for her or his term of existence on this planet. They need to remember forever the serious damage they are rendering when you bring children into this kind of situation.

Finally, I think if you kept this bill within provincial purview in terms of seeking civil remedies, which is one of the things the Crime Control Commission - the member for Cambridge isn't here, but the member for Scarborough East and the member for London South have gone and listened in at least 20 community forums dealing with not a fear of crime, as the member from Windsor has suggested, but the actual reality when you get out there.

Those are some of the suggestions that I think might help to improve the bill. Its principle is not only laudable but we need to get on with dealing with it.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Let me first pay tribute to my colleague the member for Sudbury. I think today he reminded us all once again why we're here. I think his passionate speech, his concern for his community and the sensitivity he brought to this issue remind us that we are here and that there is no greater issue than the protection and advancement of our children.

Prostitution is a problem everywhere in Ontario, but it is particularly heinous and difficult when it comes to children, and it is abuse. It is abuse of the worst kind which preys on the weak, which preys on the inexperienced. It is a problem not only of the inner cities but also throughout.

Much has been made today of some of the imperfections with this bill. It is true that there are issues with respect to age that need to be thought through, it is true there are issues with respect to compliance which require some additional discussion, but it is not true that there are jurisdictional conflicts. It is not true that there is duplication, as the member for Chatham-Kent would have us believe. Quite frankly, even if that were the case, if there were duplication, if there were an overstatement of legislation, the message we would be sending out with this legislation is that child prostitution is not acceptable under any circumstance, and that's the value of this bill. But there's also a substance to this bill which is very important.

It is not a bill which is fatally flawed by the imperfections that have been pointed out here, nor is it a bill that recreates legislation that exists everywhere. In fact, it enhances current legislation and gives authorities the tools they need to apprehend children in need to ensure that children do not remain the victims of sexual predators, which so often is the case in our society.

It's a caring and useful bill. I do not believe that the charter challenges that have been advanced here today in fact exist. We heard the member for Chatham-Kent say that this legislation would be open to challenge because it only deals with abuse of prostitution, not other types of abuses. What poppycock. We always have legislation that is specific to particular needs, and we don't advance the idea that that would be against the charter because it doesn't deal with absolutely everything.

Let's be clear. This is a bill that says: "We will not tolerate child prostitution and those who seek to abuse children in that way will be dealt with harshly. They will be fined. They can be imprisoned." But more importantly, there is a constructive element to this bill which says: "We will, as a society, as a government, take care of these children. We will remove them from that situation. We will put them in safe houses. We will return them to their parents. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that these children do not continue to live in those kinds of situations."

I will remind you that some two weeks ago the child advocate told us that problems with children start very early and they are perpetuated. The children who are not given guidance, who are shuffled around from one place to another, end up in our criminal system and stay in our criminal system. This bill is an attempt to reach children at the beginning, so we don't perpetuate the kind of circumstances that see them fall prey to even greater dangers.

Ultimately, for all of us, it's incumbent that we support this legislation. I will tell you why I'm supporting it. As a legislator, I believe that this is the reason we're here. Our job is to protect and to advance children, and I know that there's a need for this legislation. As a mother, I can imagine no worse deed than subjecting children to this kind of abuse, and I know there's a need for this legislation. Frankly, as a lawyer, I see the flaws, but I also see that it can be dealt with constructively in committee and I know that we can do it. I know there's a need for this legislation.

There is one final thing I'd like to say to the government: Today I hear members of the government saying you will support this legislation in principle. Beware that you don't bury it in committee. Beware that you don't defeat it on third reading, because we will hold you accountable, the people of Ontario will hold you accountable, but more importantly, the children of this province will hold you accountable.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Sudbury, you have two minutes.

Mr Bartolucci: I would like to thank all my colleagues who participated in the discussion. I take all their comments as constructive and very good ideas that should be carried through at committee. I do hope that this gets to committee for full discussion.

Just before my time is up, I'd like thank a few people. Certainly I would like to thank the members in the House for their very mature and meaningful debate today.

I would also like to thank Chief Alex McCauley and his police services in Sudbury for their very proactive approach to this particular problem, and former Deputy Chief Denis O'Neil from the regional municipality of Sudbury for his direction and advice.

I would like to thank the people of my city and my region, my fellow Sudburians, for their ongoing support and commitment in ensuring that this problem is not a lasting one.

I would also like to thank the father I referred to in my earlier presentation: I would like to thank Alan. Thank you for reminding me about how sensitive we have to be when it comes to children, and how focused we must be and how daring we have to be to ensure that what we do is always in the best interests of children.

Finally, I implore the members of the House, if you believe, as the preamble states, that children are sexually exploited and abused through prostitution, if you believe that we collectively can make a change, if you believe that this type of legislation, although not perfect now needs committee to ensure that we do reach perfection, if you believe, I ask you for your support.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

1100

CRIME AGAINST SENIORS

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I move that, in the opinion of this House, because the seniors of this province are one of the most susceptible groups to criminal activities and because of an increasing number of crimes being perpetrated on this generation, that the Attorney General give instructions to all prosecutors to seek increased sentences for those convicted of all violent crimes, abuse of trust or fraud against seniors. And furthermore that the Attorney General lobby the federal Minister of Justice to create mandatory sentencing guidelines for crimes against our vulnerable. And that all police service boards in the province develop preventive programs and assure that witness protection and victim assistance programs are made available to seniors victimized by said crimes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i) the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Fox: I rise in the House today on this issue that I feel concerns most of our colleagues, crimes against our seniors. I am sure that this issue has affected each one of you either directly or indirectly. After all, we're talking about our mothers and fathers and our grandparents.

Each day we open up the newspaper or turn on our television sets, it seems we are repulsed by yet another violent attack or breach-of-trust scam perpetrated on one of the generations most susceptible to criminal activities in our society. This should be a time in life for this generation to relax and reap the benefits of their hard work and to proudly enjoy the rewards of not only meeting, but in most cases, surpassing their family responsibilities. Instead, many live in fear of their lives, their life's savings and what the next telephone call or knock on the door will have in store for them.

I rise today in the House to tell you that we as a generation are failing them. While our government has developed some worthwhile programs such as Project Phonebusters and SeniorBusters, there is still no national or provincial strategy in place to protect seniors against crime. As well, our sentences on these crimes have been so lenient that it has impeded our law enforcement agencies' abilities to squash out targeted seniors crime, such as phone fraud and other white-collar offences.

We as a province, in the past, have not been tough enough on those predators and in turn have failed to protect one of the most valued assets. Overall, in the last 10 years, crimes against our senior population have risen by a whopping 40%. That in itself is an accurate indicator that not enough is being done. Please remember, as any law enforcement or seniors' organization will tell you, many more of these crimes are never even reported because of embarrassment, humiliation or fear of retribution.

Seniors are targeted for many reasons, which include loneliness, vulnerability and health-related reasons such as Alzheimer's. Seniors are particularly vulnerable to telephone and home renovation fraud because their generation tends to be more trusting and less likely to hang up the phone on someone who appears to be very friendly. The results of these types of brutal and unscrupulous crimes have resulted in ruined family lives, great financial losses and even suicides.

Telephone fraud alone has cost seniors $200 million over the last five years in Canada. In 1997 telemarketing fraud cost Ontario seniors more than $3.5 million. Over 60% of the total number of prize pitch victims are over the age of 60, with average dollar loss for multiple victims being more than $12,000 per victim. Some of these crimes perpetrated on our seniors are not only shocking, they are atrocious and so are the sentences that have been handed down by our courts.

As an example, there's the case of an Ontario man with a record of violent crimes as long as your arm who perpetrated a phone fraud scam on seniors for two and a half years. According to police, in some cases he would convince women to come to Montreal to pick up the prize and then lure them to his room and assault them. There were over 400 victims involved in this phone fraud plot and half of them were from Ontario.

He pleaded guilty to the crime and was sentenced to one year in jail, which he served at home. Detective Sergeant Barry Elliott, coordinator for Phonebusters and a 22-year member of the Ontario Provincial Police in his eighth year with the anti-rackets branch, called it "nothing but a pretend jail." What do you think that criminal was doing the next day? That's right, exactly the same thing.

Then there is the incident of an 82-year-old Niagara Falls woman who was dragged down a flight of stairs during a purse-snatching incident in Niagara Falls earlier this year. The man involved admitted in court to a string of violent attacks against seniors, all within a few days of one another.

In this particular incident, the man grabbed the woman's purse as she exited a taxi with her 87-year-old companion. However the purse would not come loose because the woman had the straps of the purse wrapped tightly around her shoulder. This didn't deter this predator, however. He held on to the purse and started running, dragging the woman along behind him and pulling her down eight concrete steps into a parking lot. The woman's forehead hit the pavement and she was knocked unconscious, and the man - I use this term loosely - stripped the handbag and made off with the $200 inside.

This senior received multiple fractures, a concussion and a swollen left eye socket. The woman's shoulder joint was so thoroughly smashed and shattered that surgeons had to install an artificial joint. This woman later told police officers who visited her to take a statement, and I quote: "I don't think I will ever come back from this. He has ruined my life."

The total sentence for this man's string of crimes, which included six victims, was two years - two years for a lifetime of pain and multiple victims.

According to the Better Business Bureau, these fly-by-night scam artists use any means necessary to victimize seniors, including becoming very physically intimidating. They go into their homes and threaten them, and seniors can't get rid of them.

I say enough, enough of the fear, enough of the pain, enough of the humiliation. Let's make the sentences equal to the physical, financial and emotional trauma caused by this crime. It is time for us as a province to get tough on these types of crimes and the element in our society which is committing them.

Therefore, I am asking my esteemed colleague the Attorney General to instruct his prosecutors to seek increased sentences for those criminals convicted of violent crimes, breach of trust and fraud against our seniors.

I am asking this province to lobby the federal government to create mandatory sentence guidelines when these appalling crimes are committed against our most vulnerable.

I am asking both our government and the federal government to study a proposed amendment to the US law currently before Congress. Under this proposed amendment to their sentencing guidelines, an individual convicted of a fraudulent scheme would face a two-level enhancement in sentencing. This amendment would be based upon a level or point system similar to our demerit licensing system, with the severity, criminal record and nature of the crime, combined with the physical, financial and emotional damage caused to the victim being the dictating factors in the length of the sentence.

As well, I am asking this province to make it mandatory for police services boards to develop preventive programs in their communities to protect our seniors. I am asking the police services boards to ensure that witness protective programs and victim assistance programs are made available to our seniors who fall victim to crime.

I am asking this House to help me to protect our seniors, and I would appreciate further comments from the rest. Thank you very kindly.

1110

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I am pleased to stand this morning as the advocate for seniors' issues in the Liberal caucus and on the eve of Seniors' Month in Ontario, to join my colleague from Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings and support his resolution to have the government of the day take some action on the issues as they have been outlined. Certainly, any effort made to move this issue on at the federal level I would be pleased to join in on and support.

The resolution is focused on three main areas: violent crimes against seniors, abuse of trust of seniors and fraud against seniors. We know that at this time there are no specific criminal laws at the federal level. That's why we need the cooperation of the federal government.

The resolution also calls for police services boards to "develop preventive programs and assure witness protection and victim assistance programs." I join the member in encouraging this government to provide the resources for this type of initiative. We all know that a great deal has gone on in the area of budgets of police services in Ontario, and to do what this resolution says I suspect various police services will need support in funding. I know that when the government supports this resolution, that will be one of the things they consider.

As an example, just in the news of the past day or so, the city of Toronto, because the police services board is strapped for money, is suggesting that the complaints board be disbanded. It's those kinds of things that have been downloaded on police services that we are going to apparently have to do without.

To support this resolution and to put the effort where our intent is, I encourage the member to go to his government and say, "Once this resolution is passed" - I'm sure it will be - "give us the support that is needed."

I'm pleased to see that a resolution such as this is brought forward so the Legislature can concretely say that we don't want only to send out words to our seniors that we are concerned about them. I received a leaked draft of a Mike Harris communication in January of this year that said he wants to filter special messages for seniors and fool people into believing that nothing bad is going on. As the member has pointed out, some bad things are going on, and we want more than messages; we want some action. That's another reason I can support this.

We have to go further than this. Not only are we concerned about fraud and breach of trust against seniors and street crimes and in-home crimes against seniors from third parties, but the whole question of elder abuse in this province has been undiscovered for too long. There are more and more statistics pointing out that the elderly are suffering abuse from their partners, from their families because of the stress on families due to the pressing issues of the day. In addition to these three very significant problems that the minister - that's a Freudian slip - the member has pointed out, we must also look at abuse by family members as well.

I can say to the member I wholeheartedly support his resolution. From our point of view, we'll do everything we can to assist you in seeing that these issues are carried forward both to your government and to the federal government.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I can readily indicate to the member that I'm going to be supporting the resolution. Of course. Politically, you'd be a damned fool not to.

Laughter.

Mr Kormos: Well, that's the truth, and that's what part of this is all about.

Mr Fox is, quite frankly, a benign and likeable person. That perhaps causes me to be less critical than I would otherwise be, because I believe that Mr Fox approaches this issue with all sincerity and isn't merely exploiting that current fear of crime that prevails, and I acknowledge it prevails, in our community.

I'm pleased that Mr Fox has addressed both the issue of violent crime - because he's quite right: Seniors, because of their age, the declining physical strength that can accompany senior years, are eyed by some of the most despicable in our community as potential victims, as victims more easily overcome.

I similarly concur with Mr Fox when he identifies seniors as a particular targeted group for, as he calls it, white-collar crime; that's the nomenclature that's tossed around. We're talking about the telephone fraud, the scams, these wacko lotteries where you have to dial a 1-900 number and spend 15 minutes on the phone to win a $1 prize, and spend $45, $50, $60 on the phone call.

I should note that our courts have, for a significant period of time, viewed the fact that a victim is a senior as an aggravating factor. I don't suggest that Mr Fox is denying that.

But we've got some real problems here in talking about this issue. Mr Crozier has already raised the issue of resources to police services boards. Let me also speak to the news item that occurred this morning that revealed the results of a survey of Ontario crown attorneys, prosecutors in our criminal courts. The news item related to this information being entered into the inquest into the tragic death of one Arlene May. The survey revealed that 56% of crown attorneys are rarely able to interview victims of crime. That is a shocking bit of data.

This was a survey of crown attorneys, and I know many of them. Some I've known for a long time; some I only met last year. Let's take a look at what 42% said. They feel pressed to consider expediency in the course of plea bargaining about 75% of the time. They express frustration, 36%, about there not being enough judges. I'm going to qualify the language here, because the language says 36% of crown attorneys express frustration and concern about what's called in the press report "inadequate police work." I'm confident that they weren't speaking to the matter of incompetence, not by any stretch of the imagination. Our police forces are trained and competent and capable and sophisticated in their level of operation, more so than they've ever been in the history of policing in this province and, I'm confident, anywhere else in the world.

But there's a real problem out there, Mr Fox. Crown attorneys would dearly love to prosecute and hammer the daylights out of the perpetrators you're speaking about, the criminals who would prey on the most vulnerable in our community: seniors, in the instance of this resolution. They'd dearly love to. The sad reality is that crown attorneys have told me that they very much are under a quota system, that they have expectations imposed on them by the Ministry of the Attorney General to resolve X per cent of the charges before them. Do you understand what I'm saying, sir? Crown attorneys are pressured to meet that quota of guilty pleas.

When the crown attorneys talk about being pressed to consider expediency in the course of plea bargaining about 75% of the time, what that means is that crown attorneys are acknowledging that they're accepting pleas or making deals vis-à-vis joint submissions to sentence that they know are inadequate, that they know don't reflect the real interests of justice, but because they've got to meet that quota - and there are reasons for that, and they again relate to some of the other considerations in that survey, that there are an inadequate number of judges in courtrooms. I believe that. I believe that very, very firmly, that crown attorneys don't have the time.

1120

We've got a Victims' Bill of Rights, and you know that the Victims' Bill of Rights in this province has been referred to more often for the violation of it than for the abiding by it. Crown attorneys acknowledge that. Look at the data: 56% are rarely able to interview victims of crime. Their prep time on bail hearings, they indicate as a result of this survey, amounts to some five minutes per file when considering the release of a person arrested back into the community awaiting trial or other disposition.

Those facts, those data, should be of real concern to all of us, because I believe they address very specifically the concerns that you very legitimately raise. We've got some real problems out there.

I have every confidence in our judiciary. I know that from within your caucus, out of this Crime Control Commission, there has been this not-so-indirect attack on the competence of our judges. Let me tell you, the judiciary in this province has never been as skilled, competent and well trained ever before in our history. I believe that sincerely. I'll say the same as I did a few moments ago about our police and our crown attorneys, that these people simply aren't being given the tools, Mr Fox.

I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to suggest that you go out and speak with some of these people, and I suspect you already have. I'm not going to suggest that you've isolated yourself and haven't consulted the real people doing this real work out there in your community, in my community, in communities across this province. But there are some real serious problems out there: the whole phenomenon of plea bargains and the pressure on crown attorneys to meet what they've expressed to me as quotas in terms of ensuring that matters are resolved with a guilty plea rather than by trial.

Understand what a disservice that does to the victim. You've undoubtedly had some of the same phone calls in your constituency office as I've had in mine, and that is that a victim of a serious crime shows up in court and, lo and behold, without them being made aware of it, there's a guilty plea to a reduced offence, with a joint submission to a sentence that they consider grossly inappropriate and that most of the community considers grossly inappropriate. I think that's a real problem.

Some of your colleagues will stand up and say: "There we go again. Throw more money at it." The bottom line is that if you don't adequately finance or fund the judicial system, the criminal justice system, you're going to start to find bigger and bigger holes there and more and more people, inevitably victims, falling through those holes.

Before I close, because my colleague Mr Lessard is going to speak to this as well, let me talk about the fallacy - and again, I don't doubt your sincerity. But the fallacy of this whole approach is that it's after the fact. I know you began to address that when you talked about preventive programs. But the fact remains, at the end of the day, that once some senior's home has been burgled and trashed and ripped off for - and never mind the TV and the VCR; insurance may well cover that. But you know what happens: They lose the mementoes that are irreplaceable and that no dollar cost can be attached to. That senior spends the rest of his or her life, I acknowledge and I understand in a very visceral way - or any victim, as far as that goes, but more acutely and more tragically, I'm sure, with seniors - living in fear that nobody in our society should have to endure.

I agree with tough sentences. I have no qualms about that. Let's be tough on crime. But let's be even tougher on the causes of crime, because once the dirty deed has been committed you've already got the victim, and no amount of jail time for the perpetrator is going to restore that victim to the position they would have been in before the crime. So I agree with you entirely about preventive programs.

I called the Niagara Regional Police this morning in anticipation of this debate. They'd love to have community policing officers out there dealing very directly with seniors, as well as other members of the community, talking about home security, home safety, some very simple techniques that you can use to enhance the security of your home against a break and enter or a robbery, these damned home invasions that have become quite prevalent. But they don't have the police officers to do it, Mr Fox.

You're touting this $150-million plan. That's over five years at $30 million a year, it requires matching funds by the municipality, and it only pays one year of police officers' salaries. The municipalities are strapped. They know they can't even come up with the 50%, and they're concerned about how, if they do, they'll maintain that over the course of the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth years.

Mr Fox, you asked for our help; I'm prepared to give it. I'm asking for yours: Lean on your Solicitor General, your Attorney General and your Premier to direct more funds to policing here in Ontario.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I'm very pleased to rise in the House and address this resolution introduced by my friend and colleague the representative from Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

In my riding, I have a large number of senior citizens. Therefore, the senior citizens' crime problem is of concern to me. To see these unscrupulous characters scoop up the nest-eggs of senior citizens who have spent a lifetime putting them aside, some to live on and some to add possibly a little extra flavour to their life - to see that scooped up by telephone scams and white-collar crime is just abhorrent to me.

I am in a rural area. Rural people by nature are very hardworking and very trustworthy. It's not correct to say that these seniors are gullible, incompetent or senile, because they're not. All of us can be taken in by these schemes. But because they're so honest and trustworthy, they tend to trust others, especially others who will spend the time passing pleasantries back and forth with them. When someone calls and tells us they'll give us some value for money, the hardworking, trustworthy seniors tend to believe them.

When younger people are defrauded, they have time to make back that money. The senior has worked all his or her life to set aside this money, and once it's gone it's not recoverable. We can all be taken in by these schemes, but it's most tragic when it happens to a senior.

While I've been talking of fraud and breach of trust, it's one thing for the rural community. But in the urban population, the invasion of the security of the home, a home that seniors have worked their whole lifetime to put together, a home they consider to be safe - it's violated by somebody who comes in there and steals whatever to support their drug habit or whatever other heinous situations they want to support. They violate the sanctity of the senior's home. It's terror that lasts a lifetime. If the senior happens to be there, it leads to loss of life.

1130

As stated before, the knocking down of a senior citizen, resulting in life-threatening fractures, to steal a purse that may contain $5 or $10 must be dealt with most severely. The urban problem of thieves breaking into homes has to be dealt with and cannot be condoned with a slap on the wrist and, "Go ahead, be a good boy and don't do it again." Overcrowded courts are not an excuse. It doesn't take any longer to give a 10-year sentence than a 10-day sentence.

What about the cost? One per cent of society are the people who continually reoffend. Take the cost of the police, the cost of the investigations, the court costs, the cost of life or the cost of keeping somebody in the hospital comatose, and I don't think it takes a mathematician to see which side the scales are going to tip on.

This government has arranged for 1,000 new police officers to patrol our streets. These police officers will become jaded and frustrated if they have to continually put up with the revolving doors in our courts and jails. We must put teeth into our laws, the feds must come to the table and put teeth into their laws, and we have to have sentences that fit the crime.

Rehabilitation? Yes, I believe in rehabilitation. I'm in the business. But try to rehabilitate a dead grandmother or grandfather.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm also delighted to add to the two resolutions. I have to say I think today is one of those days that the House will find itself in the position of supporting not one but two resolutions presented in this House.

I have to compliment both members, the member for Sudbury for bringing a resolution on protecting children from crimes such as prostitution, and the member with the longest riding name, that is, Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, with respect to protecting seniors against a number of crimes.

When we talk about crimes, especially against the most vulnerable group, our seniors, we don't say only crimes perpetrated by criminals. Often our seniors are being abused by crimes of fraud and mental, physical and verbal abuse, and that comes from a number of sources, including the public and sometimes family members, especially today because of the stress brought on by the changes of the government. Yes, seniors do resent that.

If I may remind the members of this House, we not only must protect the seniors from all those outside forces; it is another story when we have to protect seniors from the actions of their own government. I'm saying that to the members of the House not in any particular political way but just to stress the fact that, yes, we have to do it. We must listen and we must act. It's another story when we have to have seniors come to their place of legislation, Queen's Park, and tell the government that what they are doing against the seniors is wrong.

I want to address myself to last year, having had the seniors in this place saying: "You have been charging us $100 for a user's fee. On top of that, you are curtailing our period of benefits from 12 months to eight months." Do you know how much stress, how much abuse we, as their own government, have imposed on those seniors, especially those who can't afford that $100? I know there are a lot of members on the government side who feel very uncomfortable with many of the actions taken by the government. I laud the intent of the resolution, because seniors often are called the most wonderful resource we have, but very often we tend to forget that. It's even worse when we have to defend the seniors from their own government.

I hope we're not only saying it, but we must do those things so indeed our seniors feel protected. I agree with the intent of the resolution, with the content of the resolution, that we need sentences and penalties, but I think we have to go a little further than that. Perhaps we need an awareness program for seniors, programs in various agencies and groups to make sure that seniors feel protected if and when they come out. Whatever the percentage of seniors is who come out and let us hear about some of the abuses they go through, there are a number of other seniors who, because of fear of reprisal or inability in languages or because they live in many different places under different circumstances, we don't hear from. On a daily basis they live through anguish, and that's most unfortunate. I think we should find the ways to seek out those seniors who live under those particular circumstances.

I'm delighted to have had the opportunity to address these resolutions by the members for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings and for Sudbury. I think both of them deserve the support of this House. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to add my voice to the issues.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I want to bring to this debate some of my experience up until 1990 as an assistant crown attorney in Windsor and Essex county and say to the member for Brant-Haldimand that I disagree with his opinion that it takes the same length of time to impose a 10-year sentence as it does to impose a 10-day sentence. That may be the case at the end of a trial, but the fact is that most of the time, if a person thinks they're going to end up with a 10-day sentence, they would plead guilty, and they're not going to plead guilty if they thought they were going to get a 10-year sentence. The length of time it takes to have trials and the resources required to conduct those trials is something that has to be taken into consideration.

We all support the concept that vulnerable seniors are in need of protection. That's something the member's own Attorney General can direct crown attorneys to take into consideration when they are prosecuting their cases, when they're agreeing to sentences on guilty pleas. I would ask the member to ask the Attorney General to send out those policy directions to crown attorneys throughout Ontario in the way they treat persons convicted of crimes against seniors.

We can compare this initiative to what we've seen take place with respect to impaired driving. The change in behaviour of the public with respect to impaired driving has been dramatic over the years because of policy directions and initiatives taken by governments. That's also true in how we approach domestic assaults, that no longer are abused spouses able to come into court and ask the crown attorney to please withdraw the case against their spouse. Crown attorneys don't agree to that. They insist on going through trials in every case of domestic assault because of directions that have been provided by the Attorney General.

So those directions can be provided, and I think they should be provided to help provide protection to vulnerable seniors. I would rather see that than mandatory sentencing guidelines being imposed to tie the hands of crown attorneys, to go the route they've gone down in the United States which has really led to increased incarceration of people and has done little to protect seniors and make the streets safer in the United States. All it has led to is an increased population in the jails in America, and I don't think that's the direction we want to go.

1140

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the member from Welland. Being a former crown attorney myself, I can indicate that I agree with many of his comments. In particular, the Globe and Mail article is exactly the situation in the crown attorney system that existed when I left there in 1995. I always felt very privileged and it was a great honour to work there. They were a great group of professionals. Many times we would work weekends, evenings. When I did it, I was never alone. There were large groups of us working there. I remember one time when I was working on a fraud, I worked Christmas Eve till 3 am. As I indicated, that was not just me; that's our prosecutors in general. They're doing a great job under a lot of stress.

One of the differences I've found between being in this House and being in court is that because you can't get sued in here, facts often become irrelevant and rhetoric carries the day. I thought I would take a different approach to the motion in front of us and actually try to indicate to the public watching and to the members here what the sentences are that are being handed out in Ontario at present.

There's a book that's in all law libraries and in this library called Ontario Decisions: Criminal Cases. By going through it, you can find out what the sentences are that are being meted out in Ontario, and they go back for many years. I decided to go through 1995 to 1998, the years I've been absent from the system and have been in here, and nothing much has changed. I'll just go through some actual cases to indicate what sentences are being meted out.

A case called R. v Cipollone: This is a case where the accused attacked his wife's parents, killing his father-in-law with a hammer, causing several serious wounds to his head, and attacked his mother-in-law as well, severely injuring her. He was convicted of murder. The parole eligibility - you have to serve a certain minimum, anywhere between 10 and 25 years. He received a 12-year minimum parole. That means he could be out on parole in 12 years. That's half the maximum. He was no stranger to violence and in fact had been violent to his wife on past occasions. He got half of the maximum that was available to him, and that's just not an unusual sentence.

Dealing with manslaughter, it was my experience that the upper end of a sentence for killing a senior would be in the area of 10 to 15 years, 15 being a very rare upper-end sentence, and that appears not to have changed.

For example, there's a case called R. v Smith, 1995. This accused met an elderly woman in her seventies and somehow enticed her to his apartment. He lost control and beat her severely about the head. She was gravely injured. He left his apartment and 12 hours later reported that there might be a corpse in his room. She wasn't a corpse yet, but she died a few days later. The court indicated it was egregious and mindless violence visited upon a harmless, physically disadvantaged person 70 years of age. This accused had a criminal record, starting in 1979, so that's 16 years, including narcotics, crimes against property, disobedience of court orders, assault and robbery - clearly not a nice person, basically a career criminal.

What happened? The maximum sentence could be life. The accused got 10 years' imprisonment. The trial judge has the discretion under the Criminal Code to make sure that he spends at least half of that in parole. The trial judge decided not to exercise that power, so this person got 10 years for killing a defenceless, innocent victim. Under our parole system, he could be out in three and a half years, clearly an inappropriate sentence for this type of random violence.

I only have another minute or so. When you go into that kind of violence, where often the sentences are inadequate, they really become inadequate when you talk about property offences. Most of them are not pursued, and when you do get convicted of property offences, involving seniors or anyone else, the sentences are quite niggardly.

In the 30 seconds left to me, I could perhaps refer to one other case, R. v Bolton. This person was a career criminal, was convicted of 48 offences, including eight convictions for break and enter, which has a life maximum. He was convicted of numerous other property offences. He had a number of weapons, firearms that were loaded and so on and so forth. It was discovered that he came from England and had five cases of burglary outstanding against him in England. He has a long, long criminal record. He was a career criminal. In fact, this is organized crime. He stole $200,000. If there ever was an individual who should get life imprisonment for break and enter, this was him. What did he get? Six years. Under our parole system, he could be out in two.

These are very typical of the sentences in our courts. Nothing has changed much, and there is clearly a need for increased sentencing involving seniors and in fact in all areas of crime.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm delighted to participate in this debate and to congratulate the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings for this resolution and for his serious initiative.

We cannot disagree. We want to seek maximum sentences for those convicted of violent crimes, abuse of trust or fraud against seniors. Who can disagree?

"That all police services boards in the province develop preventive programs and assure that witness protection and victim assistance programs are made available to seniors victimized by said crimes." Again, we cannot disagree. We will agree with this. There's no doubt about it. It comes home to anyone who's lucky enough to have a senior as a parent. In my own case, my mother was once mugged when she had just come out of the grocery store. The person was pulling on her purse. She wouldn't let go because she had some important papers in the purse - as we know, seniors don't think to let go unless they are forced to do so - and she was thrown on the ground. Luckily, nothing serious happened, but the consequent aftermath of this tragic event affected her for a very, very long time.

Indeed, as was mentioned earlier by some members, home invasions, break and enter - we younger folks, who are also approaching senior years, may be affected totally differently, but to a senior it's an invasion of privacy, an invasion of their lives, and they indeed take it very seriously.

Should there be maximum sentences? Of course there should. But, my friends, I would also recommend that we should include another section of the vulnerable population, and that is those who are disabled. Why not include the disabled, who are just as vulnerable as seniors? Some of them cannot see, some have a physical problem, some are in wheelchairs. They too are just as much subject to this kind of criminal behaviour to take advantage them as seniors. I recommend that once it gets into the social development committee, and I hope it doesn't die there, we also include certain sections that will be addressed specifically to those who are of the vulnerable population.

Here is a classic case of government cuts. I'm not surprised about what the outcome of this is, and neither is the government member who makes this resolution. He supported government cuts right across the board to police services, including police services boards. Of course now, when he sees the devastation being caused by this kind of action, that the police officers are unable to maintain security on the streets, we're saying, "What we should be doing is providing more services," and that the federal Minister of Justice should also cooperate and include increased sentence calculations involving crimes against seniors.

We should do all that, but you can't have it both ways. Now you come crying, saying: "Give more power to police officers. Let's increase sentences." We all know the outcome once the cuts start hitting home. On the other hand, it is maintenance of police boards, maintenance of police officers. You don't start cutting them and then ask for programs at the same time. Something has to give. I only suppose that when it gets to the social development committee you will also include a section that will say, "Let's not cut any more police officers and let's give more power to police services boards to include these sections." It is obvious what is taking place here: a classic case of Conservative politics.

To include this section, just increasing sentences cannot be very effective unless you start planning and start creating a whole series of brochures, an advertising campaign, so that those who are even tempted to commit crimes against seniors will know that the law is tougher than it was. It is of no use whatsoever to create these laws and to create tougher sentencing unless the general public, and especially targeting those who might be tempted to commit the act, would know what the consequences of these acts are.

What you almost have to do is create an advertising campaign and create brochures and leaflets. In my own community we have a number of leaflets we have done and we have created and they were fairly successful. I only wish that could continue.

1150

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): It's a pleasure to rise today and join with my colleagues in support of my friend Gary Fox's resolution. This government is making good on its promise to do something about violent crimes in this province, and the previous speakers have mentioned there is $150 million in new funding for crime prevention announced in the most recent budget. That drew some derision from the opposition, but at least it's a very positive, major step; 1,000 new police officers on our streets and in our communities, another extremely positive step.

Now here we are presenting a resolution to help defend some of the most vulnerable among us. Our elders are our mentors. Indeed we owe them for our existence, our happiness and our quality of life. We are all taught as children to treat our elders with the utmost dignity and respect, yet too many people have not learned that lesson. Instead, they act to exploit and abuse our senior citizens. Extortion, mental cruelty and physical abuse are the weapons of the criminal mind in this regard.

We note the problem of elder abuse is much larger than is documented. Some studies suggest that the vast majority of the crimes go unreported. In Ontario there are about 1.4 million people over the age of 65, and as the baby boom generation matures, that number will continue to expand. A study by the National Forum on Health found that each year one in 25 seniors is the victim of some form of abuse or neglect. American studies have shown that 10% of elders suffer from some form of abuse. Using these figures in Ontario, it means that there are 140,000 victims every year. Two thirds of the victims are women, often widows.

This is truly a crime that preys on the most helpless in society, and my colleagues and I believe that these offenders should be punished to the greatest extent of the law. We should follow the lead of the state of California, which just recently amended their criminal code to get tough on people who commit crimes against the elderly.

The new law brings down proportionately tougher punishments on criminals who make seniors their victims. The law directs the state sentencing commission to go after these offenders with harsh punishments to adequately reflect the heinous nature of these crimes. It suggests the following, and I'm paraphrasing here: The guidelines provide for increasingly severe punishment for a defendant equivalent with the degree of physical harm caused to the elderly victim; the guidelines take appropriate account of the vulnerability of the victim; and the guidelines provide enhanced punishment for a defendant convicted of a crime of violence against an elderly victim who has previously been convicted of a crime of violence against an elderly victim. The law goes even further, with jail terms of up to 10 years for some criminals who target people over the age of 55. California sent a clear message that it's cracking down on criminals who target older, more defenceless victims.

I'm proud to say that here in Ontario we are also going to send a message to those ruthless individuals. This resolution is a step in the right direction. We need to let these criminals know that we are going to punish them to the full extent of the law.

I might have time for a very short anecdote. My own dear late father lived alone in the country, and above his door he had a golf club. So I said to him one day, "Why do you have that golf club there, father?" He said, "In case anybody breaks and enters in here, I'll have some way to defend myself." It was a nice story, but it's a sad commentary on society when people like my father, in an area where he never used to lock his doors for years and years, feel obliged to have their doors locked and indeed to have a golf club for defence.

Today this resolution is more than appropriate; it's timely, and I know from the messages in the House today that all the colleagues will join in support of this resolution.

Mr Fox: I would first like to thank those who have stood in the House to support my resolution this morning. They obviously agree it's time that we as a province started to address this serious problem, especially when you consider that Ontario's senior population has increased by 38% over the past eight years. What better time than now, with Seniors' Month coming up in the next few days.

I'm also pleased to see this resolution come forward. There are other supporters, other organizations and individuals directly involved in this issue.

Lillian Morgenthau, president of the 375,000-member Canadian Association of Retired Persons, called this resolution "long overdue." Queen's University law professor Ron Delisle remarked that the resolution was "admirable."

OPP veteran officer Barry Elliott noted, "The resolution is a very positive step in the right direction." He, like most police enforcement individuals and agencies, is extremely frustrated by the lack of increased sentencing and the lack of sentencing guidelines for these types of crimes against seniors. To quote the detective: "It is the system and the victim which currently end up paying the most. White-collar crime against seniors is almost to the point now where why bother laying the charge? There is no deterrent for criminals." Elliott is an honoured and seasoned member of our police forces who works every day trying to combat fraudulent crimes against seniors.

If this is his opinion, you can only imagine the opinion of those criminals who prey on the vulnerable. It has become a joke to them. It's a way to make an easy buck on the backs of our seniors.

It's time to get tough. It's time for us as a province and as a country to give individuals like Barry Elliott a new weapon to fight these horrendous crimes. This weapon is called detolerance. It is time to protect the people who have protected us for all these years. It's time to stand up and say, "No more."

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN INVOLVED IN PROSTITUTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES ENFANTS QUI SE LIVRENT À LA PROSTITUTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time provided for private members' public business has expired. We will deal first with ballot item number 11 standing in the name of Mr Bartolucci.

Mr Bartolucci has moved second reading of Bill 18. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 95 -

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mr Speaker, I'd like to ask that this bill go to the standing committee on social development.

The Acting Speaker: Does the majority of the House agree that it should be sent to the social development committee? Agreed.

CRIME AGAINST SENIORS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 12 standing in the name of Mr Fox.

Mr Fox has moved private member's notice of motion number 9. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters related to private members' public business having been debated, I will now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1159 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to the work of Amnesty International on the 37th anniversary of their work internationally and on the 25th anniversary of their operation in Canada.

Amnesty International was a simple idea that worked: taking action to protect human rights one person at a time. Their work is funded entirely by contributions from the public, without any assistance from governments.

Amnesty International has become a worldwide movement to defend human rights. There are now almost one million members and supporters in more than 160 countries.

At the core of Amnesty's work is action on behalf of prisoners of conscience, those who have been imprisoned because of their beliefs and who have not used or advocated violence themselves. Over the years, thousands of prisoners of conscience have been freed. Amnesty International members have had an impact by writing letters, either alone or in groups.

Amnesty International members do not work in cases in their own country, nor do they focus on one region or political orientation.

Canada joined Amnesty International in the mid-l960s. There are now over 130 English and French groups across the country, with 70,000 members and supporters. Amnesty International has been active in Canada through a collection of youth groups and through a medical group, the first professional network to focus on human rights violations. Legal, teachers' and artists' networks have since been formed. A women's action network was formed in 1991.

I would like to congratulate Amnesty International for all their work. I salute their legacy and I encourage their continued work.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Publicly funded education in Niagara is taking one real beating from Mike Harris's government here at Queen's Park.

Let me tell you what's happened so far. Already, as of last night, Niagara Falls collegiate gone, shut down, one of the largest and most senior high schools in all of Niagara region. Welland high and vocational school, gone, shut down, written off the educational map. Some 152 teachers in Niagara region getting their pink slips - gone, out on the streets, no longer in the classroom, and that's in addition to some 155 more who are retiring, yet not to be replaced. We're going to lose at least 10% of our component of teachers in Niagara region.

I tell you, public education is suffering, and suffering big time. This government is engaged in a frontal attack on our youth and their futures and the future of this province. This government talked a big game when it said that their new funding model, their Bill 160, wasn't going to affect what happens in the classroom. Well, poppycock. It's affected it big time.

People in Niagara region and their kids are going to suffer. Adult education has virtually disappeared because of this government's abandonment of those people for whom re-education and upgrading is critical to their success in our new and very bizarre high unemployment economy. This government should be ashamed of itself. I tell you, the people in Niagara region aren't going to tolerate these sort of attacks on the things they've worked so hard to build.

GO TRANSIT

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): The people of Scarborough East are being railroaded. There are posters in the GO stations at Rouge Hill and Guildwood telling commuters that GO is providing "more express service" and that "more seats will be available." They fail to point out that their idea of more express service on the Lakeshore East line is five fewer trains going to the Rouge Hill station.

The issue is not funding. The amount of funding that GO Transit has today is the same as it had six months ago, the same as it had a year ago. These cuts are not being made because of any change in revenue.

If these cuts are made, then quite frankly GO Transit is cutting off their engine to spite their caboose. GO Transit passenger fare revenue will drop because many people in my community will be forced to drive to work instead of taking inconveniently timed trains.

The issue is not funding; it's service. Without any consultation in our communities, without any advance warning to the people who use Rouge Hill and Guildwood stations, GO Transit unilaterally announced these changes. Hundreds of people have taken the time to write letters to the general manager of GO Transit, and all they receive back are form letters telling them it's a done deal.

In one hour yesterday at one station, I collected 250 signatures, people who call on the GO Transit board of directors to cancel the proposed elimination of service, consult with riders before making any changes, and ensure that GO Transit services reflect the needs of all the communities it serves.

Mayor Lastman and the members of the GO board have the opportunity to do the right thing: cancel these cuts and maintain services in the east end of Toronto. I join the hundreds and hundreds of area commuters who say, "Stop railroading us."

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to speak in regard to the ongoing efforts of restructuring in Hamilton-Wentworth. We have gone through three or four years now of ongoing debate in regard to the future of our region and the shape it should take.

I was disappointed yesterday to hear the Minister of Municipal Affairs suggest that he has no plans to get involved in helping bring along a deal. The minister said, "We've been consistent, we want a local decision." That has been inconsistent, frankly, as to what has happened in other jurisdictions. That has been inconsistent with the policy of this government.

The minister also challenged me to bring in a private member's bill that would in effect give the region of Hamilton-Wentworth three months with a mediator to try to come up with a local restructuring plan, and failing that, the province would appoint a commissioner who would make recommendations to this government.

I plan to bring this bill into the Legislature next week. I am asking the minister to support this bill. If the minister is serious about restructuring in Hamilton-Wentworth and if the minister is serious about the fact that a restructuring in our region will save the taxpayers $37 million a year, the minister will support this bill in the Legislature so we can get on with it.

It is essential to our region, it is essential to the future growth of Hamilton-Wentworth, it is essential to our ability to compete in Ontario and across the world that we have a restructuring plan in place that makes sense. I urge this government and this minister to support the bill this week if they're serious and if they're not intent on playing political games with this.

BOROUGH OF EAST YORK.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, you know it's not often in the Legislature that a member of the opposition can get up and say something positive about the government, and members opposite will know that whenever there is an opportunity, they can count on me to do just that.

I want at this point in time to compliment the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the staff in his office. Members of the Legislature will know that I and Marilyn Churley from Riverdale have been working for close to a year now on the issue of a third councillor for the community of East York. This is a really important issue of democratic representation. The minister has pledged his commitment to move forward with the piece of legislation I have introduced.

I want to say the level of cooperation has been extraordinary. Legal staff within the ministry have been looking at the bill. There are some concerns they've raised. We're working to have the bill redrafted. It is the way in which, on important issues where there can be compromise and consensus, the Legislative Assembly should work.

I applaud the response of the minister and particularly the minister's staff who have been so willing to be open with myself and Ms Churley and to work with us in achieving this. I am hopeful that by the end of the month of June, actually June 25, we will be debating my bill in this House. I look forward to that and I look forward to all-party support at that time.

BRAMPTON MINOR BASEBALL ASSOCIATION

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Unlike some of the people playing politics in this Legislature - notwithstanding the previous member; I appreciate her comments - I rise today to commemorate a very happy occasion, the 50th anniversary of the Brampton Minor Baseball Association.

The first official season in 1948 consisted of four teams under the leadership of the president, Hal Brown. The league continued to grow and by 1965 they had rep teams and house league teams in all age groups.

In 1970 the annual peewee rep tournament was born with teams travelling from as far away as Montreal and Windsor to compete. In 1974 a team from Brantford participated with the star pitcher, Wayne Gretzky. Since then the association has gone on to host rep and select tournaments in all age groups, bringing over 200 teams into our city each year.

In 1974 the associations in Brampton and Bramalea joined and registration skyrocketed to 700 boys in 1977. It peaked in 1994 at 4,800. Throughout this time to the present, Brampton's organization was the largest in Ontario and in Canada.

In 1990 we began sending reps to the Ontario elimination tournament. In the first five years, we won two gold, two silver and a bronze medal at the national championships.

An organization like this compliments the parents, coaches, executive members and the city -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): my statement is directed at the government's announcement on community safety zones. You just don't get it, do you? I have been telling you for three years what is needed to protect children. It's vehicle liability.

The police can't follow 16,000 school buses. You had the opportunity with my school bus bill to create 16,000 safety zones to protect every bus in Ontario on every mile of their route and all 810,000 children who ride those buses. But you killed my bill on the order paper. In the words of Colleen Marcuzzi, "You chose to do the political thing, not the right thing." You can raise fines all you want, but without a conviction mechanism there is no fine.

You say you want to target the actions of dangerous drivers. So do I. If a vehicle is correctly identified, the owner should not be allowed to protect the lawbreaker who endangers the lives of children. This month, police in Chatham-Kent issued a warning in the press about blatant examples of illegal passing. Increased fines are not helping. It's an epidemic. Lawbreakers know the Harris government will not take the only actions that will produce conviction: vehicle liability. You are shielding lawbreakers who continue to pass school buses recklessly. Introduce vehicle liability to protect innocent children. Do it now.

1340

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario have joined the chorus of groups and organizations in Ontario criticizing the Harris government for its sheer incompetence. This is what they said in response to Bill 16, the new property tax bill: "This bill is complicated, cumbersome, confusing and, too often, badly drafted. It serves to perpetuate the bad system that the government was so bent on eliminating. The end product is a political and administrative nightmare."

This is what the Minister of Municipal Affairs said in response to questions about this. He said: "The bill is going to protect the taxpayer. It allows for caps. It gives municipalities all the options and all the ability they need to deal with matters of municipal concern. I am fully supportive of the bill and I honestly believe the opposition should also be supporting this bill." Who do you believe here?

I want to thank the minister very much for listening to the grave concerns expressed by this group of people, who deal with this issue on a day-to-day basis. I understand he has finally, after urging from our NDP caucus to hold hearings on this bill, urging by the Citizens for Local Democracy to hold hearings on this bill, urging from AMO and now from this group - I want to thank the minister for finally listening. He's clearly not any longer 100% behind this bill, and we look forward to the hearings.

VISITORS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to rise today in the House to welcome an OAC class visiting the Legislature from my riding of Durham East. Mr Michael Aggett's political science class from Port Perry High School is visiting Queen's Park to learn more about the political process and get a firsthand look at politics. I am sure that Port Perry High School will enjoy question period today. It is clear that Mr Aggett recognizes that the world indeed is a classroom today.

Angela Crawford initiated this forum by writing a letter to my constituency office. Mr Phillips, the Liberal opposition and finance critic and member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and the Honourable Janet Ecker, Minister of Community and Social Services and member for Durham West, as well as John Ibbitson, Queen's Park correspondent for Southam News, and my intern student, Laurie Leduc, all commented to the students, giving them a firsthand report of their duties. This was an excellent cross-section of individuals. I'm certain they benefited the students from my riding. The students were able to learn the duties of the member and the press.

I'd like to thank Mr Phillips and Minister Ecker, as well as Mr Ibbitson and Laurie, for agreeing to participate with my constituents from Durham East.

I'd also like to recognize a class from Markham District High School, Vince Dannetta's OAC class, from Minister Tsubouchi's riding, who are here today to observe question period. Indeed, the students of Ontario are -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Pursuant to standing order 60(a), I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates, on the estimates selected and not selected by the standing committee for consideration.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Mr Bartolucci from the standing committee on estimates presents the committee's report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 59, your committee has selected the estimates 1998-99 of the following ministries and offices for consideration -

Mr Bartolucci: Dispense.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I heard "dispense." Dispense? Carried.

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.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME DU DROIT DE L'ENFANCE

Mr Hastings moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27, An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act / Projet de loi 27, Loi modifiant la Loi portant réforme du droit de l'enfance.

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

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): The bill amends the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and grandparents. There's a whole section of subsections - I'll forgo that - in terms of the essence of the bill.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to introduce a motion respecting the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Ann Cavoukian, current interim Information and Privacy Commissioner, to act as interim Information and Privacy Commissioner until November 30, 1998,

"And that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker."

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

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect to correcting the record of Hansard, a statement that was made here yesterday in which the minister of -

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, you can't correct someone else's record. You can only correct your own record.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: An assurance was given by the government yesterday you would be interested in that a meeting was taking place between the clerks and treasurers and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It did not happen.

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines, I know nothing of this and it's not a point of order.

Mr Bradley: Can you not help us out with this?

The Speaker: I can't help you out. I'm sorry.

Mr Gerretsen: My first point of order -

The Speaker: You didn't have a first point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hold it, member for Kingston and The Islands. It's fine to hear a point of order if you just state what your point of order is before getting into it.

Mr Gerretsen: My first point of order is that the record, as shown in Hansard on page 798 in an answer that was given to a question, is totally incorrect.

The Speaker: Member for Kinston and The Islands, it's still not a point of order.

1350

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make a statement to this House about the meeting that he said yesterday was going to take place, which apparently did not take place. So my request is for unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to clarify the situation that's been brought up.

The Speaker: I've got to clear up this point of order. The point of order is for unanimous consent. Agreed? No.

Hon Mr Leach: I'll speak to it myself on a point of order.

The Speaker: Minister.

Interjections.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): He said no.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma.

Please, just take your seat for a moment.

It's academic. You asked for unanimous consent. It didn't carry.

Interjections.

Mr Wildman: He said no.

The Speaker: It doesn't matter who said no. There are many who said no. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is asking for a point of order, and I'm going to give him his point of order.

Hon Mr Leach: I want to point out that yesterday I indicated to the House that I believed there was a meeting to take place at 3 o'clock with the clerks and treasurers.

The Speaker: This is not a point of order, either. Unless you're correcting your record, there's not a point of order here. There was not a point of order for the member for Kingston and The Islands and there's not a point of order -

Interjections.

Mr Gerretsen: Why don't you correct the record? It's your record. He can correct the record.

The Speaker: Anyone may be allowed to correct the record. I didn't hear the minister rise and say he was correcting his record. If it's the same point of order that you were standing on, it's not a point of order. Let's continue.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Surely the minister was confused. We asked for unanimous consent to revert to ministerial statements so he can make a statement.

The Speaker: It hasn't got to ministerial statements yet.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We haven't got there yet, so just hold on and maybe he will have a statement. I don't know. Ministerial statements.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Now you have a point of order, member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We are in ministerial statements. We ask for unanimous consent to have the minister make a statement.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make a statement. Agreed? I heard a no.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members, can you come to order, please.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I want to take this opportunity at this time to tell you that this is the last day for the legislative pages. I want to thank them for their hard work, diligence and good service.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): In the Speaker's gallery of the Legislative Assembly, we have a parliamentary delegation led by the Honourable Ludwig Bieringer, president of the Federal Council of Austria, accompanied by His Excellency Walther Lichem, Ambassador of the Republic of Austria. Please join me in welcoming them here today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. I want you to address today the most significant and dramatic impact of your cuts to education and your funding formula, and that is the pending closure of schools, in fact hundreds of schools, throughout this province.

To be specific, I want to talk about what's happening right now at the Lambton Kent District School Board. Right now they're considering the closure of three schools. They don't want to close them. You're forcing that decision. Here is what the chair of the advisory council for Romney Central school had to say when asked why that school was going to be closed. He said: "It's because we're a small rural school and the bureaucrats and politicians in Toronto don't care what's important to us. The only thing they care about is saving money." There's another school being considered for closure and that's the Tanser school in Chatham. That's a school for children with special needs.

Minister, my question is very simple: Why is it in the interests of students and parents in those communities that their schools be closed by you?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I have some correspondence as well. I have correspondence from the leader of the official opposition, Dalton McGuinty, addressed to the Premier of Ontario. It says: "The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board announced recently that your funding formula is forcing it to close 20 schools." That's what you say in your letter. That's dated May 13, by the way. I have correspondence from the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board itself, dated the day before, May 12, which says, "We will not close any schools in 1998-99."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: Here's the problem we have with the official opposition, that they're speculating, that they develop facts out of thin air. We are providing adequate moneys through the funding formula to boards for -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr McGuinty: Just so we're clear, I want you now to provide the Ontario public with every assurance that no schools will be closed in Ontario. Provide us with that assurance that no schools will be closed. To be specific, what about the three they're talking about right now in Lambton? Tell us that there will be no need to close any of those schools and that there will be no schools that have to be closed anywhere in the province as a result of your cuts to funding and as a result of your new funding formula. Just provide us with that assurance and then I won't have to ask any more questions.

Hon David Johnson: The member surely knows it's not practical to make such a statement. Schools closed when the Liberals were in power; every year that the Liberals were in power some schools closed in the province of Ontario. When the NDP were in power, schools closed. Schools open and close on the decisions of local school boards. School boards make these decisions based on where students have needs. I will guarantee you that through the funding formula we are providing the money for schools to have adequate housing for all the students of the province.

Mr McGuinty: I'm going to tell the minister that he is not providing adequate funding to schools in this province. Your funding formula is going to lead to the closure of schools and you're going to do everything you can to slide the responsibility for this on to school boards and locally elected representatives. But the people of this province are going to see through that.

I checked into the Common Sense Revolution once again, and do you know what it said with respect to education? That you wouldn't cut classroom funding. Not only have you cut classroom funding, you are now cutting classrooms, and that's going to happen throughout the province.

I'm wondering if you understand what a school means to a local community. It's much more than bricks and mortar. If you want to gain a good understanding of what it means, just think back to what happened when you started to close hospitals in Ontario. That's now going to revisit you in the form of your school closures.

I'm going to ask you once again: Why is it that you have decided that it's in the interests of this province and in the interests of parents and students and locally elected board representatives that you close their schools?

Hon David Johnson: The leader of the official opposition knows full well that school boards make these decisions. They make them based on the needs of their students. They've been making these decisions for years and years. They close schools if they think there aren't enough students in that particular area; they open new schools where students have the need.

It's about time the leader of the official opposition got some of his facts right. He said that Ottawa was going to close 20 schools. Ottawa is not closing any schools. He said that the secondary school curriculum was going to be written by Americans. It's not being written by any Americans. He said that all of the publishers for the $100 million worth of books that we're going to introduce in the province would come through American publishers - no American publishers.

We have allocated sufficient moneys, more money for the classroom. That's another fact he has wrong. There will be more moneys in the classrooms across the province, sufficient moneys to house our students in more-than-adequate schools.

1400

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask unanimous consent to allow the member for Lambton to ask a supplementary.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent for the member for Lambton to ask a supplementary: Agreed? No.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. I want to return to a growing concern about a contract that has been awarded by the Harris government for the Niagara Falls casino in the so-called Gateway project to turn Niagara Falls into a world-class tourism destination.

I want to make this as simple as possible for the minister. Hopefully he will answer this question today, something he didn't do yesterday. Minister, you received four proposals from competing companies to build and operate the casino-Gateway project. A panel of tourism experts reviewed the proposals. You acknowledged and admitted that yesterday. The panel identified the best proposal and identified important criteria for the project. When you awarded the winning contract, the best proposal did not win; in fact, it came in third in your government's eyes. Even more surprisingly, the third-best proposal won the contract. You somehow elevated it from last to first in your government's eyes.

My question is this: Why was the third-rated proposal for a contract this big, this important to Niagara, successful?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I don't know where the member has been for the last three or four days, but he's wrong on every accusation he has made. First of all, no contract has been awarded. Second, the process that was followed on this procedure by the Ontario Casino Corp was exactly the same process that was followed by the NDP when they awarded their contract for Windsor.

When the contract is awarded and it comes to the politicians, I will be free to share the information with you, the public or whoever else is interested, but right now we're still in the process, where the selection panel has received requests for proposals, has evaluated them based on four or five criteria, and the criteria are outlined - I went through that on previous days - and then they deal with the highest bid in terms of the selection criteria. The OCC tells me they did choose the highest-quality proposal, and they're negotiating to see if that should be awarded. When that recommendation comes to the government, that's when it comes into the hands of the politicians. So far there has been no contract even awarded.

Mr Duncan: That's very interesting, because you've had the press conferences, the trips to Niagara Falls, the grandstanding. Let me tell you, I was there when Casino Windsor was awarded, and it wasn't done like this; it was transparent, it was clear, and the best proposal won. That's what happened in Windsor, and I was part of that.

I want to come back to the minister.

Interjections.

Mr Duncan: The only person absent in this discussion is the minister. Minister, if you are so confident about your process, will you release the documents of the tourism review group? Will you table them in this House today so we can see how they evaluated those proposals and we can see why that group made the representations it did and why your government is not dealing with the company that was rated the best by the tourism experts?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm not sure what the Liberal request is here, that in the middle of negotiations you let politicians get involved? We're following the same process that was set up by the NDP, where it's at arm's length from politicians, and the Liberals are requesting that politicians get involved.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member mentions that when Windsor was opened, he was there when they awarded the contract. That's right. We plan to do the same process. The contract has not been awarded. I don't know what part you don't understand. It hasn't come to the politician level yet. We're following the same process. It will be open and transparent when it's awarded, when it comes up to the government to accept the recommendation of this arm's-length commission. The process is being conducted. The OCC tell me that they've taken the highest-quality proposal and they're negotiating with them to see if they should make a recommendation that it be awarded.

Mr Duncan: What we understand is that this government is covering up why it's not negotiating with the best tourism proposal. That's what we understand.

The mayor of Niagara Falls says an expert panel evaluated the proposals. The proposal that you're negotiating with, which by the way you've announced as being the operator in Niagara Falls to much fanfare -

Interjection.

Mr Duncan: You're negotiating with one. You've ruled out the proposal that was rated the best.

Why have you done that? Why won't you call a public inquiry? If you won't, we suggest you're covering something up. Come clean, have an inquiry and let's get to the bottom of this: why your government is not dealing with the best proposal and what's in the best interests of the people of Niagara Falls. Come clean today in this House.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I've repeated before, the process is the same one set up under the NDP. The selection committee looks at the requests for proposal based on the criteria outlined in the request for proposal. It's at arm's-length from the politicians. When they go through that process, they take the highest-quality bid. They negotiate with that. If that doesn't work out, they go to the next-highest-quality bid according to the selection criteria ranking, not the panels they bring in to advise on different components.

I invite the member, if he has any facts of any impropriety, by all means send them across the floor and I'll have a look at them.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. For three days now, Howard Hampton and I have been raising questions about the Falls Management consortium's successful bid to build and operate the Niagara casino. Many interesting facts have been unearthed which seem to point to some pretty shady business. I don't have to remind you that this deal stinks of payoffs to the Conservative Party. We know that Tory insiders and Tory campaign contributors were heavily involved in this bill.

Minister, there's a cloud of impropriety that hovers over your government. Will you clear the air and make public the details of the selection process?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member of the third party wants to know the selection process. The Ontario Casino Corp conducted the process in a similar fashion as they did for the NDP government when you set up Windsor. It's a selection process that's at arm's length from the government. The OCC has advised me that they selected the highest-quality bid in the process of this selection and they are negotiating with the highest-quality-ranked proponent. When that recommendation comes forward to the government, and if the government accepts their recommendation, then of course it's transparent. It's out in the open just like it was in Windsor.

Mr Kormos: The connections get deeper and deeper. When it comes to the Niagara casino, there's no question that the Latner family has benefited from access to the Mike Harris government. When it comes to charity casinos, the Latners have benefited once again, not only with Niagara Falls but with charity casinos as well. Gaming Venture Group will be setting up one of the permanent charity gaming clubs. Well, who owns Gaming Venture Group? You got it: Greenwin/Shiplake, which is controlled by Greenwin Property Management, which is controlled by the Latners. And who works for Gaming Venture Group? Bill Noble.

Will you confirm to this House that Bill Noble, who once worked for Jim Flaherty and is the brother of Leslie Noble, architect of the Common Sense Revolution - that it is one and the same?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'll refer this to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

1410

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I guess it's becoming a regular-basic question, but I'll refer back to my answer on May 26 in Hansard:

"This is not the first time this has come up, obviously. We've answered the question several times before. The answer is going to be the same as it was last time. The selection process was carried out by a committee independent of political involvement. It was an arm's-length process. It was through the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. The technical evaluation committee reviewed and scored the bids. The committee consisted of representatives from the Gaming Control Commission, the Attorney General's office, the OPP and outside experts from auditors. A member of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission board reviewed the committee's process and procedures. The outside experts were satisfied the process was fair and objective." It's the same answer.

Mr Kormos: Leslie Noble, one of the chief architects of the Common Sense Revolution, has a brother named Bill. Bill used to work for Jim Flaherty. There's a Bill Noble who works for the Gaming Venture Group, which was awarded a permanent charity casino. Bill Noble works for the Latners. The Latners gave you $48,000. They've benefited from the Niagara Falls casino. They've benefited from the charity casinos. They've benefited from the changes to regulations for private medical labs. I'm sure they've benefited from lots of other deals as well.

Now there appears to be a connection between the Latners and the Nobles. This looks like influence peddling and it stinks like corporate influence peddling. How many more examples? How much more are we going to have to uncover in the days to come before you'll come clean?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's interesting to listen to the logic here. It's like hearing the old tests we used to have when we were back in school, the sort of logical things where they said, "All birds can fly and all bees can fly, therefore all birds are bees." That's quite like what's being asked right now. There are very strict disqualification rules.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's interesting how a discussion of the birds and the bees always gets them excited.

Clearly, the process was an arm's-length process. I have gone ad infinitum through the various procedures.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think what we're trying to do is emphasize the fact that we've established an arm's-length process that was transparent and that had very strict disqualification procedures. Once again, if we can stress what the makeup of the committee was, I might add that the chair of the Gaming Control Commission is Clare Lewis, who is the retired judge and who was an appointee by the NDP government, I might add. It was part of that process.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Dovercourt.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question to the acting Premier. This issue doesn't stop in the casino field. I want to read a quote to you from a press release that came out in November 1997. The press release was announcing the creation of a new company, Residential Equities Real Estate Investment Trust. Half of this company is owned by Greenwin Properties Management. It reads:

"Greenwin is one of Canada's largest multi-unit residential owner-managers, with over 25,000 suites under administration." This new company owns almost 6,000 suites in the GTA alone. Who owns Greenwin? Your friends the Latners.

We all know that getting rid of rent control isn't going to benefit tenants, but instead is going to line the pockets of Greenwin and companies like that. Your decision to gut tenant protection will make your friends quite happy. It seems that in your government, $48,000 apparently buys a lot of influence: Niagara Falls, Dynacare, and now the gutting of rent controls to benefit companies like Greenwin.

Deputy Premier, when are you going to stop rewarding your $48,000 campaign donation friends?

Hon Mr Hodgson: There's no limit to the imagination of the opposition. The third party especially should know better than this. Back when they formed the government - it seems like a distant memory now with these hypothetical accusations - from 1990 to 1995, Shiplake and its affiliates constructed over $150 million in government-sponsored programs throughout Ontario. Greenwin was the largest private sector supplier of housing management services to the Ontario Housing Corp. If you want me to go on to where they built buildings in the Beaches-Woodbine area and others, just keep it up.

If you have any facts on this, I would be pleased to receive them, or you can make them outside if you have allegations that you think could be substantiated. If it's just dealing in rumour and innuendo, we're not open for that, but I am open to anything you have that's factual, and I will look into it.

The Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Fort York.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I want to try to get the minister to focus on the question, if he can, and I will do so with the supplementary.

Minister, your tenant protection package does not benefit the tenants as you purportedly say, but it obviously benefits people like the Latners and Greenwin. In their preliminary prospectus, the Residential Equities Real Estate Investment Trust says that there are opportunities for growth "after pending relaxation of rent control in Ontario."

The relaxation of rent control is an economic benefit to landlords like the Latners. Relaxation of rent control doesn't benefit tenants, we know that, but instead those who have contributed $48,000 to Tory party coffers. When are you going to stand up to the people who really need protection as opposed to those who give you the corporate donations?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member for the third party is half correct. We do want to see more rental apartments built in Ontario. We want to see more private sector development. We want to see arrangements that are good for tenants and young families so they can have affordable housing in all areas of the province, including Metropolitan Toronto.

If you want to go at that at some kind of angle, that there's a conspiracy around, look back at your own record. The Dynacare anchor or its affiliates leased a residential building in the riding of Beaches-Woodbine to the Supportive Housing Coalition of Metropolitan Toronto through the Ontario Ministry of Housing. That was on May 31, 1991. This transaction included a $2-million non-repayable capital grant. If you want to look for nonsense, look back when you guys were in government.

What we're trying to do benefits all the people of Ontario, the taxpayers as well as young families looking for affordable housing.

Mr Marchese: Throughout the rent control debate, we kept on hearing from this minister and so many others, and M. Leach, mon ami there, the mantra about how landlords will build new housing when rent controls were removed. In fact, we know that's not the case. In spite of what they say, this is confirmed when we read the preliminary prospectus, which reads, "RESREIT will not develop properties or buy new land but RESREIT may enhance existing properties." It couldn't be clearer. One of the biggest landlords in Ontario is going to profit in a big way from the relaxation of rent controls. They're not going to build a single unit of affordable housing in this province.

Minister, why won't you admit once and for all that your relaxation of rent controls was nothing more than an attempt to line the pockets of contributors to the Tory party coffers?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm going to refer this to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank my colleague for the opportunity of correcting the nonsense that just came out of that member. They took a program for rental housing and drove it right into the ground. Rental housing right now needs $10 billion worth of repairs.

What are we doing? We're trying to create a marketplace where we can attract developers, landlords and owners to come back and repair the buildings that you let run right into the ground. You should be totally ashamed of the way that you allowed tenants to be manipulated by the program that you had in there that never worked.

We're bringing in a Tenant Protection Act, which will come into effect on June 17 of this year, that is going to correct all of the faults of the terrible rent control program that your government had in place.

1420

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. I was just thinking, Minister, as the questions are being asked this week about the casino and about things of that nature, there is a proposal that your government is attempting to advance that would call for an increase in the spending limits during election campaigns and the contribution limits to individual candidates and to political parties.

With what is spinning around now, some of the questions that are out there - and I'm not going to comment on those one way or the other - but with that happening and with the great problems they've encountered south of the border with campaign financing, do you not believe now that it would wise not to increase the amount of money that a company or an individual can contribute to a political party or to an individual candidate and that it would be wise not to increase the amount that candidates or parties can spend in an election campaign?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member from the opposition knows, he has been around here a long time and knows the history of this place and he also knows that the last time the act was changed was in the 1984-85 area and it was done with all-party consent. Since that time it has never been updated, even though there have been inflation, GST and other things.

Back in the early 1990s, the NDP government appointed a commission, which had two members representing each party on it. The chair was picked by the committee and it turned out to be a former NDP party president. To put it into today's context, there are five voting members of seven who represent the Liberals and the NDP and two from the Conservatives. They've deliberated on this issue for a number of years and they've issued a report that I know each House leader received. Also the election finances commissioner has added his ideas to it and issued a report that I know the House leaders have received, and in the government we will be looking at that along with the opposition parties.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know also he's well aware that at the federal level there are no limits on contributions and that's one of the things -

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr Bradley: What I'm concerned about, and I think all members of the House should be concerned about and the public of Ontario, is that the influence of money on election campaigns and on political parties should not be accentuated, should not be increased.

My worry is that, regardless of what these people on the commission have had to say, we are elected representatives accountable to the people of this province. I suspect the people of this province begin to get worried when they hear about even the possibility of money contributed to political parties having any influence on anything, no matter who is in power or what the circumstances.

That's why I'm asking for an undertaking from the minister that we will not see an increase in the amount of money that companies or individuals can contribute to individual campaigns or to political parties, or the amount that can be spent being increased. We know the ridings are bigger so naturally that's going to go up because of the present formula. I'm concerned about this issue. I ask the minister to give an undertaking today that we will not see that kind of increase.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I'm fairly new in this place; it's been four years. The member is one of the longest-serving members. He often speaks about the tradition of the House and the right of members to work out these things.

The House leaders agreed a couple of weeks ago that they would have representatives from each party meet and discuss the recommendations of the commission, which, I repeat, had five out of the seven voting members representing opposition parties - the election commissioner's report - and these members were to discuss this.

We had our first meeting; you know there's another meeting scheduled for next week. You're trying to subvert that process. You're trying to short-circuit it so that I can't talk about what's going on, as the result of a House leaders' agreement to set up a process to discuss this, by trying to say that the Liberals aren't in favour of any changes. In the meantime we're having this process to discuss the recommendations.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question to the Chair of Management Board. I put to the Chair that over the course of this week a number of facts - not speculation but facts - have emerged surrounding the successful proposal by the Falls Management group in Niagara Falls.

There's no question about the fact that Leslie Noble was one of the chief architects of your Common Sense Revolution. There's no question about the fact that she was one of the chief players in a Troy-led consortium that lobbied this government after it was elected to persuade it to change its position on privately run casinos here in the province of Ontario.

There's no question that a Bill Noble previously worked for Jim Flaherty and now works for Gaming Venture Group, which was awarded a permanent charity casino. There's no question about that; that's a fact.

There's no question about the Latners donating $48,000-plus to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. There's no question about the fact that they've enjoyed the benefit of some significant largesse when it comes to the appointment of casino licences, be it charity casinos or others.

Doesn't that cause you any concern at all? Surely you must feel some concern about the facts as they develop around this matter.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I just want to remind the member of the third party, if he hasn't heard, that this is an arm's-length process from politicians. It's a similar process to what you had in place for the Windsor selection criteria.

The selection committee chose out of the RFPs, the requests for proposal, the highest-quality bid. They go through the negotiations and if that doesn't work out, they go to the next-highest-quality bid. When they have come to an understanding, they make a recommendation to the government to award a contract. When that contract's awarded, that's when the politicians get involved.

You don't want politicians involved in the process itself, I wouldn't think, unless that's what the member is asking for now.

Mr Kormos: The problem is that a whole lot of very political and partisan people have been very much involved.

I'm not telling you that your staff and your memos haven't told you to tell us what you've just told us. The paper in front of you says, "Mr Hodgson, read out `This is an arm's-length transaction.'" I've seen those papers before; so have you.

Aren't you concerned, as a member of your cabinet and in the interests of your own personal integrity, that this is exploding around you, that there are clear connections being made, indisputable connections, that speak very much to political patronage, political payoffs, and no, not an arm's-length relationship but a very intimate relationship which could well be corrupt to the core? Why won't you show any concern for that?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The Ontario Casino Corp informs me and advises me that the process was followed properly, a similar process that your government had in place. If you have facts that you would like to share with me that show the connection you're referring to, I'd be more than interested in seeing them, and I know that you would like to make them outside the House as well.

1430

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I was somewhat surprised yesterday to hear from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt when he rose in the House and made the claim that an individual working at Ipperwash Provincial Park had made a discovery. I'll quote from his story that he gave us yesterday. He says, "...discovered an old Indian burial ground and stated if the band would make a request to the provincial government, he was sure they would be glad to mark off and fence the plot."

Minister, why is it that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt seems to be aware of, as he calls it, "a significant development" when your ministry does not appear to be aware of that situation? Could you tell me and my constituents whether this is a new development?

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In terms of ethics, I take offence that by way of ricochet you impute motive on a member by way of a question. It's that style. I wish the member would withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member, I appreciate your comments, but the question is not out of order.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the question from the member for Lambton, because unfortunately the question asked yesterday by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt must have been extremely poorly researched and may have had the effect of inadvertently misleading the House. It's particularly important -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. You cannot accuse a member of misleading the House, whether it's direct or indirect.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker, but I would indicate to you that our research would find no basis in some of the substantive parts of the question asked yesterday. That's particularly of grave concern to us because this deals with the matter of Ipperwash, which is of great public sensitivity.

I appreciate the opportunity the member for Lambton has given us to correct the record. In fact, the Ministry of Natural Resources staff have been able to find the letter that the member asked about yesterday, after an extensive search, because the letter quoted yesterday by the member opposite was written in 1937.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Beaubien: Minister, I would like to say that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt might have been reckless with the truth yesterday.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. That is out of order. I would ask that you withdraw.

Mr Beaubien: If it's out of order, Mr Speaker, I will withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Allow me to deal with these one at a time. Will the House come to order. I'll hear your points of order if you have any, but let me deal with the first one. The member for Lambton, I asked you to withdraw that comment.

Mr Beaubien: I will withdraw, if it's out of order, Mr Speaker.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): The whole thing is out of order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Apologize.

The Speaker: I don't need the members' help right now. I can hear things a lot clearer if you're not yelling.

Member for Lambton, you can't say it with ifs, ands or buts. It's out of order. Just withdraw.

Mr Beaubien: I'll withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you. Is there a point of order on this side or that one?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of order, Speaker: I quoted directly -

Interjection.

The Speaker: I don't need any help with the clock. It's your member who stopped the clock, because it incited this -

Interjection.

The Speaker: I don't want a conversation about it.

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The facts I laid before the House yesterday were as a result of letters provided to me by the provincial government under freedom of information. I quoted directly from information provided by the provincial government itself. So I would say to the member for Lambton, be very careful with these unfair and untrue accusations.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Do you have a point of order? Hold it. If you have a point of order, member for Lambton, I'll hear it. No? Okay, then. Any more points of order?

Supplementary. Start the clock, please.

Mr Beaubien: I'll finish the question. Minister, with regard to this situation, has the Ministry of Natural Resources determined whether or not there is a native burial site within the park? If not, why has it taken so long in assessing the situation?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, you must withdraw the part where you suggested it was untrue and unfair. That's not parliamentary. I ask you to withdraw that.

Mr Phillips: Mr Speaker, I said that the comments he made were untrue.

The Speaker: Yes, and that is out of order. I ask you to withdraw them directly at this time. Withdraw. Do you withdraw?

Mr Phillips: Yes.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can help perhaps clarify this for the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who raised this question yesterday, who indicated that there were some recent developments.

In fact, it turned out to be a letter written in 1937 by an Indian agent to his federal superiors. This came to the attention of the provincial government in 1995, when the Liberal Minister of Native Affairs federally, Mr Irwin, shared it with the media. That's how it came to our attention.

In direct answer to the member for Lambton's question, we are of course very interested in researching the contention that there may in fact be a burial ground at Ipperwash. Unfortunately, we can't do that at this time because of the safety concerns expressed by the first nations in that area. The work obviously cannot proceed at this point in time, and we look forward to doing it when we can.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. We have in our possession a letter dated 1937 that indicates that at the time your ministry was constructing Ipperwash Provincial Park an engineer working for your department discovered an old Indian burial ground. That engineer suggested to the band that they request that the province fence off that Indian burial ground. It was an engineer working for your department on a park being built for you.

My question is this: Can you now tell the House if you have asked the ministry staff to search the files from when that construction was going on, have they been able to determine the basis on which that engineer found those burial grounds and what action was taken in 1937 to comply with the request of the first nations to fence off that burial ground?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm glad to see that today the member quotes the date of the letter accurately, in 1937. We in fact have done the research, do have the letter, and I have the letter in front of me today. It's a letter from an Indian agent to the federal government, dated 1937. It makes reference to an engineer's report that indicated there may in fact be a burial ground in this area, or at least I assume that's the area the letter is in reference to. So I'm glad the member stood up today and clarified this point for the people of Ontario, that this is a letter dated 1937, not in fact a recent development.

I can tell the member opposite that there obviously has been some conjecture over the years, over now 60 years, on this subject. This government would like to pursue this matter and will as soon as it's safe to do so.

Mr Phillips: I want the assurances today of the minister that he will do this. It was your engineer constructing this park on behalf of the government of Ontario that found the burial ground. It was an Ontario government employee. Surely there are files in the ministry that will go over the basis on which this was constructed and will be able to determine how the engineer found it, where he found it and the basis on which he reached that conclusion. So I say this to you, Minister: Will you undertake today to return this afternoon to the ministry to ask your staff to review the files from 1937, which is when the province of Ontario was bulldozing this park and found the burial ground? Will you return to the ministry, search the files and come back to this House on Monday and give us a full documentation of why your engineer found that burial ground and what action was taken as a result of that in 1937, which was when you bulldozed the park?

Interjection: Hepburn.

Hon Mr Snobelen: As my colleagues would appear eager to edify for the member opposite, that would have been Premier Hepburn in a Liberal government in 1937. I have no idea what kind of bulldozers they were using in 1937 and for what purpose.

But I think the matter is serious. We have said in this House before and say again today that there has been conjecture about a burial ground on this site for many years. We are more than willing to work cooperatively with the first nations in making sure that this is or is not the case and, if it is the case, to protect that site if it in fact exists, and we will do so as soon as it is safe to do so.

1440

The Speaker: New question, the member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The attitude that has been expressed in this House both by the member for Lambton and the Minister of Natural Resources has trivialized the whole issue which has in fact led to the death of an individual.

The Speaker: Your question?

Mr Wildman: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister will know that this letter, dated 1937, from the former Department of Lands and Forests has been in the possession of his ministry since 1995. The minister will also know that I asked his colleague the minister responsible for native affairs about a year ago what he was doing about the letter this government had received from the archives from the federal minister. At that time, he indicated nothing. The minister will also know that the Ministry of Natural Resources carried out archaeological work in the 1970s to determine whether there was in fact a burial ground there and the findings were uncertain. That doesn't mean there isn't a burial ground. There indeed is evidence, thanks to the possession of this letter, that there is a burial ground. Will the minister now commit that this government will respect the sacred ground of the aboriginal people and will fence it off and protect it no matter what happens?

Hon Mr Snobelen: As a footnote, I'm pleased to receive a question again from the member for Algoma. I'm very glad this matter's come up again today. Obviously this matter has come up and the member for Lambton raised the question today because it's a serious matter. It's a serious matter that affects people in Ontario. I'm glad to have a chance to address it. I'm glad that we've had a chance to at least embellish on the record of yesterday when the letter was introduced as some recent development - in fact, a letter from 1937.

I'll say to the member for Algoma again today -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased to inform the member for Algoma, as I did a moment ago in the House, and I think the member for Algoma will know that this is a delicate issue, that staff in the Ministry of Natural Resources have not been able to have access to Ipperwash park because of safety issues and so we have not been able to confirm this. We'll do so at the first opportunity that it can be done safely. We will do that.

Mr Wildman: It is indeed a delicate issue. I don't think the partisanship that has been expressed in this House around this issue and around the tragic events at Ipperwash in any way assist in resolving a very delicate issue. As a matter of fact, it probably exacerbates a very difficult situation. To attack a respected member of the House - like the member for Scarborough-Agincourt - does not in any way help to resolve this issue.

My question is this: The document in question has been in the possession of the provincial government since 1995. I would like the minister to clearly state in this House today what research his ministry and the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat have done, on the basis of the possession of that document since 1995, to determine whether indeed there is basis for an Indian land claim in Ipperwash Provincial Park. Are you prepared now to state that you will recognize such a claim if there is indeed hard evidence for it?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm not surprised, and I'm pleased to hear the member for Algoma say this is a very important issue and a very important matter and that it need not be politicized. I concur with the member for Algoma in his observations.

Let me say again what I've already stated in the House, and that is that we have not been able to have Ministry of Natural Resources staff or the first nations people - who would like to help us with this investigation - access the park because of safety issues from the time that we became aware of this. As soon as we can, we will do so. As I said earlier, if there's a burial ground there, we'll work with the first nations to make sure it's protected.

ICE STORM

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): My question is to the Minister of Energy. The ice storm which crippled much of eastern Ontario last January was probably the most severe crisis ever faced by the electricity system in this province. Thousands of families and businesses in eastern Ontario were without power for days. I can only hope that nature will never again unleash such devastation on the people of Ontario, but, as you know, we must be prepared for anything. I understand that Ontario Hydro last week released its report on the ice storm. Can you tell the House what this government is doing with the report and the recommendations?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I want to thank my colleague the member for Grey-Owen Sound for his question, and perhaps I'll deal in a little more detail with Hydro's recommendations in response to the ice storm in my supplementary.

For those of us, and our eastern Ontario members, who attended during the ice storm, during that time of crisis in eastern Ontario, if you ever needed your faith restored in humankind, that was certainly a wonderful experience to see people working together.

I can tell the House now that most of the farmers in the area have received cheques. The province of Ontario during the ice storm released some $10 million to begin assistance immediately. When you compare that to other crises in Canada - Manitoba, for example - for some people it was a year and a half before they received any compensation for their losses.

I, as Minister of Energy, along with my colleagues from eastern Ontario, during the storm also made it clear that we would pay for the hookup of hydro on private properties, those lines from the roads to the house, and that was unprecedented in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: I think the government's response, the municipalities' responses, the crisis team's response, Emergency Measures Ontario's response - the people should be congratulated.

I'd like to congratulate some people in my own area, people from Wasaga Beach Hydro, like Shawn Maltas, Charlie Adams -

The Speaker: Order. Maybe you can give them in the supplementary.

Mr Murdoch: Minister, I thank you for those words. I know you visited eastern Ontario at least three times during the ice storm. There were crews from my area, from the public utilities in Owen Sound, Hanover and Meaford. The Ontario Hydro crews from Owen Sound were also there. They were there with many thousands of people from utility workers which helped restore the power after the storm. But I've talked to them and they told me about some of the communication problems that occurred during the storm.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Some?

Mr Murdoch: I hear some of them across the way say maybe there was more. We know there were quite a few.

Minister, can you provide the House with more details on how the communication problems we saw during this storm are going to be addressed?

Hon Mr Wilson: If I may finish the first part of my question, I would like to thank some people from my local area who participated. I've not had the opportunity, because I've been thanking, along with members of the government and the Premier and members from eastern Ontario and Ontario Hydro officials, workers from eastern Ontario, and the rest of Canada in fact. I haven't thanked members from our own area. I say that to Mr Murdoch.

I also want to thank workers from New Tecumseth Hydro: Bruce Breedon, Jim Eagan, Mark Stabler and Mike Milner, as well as those I mentioned from Wasaga Beach, Shawn Maltas and Charlie Adams.

Communications was a major problem, a major concern to the people of eastern Ontario when we were on the ground there in the early days of the storm. In particular, Ontario Hydro, in response to recommendations that they've made in their report, will be bringing out a communications plan so that all the people in Ontario know that if we ever were to get into a similar situation - God forbid it ever happens again, but if it did - there will be very good local communications. People did not want to talk to people from Toronto telling them what to do in eastern Ontario. They wanted to talk to their own foremen, their own line people, the people who built those lines originally. That will improve in the future.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. We're now at the heart of the matter on Ipperwash. The reason the first nation entered the park, the minister will know, is because they believed there was a burial ground in the park. They were ignored. The government chose not to listen to them.

For the first time this century, a first nations person was killed. An OPP officer has been convicted of criminal negligence in the matter. It now turns out that there existed communication indicating that a provincial government employee, the engineer who was working on the construction of the park, reported that he had found a burial ground, and he recommended to the first nations that they request the provincial government to fence that off to protect it. First nations people have a long history and a long memory. They knew that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question?

Mr Phillips: Minister, you now know that the letter exists. You know that a request was made. Will you at least undertake to return to your office and search the files? You do not have to go to Ipperwash. Search your own files from the construction time, 1936-37, and return -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I'll refer this question to the Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The provincial Cemeteries Act contains provision for the identification and protection of burial sites, and there is a well-established process for ensuring that burial sites are so protected.

The province has always been willing to work with the first nations towards that end and we still want to do that. As I've indicated to this House, we are more than amenable to ensuring that this particular site be protected and we certainly would work with first nations to do that.

1450

Mr Phillips: I return to the Minister of Natural Resources. Earlier today in, frankly, a very distasteful episode, one of your own members asked you the question that you refused to answer for me yesterday, and today you're refusing to answer it. I will give you another opportunity, Minister.

You know that you now have the letter. You know you've had the letter for years. You know it was your own engineer who discovered it. Will you undertake to the House to return to your ministry this afternoon and request your staff to search the files from that construction time - 1936, 1937 and 1938 - and find out the basis on which the engineer made that conclusion and find out exactly what your ministry did as a result of that request? Will you make that undertaking?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't know that any conclusion has been reached. Certainly, as was indicated by someone earlier, there have been some attempts periodically to find out whether there is or is not a burial ground in the Ipperwash park. You're not going to determine that out of a file. Work has been done to try and determine one way or another this particular issue, but looking in a file is not going to provide you with that answer.

The issue here is that if there is a burial ground and if we're able to determine that by doing the necessary archaeological work, the province, under the Cemeteries Act, would be prepared to ensure that that site be protected. That's always been our position and we're prepared to work with first nations to do that.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. I want to return to the issue of the massive, dramatic changes being considered to the way we run elections in Ontario and the answer you gave earlier today. You stated, in defence of the procedure you're following, the honourable tradition of this House, where major changes were not made to the way we run elections without all-party agreement. I would like to hear you today commit to the fact that you will respect that honourable tradition and that there will be no changes to the Election Finances Act or Election Act of this province without the traditional all-party agreement.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to respond to the member of the third party, seeing how the Liberals brought this up. This came about because the Election Act hasn't been changed since 1984 or 1985. Since that period, there has been inflation, there's been GST, there have been larger ridings. The member for St Catharines talked about that in his question.

What the House leaders agreed to - and you were part of this - was that we would sit down and have some meetings to discuss the recommendations of the committee, which had seven voting members on it. It deliberated for a number of years and came up with some recommendations after a lot of thought and reflection.

The election commissioner himself has issued a report, which each party has. What we have to do is discuss that. If you're trying to circumvent that by limiting the options before we have discussions, I'm not sure why we have House leaders' meetings or why we agree to have these meetings as all parties to discuss it.

Mr Christopherson: With respect, Minister, you're circumventing the issue. I am not trying to run an end-run around those discussions. Yes, I am on that committee.

However, given the fact that you raised, as part of your defence of this process, that there is an honourable tradition of all-party agreement before any major changes to the way we run elections in Ontario are made, what I am asking you is that regardless of the outcome of the discussions we have, will you commit to that honourable tradition, that major changes to the way we run elections and the way they're financed will not be made without all-party agreement, which, as you have noted and I am underscoring, has been the honourable tradition of this place? Please don't circumvent the issue I'm raising. It's that clear and that specific.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I can assure the member that we will honour the traditions of this House, if the tradition still exists, where members don't try to take cheap partisan shots over issues that all members should consider, and that's why we set up the process.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I understand that on June 1 the Ontario disability support program will be proclaimed in force. I have had some questions to my constituency office in Stevensville from concerned citizens who have heard that the definition of disability will force them off the program. Minister, what will that definition be and what is meant by competitive employment in the program?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The new Ontario disability support program, which does come in on June 1, is a substantial improvement to the supports that have been available for people with disabilities in Ontario. It was a commitment we made to the disability community before the election. It is a promise that we made and a promise on June 1 we will be bringing to fruition.

Under the new program people who have currently been on family benefits because of their disability will be transferred into the new program; grandparented is the phrase. We have taken a lot of time to work on the new eligibility criteria in consultation with people with disabilities, to make sure they are addressing the needs that were identified, so that people will be assessed individually in terms of what the restrictions are that they may well have as opposed to being categorized by labels. We've been very pleased with the feedback we've had on that.

We'll be assessing someone's disability in terms of, are they able to function in the community, in their acts of daily living or in the workplace, to see if they need that income support.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am asking that you comment please on something that we've witnessed today in this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Can I have some order, ministers, members, government and House whips.

Mr McGuinty: Today the Minister of Natural Resources received a question from a government member that was virtually identical to a question raised by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt yesterday. The minister chose yesterday not to answer that question. He has, as you know, the privilege of deferring it until a later date and then answering at that point in time.

That same, virtually identical, question was put today by a government member. Later on today, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt raised a further question with this same minister. That minister then again chose to refer that question to the Attorney General.

The possibility exists now that Monday coming, the next legislative day, another government member might stand in this House, put the identical question again to the Minister of Natural Resources and again we will get an answer from the Minister of Natural Resources back to the government member.

The minister has a responsibility, as you know, Mr Speaker, to answer our questions as they are put to him by members of the opposition. He chose deliberately not to answer that question yesterday. Today he chooses to answer the question when it's put to him by a member of the government.

We had a basic privilege which has been respected, as you know, for hundreds of years in keeping with parliamentary tradition. We put the questions. They answer them. They cannot select whom they are going to answer or when they might want to answer. If they choose to defer it to answer on a following day, that's one thing. That's one aspect of this.

The other aspect was, and I think it was very apparent from the way this was orchestrated, that this question was put to this minister today in order to cast aspersions on the motivations, to impugn the credibility of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I think that, in and of itself, is quite inappropriate and I would ask you to rule on this, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Government House leader.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I would differ in my interpretation, of course, of the question that was put forward by the member today from the question yesterday by the fact that there was an identification of a letter, which was put forward by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt yesterday, which everybody, including myself, assumed was of some recent date. The member for Lambton today pointed out that the letter was from 1937, had been in possession of the government for some period of time, and therefore I think there was a significant difference in the question.

1500

The other part too is that notwithstanding that the opposition have the bulk of the time in question period, our backbenchers have the right to ask their own questions in their own manner and for whatever purposes they would choose. I don't see where the opposition have the only opportunity to embarrass members of the government when they are acting inconsistently or cannot answer questions with regard to what is happening. In fact, this Legislature is built for all members of the Legislature to use for their purposes in getting answers to questions. Particularly with regard to this member, who represents the area and wants the question clarified in this Legislature, I think it is a breach of his privilege that he would be denied the opportunity to ask any question that he would choose to put in front of a minister.

Second, with regard to what a minister may or may not answer or may refer to another minister, that is of course, as you know, a privilege that the minister has as to whether he answers a question at all. He can in fact refuse to answer a question. I only know from the Minister of Natural Resources that the way I looked at his answer he was trying to find the most reasonable and responsive answer to the question posed and chose at one point in the proceedings to refer that to the minister who is responsible for native affairs, the Attorney General, and therefore he referred it to him.

Members opposite may not agree that he was the best minister to answer it at that time, but I say, according to our standing orders, that is the option of the minister to whom the question is posed. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I would say, number one, this is not a breach of the orders. It's held right within the standing orders. Number two, if it's a breach of privilege of anyone, if you ruled against the member for Lambton, it would be a breach of his privilege.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I listened carefully to the government House leader and I would certainly agree that members of the government party who are not members of the treasury bench have the right to pose questions. I would ask the Speaker, however, to review the record very carefully to determine whether the intent of that member, the member for Lambton, was to solicit information from the minister or to impugn the motives of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt the previous day. That is really of concern to me.

The second point I'd like to make is that certainly the minister, in answering his question, can indeed determine whether to answer or to refuse to answer or to postpone to another time, but surely in this particular situation it would have behooved everyone in the House to try and cool the situation rather than to exacerbate what is a very serious situation outside of this House that we all in this assembly are aware of.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): The government House leader put his finger right on it. He said he assumed that the letter had been written recently. I would like you to examine the Hansard, pages 797 and 798 of yesterday, in dealing with the question and answer that was given to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. There's absolutely nothing in there that indicates when the letter was written.

He talked about, "I imagine you are aware that there is a letter that indicates that when your engineers," etc. He did not indicate a date. It's my understanding that the letter came into his possession as the result of a freedom of information request so that he only became aware of the letter recently and he brought it to the attention.

For the government House leader to say that he assumed that it was a recent letter is, in my opinion - maybe it's an assumption, but out of that assumption comes the motivation and the attack on the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. There's nothing in the question that could, in my opinion, reasonably lead to the assumption he made on this issue.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Let me just be clear right off the top with respect to this issue. There is nothing that the Speaker can do to direct ministers to answer or not answer questions, who they're referred to and who they're not referred to.

I found the particular episode today completely distasteful. I think it's the situation that we found this House in some disorder. I don't think it brought favour on any of us, to be quite frank.

To be fair to the government House leader, by rule, you're right. The fact is that those are the rules and we must live by those rules. But it's also my rule to maintain good order in this place, and it's very difficult to maintain good order when a question goes from a member to a minister disparaging a member twice who had asked a similar question the day before. It is a very difficult thing to ask a Speaker to maintain order when that happens.

I will side with the government House leader. You're clearly right. But I think we all have a responsibility in here to act like honourable members. I don't think today was our finest hour.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Before members leave the chamber, I want to put forward the business of the Legislature for next week, June 1, under standing order 55.

On Monday, June 1, in the afternoon we will be debating a Liberal opposition day. In the evening we will deal with Bill 16, the Small Business and Charities Protection Act.

On Tuesday, June 2, in the afternoon we will be dealing with Bill 15, and in the evening, Bill 12.

On Wednesday, in the afternoon we will be dealing with Bill 6, the Partnerships Statute Law Amendment Act, and also Bill 26, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act dealing with community safety zones, and in the evening, Bill 25, which is the Red Tape Reduction Act.

We will deal with ballot items 13 and 14 in private members' hour on Thursday morning, June 4, and in the afternoon we will be dealing with Bill 25, the Red Tape Reduction Act.

PETITIONS

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition that I present to you. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario has committed the government of Ontario to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office; and

"Whereas the expiry of the government of Ontario's current term of office is approaching; and

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario has further committed the government of Ontario to working with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, to develop such legislation; and

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has unanimously passed a resolution urging the government of Ontario to keep its promise to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office and that the government of Ontario work with members of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, to develop such legislation; and

"Whereas the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, of which Bloorview Macmillan Centre is a supporting member, has provided to the government of Ontario the document A Blueprint for a Strong and Effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which contains many examples of barriers experienced by people, including children and young adults with disabilities; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario committed in its 1998 budget address to supporting people with disabilities through a variety of measures, including the creation of an Ontarians with Disabilities Act;

"Therefore we, the undersigned of Bloorview Macmillan Centre, a family-centred rehabilitation facility serving Ontario's children and youth with disabilities and special needs and their families, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately act on its commitment to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office, and in doing so include effective means to eliminate barriers experienced by children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, and also to involve the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, including children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, in developing such legislation."

I affix my signature to this petition.

1510

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario has committed the government of Ontario to enacting an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office; and

"Whereas the expiry of the government of Ontario's current term of office is approaching, thank goodness" - whoops. No, it doesn't say that. Sorry, I misread that.

"Whereas the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, of which Bloorview MacMillan Centre is a supporting member, has provided to the government of Ontario the document A Blueprint for a Strong and Effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which contains many examples of barriers experienced by people, including children and young adults with disabilities; and

"Therefore we, the undersigned, of Bloorview MacMillan Centre, a family-centred rehabilitation facility serving Ontario's children and youth with disabilities and special needs and their families, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately act on its commitment to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office, and in doing so include effective means to eliminate barriers experienced by children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, and also to involve the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, including children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, in developing such legislation."

I'm in complete agreement and have affixed my signature.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I'm pleased to present a petition today signed by a couple of thousand people in my riding high atop spectacular Hamilton Mountain. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Hamilton-Wentworth police force estimate that at least 10% of traffic accidents are caused by the running of red lights; and

"Whereas these accidents account for some of the most serious bodily injuries; and

"Whereas other jurisdictions have decreased the number of these types of accidents by the placing of cameras at intersections; and

"Whereas Hamilton city council has debated and passed a motion requesting that the province enable them to place cameras at intersections; and

"Whereas Hamilton city council has passed a motion asking the province that the city of Hamilton be chosen as the site of the camera pilot project;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the government to allow for the use of cameras at intersections in order to better enforce the traffic laws governing the use of our roads and ensuring the safety of the public."

I affix my signature to that.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario has committed the government of Ontario to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office; and

"Whereas the expiry of the government of Ontario's current term of office is approaching; and

"Therefore we, the undersigned of Bloorview MacMillan Centre, a family-centred rehabilitation facility serving Ontario's children and youth with disabilities and special needs and their families, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately act on its commitment to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the current term of office, and in doing so include effective means to eliminate barriers experienced by children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, and also to involve the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, among others, including children and young adults with disabilities and special needs and their families, in developing such legislation."

I've affixed my signature as well.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for patients of the province; and

"Whereas two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes, because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding for chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas since Mike Harris took office consumers across Ontario have been gouged by large oil companies who have implemented unfair and dramatic increases in the price of gasoline; and

"Whereas this increase in the price of gasoline has outpaced the rate of inflation by a rate that is totally unacceptable to all consumers in this province because it is unfair and directly affects their ability to purchase other consumer goods; and

"Whereas Premier Mike Harris and ministers within the cabinet of this government while in opposition expressed grave concern for gas price gouging and asked the government of the day to take action; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government could take action under Ontario law and pass predatory gas legislation which would protect consumers, but instead seems intent on looking after the interests of big oil companies;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to eliminate gas price fixing and prevent the oil companies from gouging the public on an essential and vital product."

I wholeheartedly agree and affix my signature hereto.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by members of the CAW, CUPE and CEP. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illnesses, injuries and death."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I proudly add my name to these petitioners'.

ABORTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that I'm presenting on behalf of the member for Waterloo North, who of course is a cabinet minister and can't present petitions in this House. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

It's signed by quite a number of people from the Kitchener-Waterloo area.

1520

NURSES' BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas nursing is key to quality health care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to provide high-quality health care; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be heard and consulted on health care issues; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be recognized and treated as equals in the health care system; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to have meaningful participation in all aspects of health care reform; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to be advocates for their communities and the people they care for without fear of reprisal; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to work in settings that are free from harassment and discrimination and that nurture learning, diversity, personal growth, job satisfaction and mutual support; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to work in conditions that promote and foster professionalism and teamwork; and

"Whereas nurses want the right to deliver care in an integrated, publicly funded, not-for-profit health care system that is grounded in the principles of the Canada Health Act;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to honour, promote and respect the nurses' bill of rights as outlined above and to ensure that these rights are enshrined in all aspects of health care."

I agree with it and I've signed it.

UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I have a petition to the Parliament, recognizing the important role the United Empire Loyalists have played and continue to play in our province's history and development. This petition is signed by a number of people from across the province. I'll only read the main motion:

"That the government of Ontario ensure that a suitable learning unit on the United Empire Loyalists be included in the history curriculum for Ontario schools."

I affix my signature as well.

PIT BULL REGULATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have a petition signed by the people in Tillsonburg and area who are concerned about attacks by pit bulls.

"Whereas the Municipal Act, RSO 1990, does not allow municipalities to regulate or prohibit a class or breed of dog, nor is there a specific provision in the act pertaining to dogs that allows for the prohibition or regulation of dogs by breed or class; and

"Whereas the pit bull is a breed of dog that has shown a propensity to be vicious and attack, endangering both human life and that of other animals in the town of Tillsonburg; and

"Whereas the town of Tillsonburg now deems it expedient to have specific legislation permitting the town to regulate and prohibit a pit bull dog in the town of Tillsonburg;

"We, the undersigned, support and seek the permissive authority for the town of Tillsonburg to take proactive measures to regulate and restrict the pit bull dog that will allow the town to address the significant danger posed to the citizens of Tillsonburg prior to a vicious attack or bite by a pit bull dog."

I sign this petition.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I affix my signature to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PREVENTION OF UNIONIZATION ACT (ONTARIO WORKS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA SYNDICALISATION (PROGRAMME ONTARIO AU TRAVAIL)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 22, An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 22, Loi visant à empêcher la syndicalisation en ce qui concerne la participation communautaire visée par la Loi de 1997 sur le programme Ontario au travail.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to take this opportunity, the 20 minutes I have, to speak out in opposition to this particular bill, Bill 22. Normally, as members we stand in this House and we say how pleased we are to have an opportunity to comment on the bills brought forward by the government, but I've got to tell you, I take no pleasure whatsoever in even having the opportunity to debate this particular bill.

In my view, Bill 22 has to be one of the most reprehensible bills this government has brought forward. It truly shows, in my opinion, the extent to which this government is prepared to go to confront - a government that believes in confrontation - and the contempt, in some cases, for the people in our society who are least able to defend themselves, the most vulnerable in our society. I've seen a number of bills, but this bill especially tells me they're prepared to go to any lengths whatsoever, including using their parliamentary authority to withhold rights of individuals within this province.

This bill is called An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act. In short, what this bill says is that if you are unfortunately out of work, your UI benefits have run out and you're forced into the position of having to collect welfare in Ontario and are participating, because you're being forced to, in a workfare program in Ontario, the government of Ontario will take away your right to join a democratic trade union organization. That's what this bill does.

I note the parliamentary assistant shaking his head in the negative, but let's read what the bill says. If you look at subsection 73.1(2) it reads as follows:

"Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 no person shall do any of the following with respect to his or her participation in a community participation activity" - in other words, workfare. Nobody shall "join a trade union," no one will "have the terms and conditions under which he or she participates determined through collective bargaining" or "strike."

It's interesting to note that the parliamentary assistant across the way seems to think this doesn't limit people's rights. I fail to see how you figure that this doesn't limit the right of an individual to strike, to join a trade union and try to negotiate whatever rights they think they may be entitled to by way of a trade union.

I want to come back to the point that this government, since its election in 1995, has demonstrated that it's prepared to go to any lengths given to them by its parliamentary majority in this House to attack the most vulnerable people in our society. You can best judge a society and its compassion by how it treats its people who are least advantaged. If our province treats those people at the lowest end of the economic scale in a way that gives them some dignity and some respect, I think that reflects well on our ability as a society to demonstrate some generosity. On the other hand, if a society - such as we see now under this Tory government - consciously decides it's going to pick on those people at the low end of our socioeconomic scale, it says a lot about where that society is going.

I really, really feel badly for the people in this province due to many of the actions this government is taking. Take a look at what this government has done. I remember being in this Legislature back in either the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996; the House was either coming in or coming back. The government knew there was going to be a huge protest in front of the Legislature here organized by the trade union movement in response to actions this government was taking in a whole bunch of issues. It had to do with the repeal of the anti-scab legislation, the attack through Bill 26 and a whole bunch of other legislation this government had passed. The trade union movement and others who were concerned decided they were going to come here and protest.

1530

This government demonstrated through its actions that they were prepared to go to any length to suppress or to quell the opposition of the people in this province who decided to come here and protest. I remember seeing with my own eyes - and I was quite upset when I saw it - the strength and the number of police who were on the front lawn of this Legislature, called in by this government. They felt, for some reason, because of the people who came here to protest, that they were under a threat of safety of some kind.

A Conservative member across the way nods, "Yes, we felt threatened." I don't understand how you feel threatened by the public. People have the right in this province, under whatever government, NDP, Conservative or Liberal, to come to this Legislature to demonstrate peaceably in front of the front steps of this Legislature.

I was a member of a government, Madam Speaker, as you were, when people were upset with some of the policies of our government, but at no time did the former NDP government ever call out the police in the numbers that we've seen on the front lawn of this Legislature in the spring of 1996 and on other occasions in this House. We never saw the police being called to the extent we're seeing now when the Liberal government was in power, because there was an understanding by those two former governments, and I would argue by the older Tories under the Davis-Robarts time, that the public has the right to come here to demonstrate.

One of the basic tenets of democracy is the ability of people to gather in front of their Legislature to protest the actions of their government. But the response by this government was, "Bring out the police, arm them to the hilt, show force and get people all wound up because of seeing this force, and maybe we'll be able to develop some sort of confrontation."

If that wasn't enough, when they saw that people were being pretty peaceable - yes, they were slowing down members from entering the Legislature, including opposition members, but they were letting people into the Legislature - they went to the extent of calling in the riot squad; a scene you would see out of the 1930s in Germany or some other countries that have less democratic principles; a scene where the government caucus members were being escorted into the buildings of the Legislature across the street, into the Whitney Block, by force, by way of a riot squad.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: With all respect, I believe you'll rule in my favour on this. We are here to debate a specific bill. I've been listening to the honourable member for some time and there has been no reference to the bill. I would ask you to keep him on track.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): There was a reference to the bill. I want to remind the member, however, that he is veering off and to come back to the bill under discussion today.

Mr Bisson: I am coming back directly to the bill.

The point I make - and I'm using this as an example - is that the government went to the extent of calling in the riot squad to escort their members and create a confrontation in order to pick a fight with those people who were out here protesting in a civil and law-abiding way. They were prepared to go to any lengths to pick that fight.

We see that the government, with the bill they bring before us today, Bill 22, is prepared to pick yet another fight. If you read the comments of the Minister of Community and Social Services in I believe the Globe and Mail, an article dated May 15, "Unions to be Barred from Workfare," the minister's comments are quite interesting. I think it bears out my earlier comments. It says: "As Community and Social Services Minister Janet Ecker introduced the amendment, she told the Legislature that her government will `not stand by and allow some labour leaders to stop these valuable and productive reforms to our welfare system.'"

Those comments, in my opinion, are quite inflammatory. She is suggesting that the labour leaders in this province, who are duly elected by their membership, a membership that is a democratic organization - she is trying to pick a fight with them and is trying to paint a picture that basically says, "It is those bad old labour leaders who are trying to stop all the good work our government is doing."

What this government does time and time again is to try to depict people in our society, be it the labour movement or the most vulnerable people in our society who happen to be on welfare, as the cause of the problems in Ontario. I say this is not the kind of tone that I think this government should be giving. It seems to me what this government should be doing is what former governments did. They were elected by the people, they have a right to govern, they have a right to bring forward legislation, and that's not what the argument is. But they also have a responsibility in being elected to be respectful to the citizenry that they are governing on behalf of.

When you see a government making comments such as this in the paper and you see by their actions they are prepared to go to any extent to be able to pick a fight with labour leaders or pick a fight with people on welfare or pick a fight with whomever to make their point, as they tried to do with the teachers, I think it really brings into question to what extent this government has gone to be confrontational with the very people they are here supposedly to serve.

I hope that this government, if they truly believe that these policies are the right policies, would come out and try to take the high ground and say, "We're doing this for the following reasons." But to come in and introduce workfare in the province of Ontario and then come back by way of this bill, Bill 22, and feel that they have to introduce legislation to ban the right for people to organize and to strike if they go into workfare, to me seems like somebody trying to kill a mosquito with a shovel. They're really using an instrument that's far larger than it needs to be.

First of all, let's take a look at this. People have a democratic right in our society to sign a union card. People do not join unions on a whim or without thought. I believe the people of this province who have joined trade unions in the past have given very serious thought to signing a card. They have looked at the issues and they've decided according to their own free will what they want to do.

Once the unions are formed wherever the workplace might be, people elect executives. They develop bylaws within their organization. They set negotiating agendas based on the democratic will of those organizations. From there, they go and bargain with their employers the benefits and the work conditions and the pay rates of what the workers would like to see, given the needs of the workers. Then there's a saw-off. You know, the employer says, "We can't afford this or we can't go in that direction." The union says they want this and the employer says they want that, and eventually they come to some agreement about what would be a fair package when it comes to conditions of work and the benefits that are paid by way of both benefits and salary. For this government to give this notion that workers should not have that right, I think really takes a stretch.

I think back to another bill that this government introduced, Bill 131, that was introduced by one of the private members, I forget exactly which member of the Conservative caucus. If you remember, Madam Speaker, this government came into this House by way of a private member and introduced Bill 131 that tried to attack the Rand formula. What's the Rand formula? The Rand formula is the compromise that was set some years ago in Ontario that says if there is a union drive within a property that is owned by an employer - let's say you're a local manufacturing plant or whatever - and there's a union formed there, the dues will come off by way of the paycheque. That ensures that everybody who is a member of that union pays their dues to the union so the union can do its work. This is a basic tenet -

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: It's interesting to note the comments of the government. The government says, "They shouldn't be doing that." Hang on a second. Let's not even go where the government's going because, quite frankly, it's a pretty scary thought. But the point I make is this: The government was prepared to come into the House and introduce a bill through a private member to take away the Rand formula in Ontario. They were sending a very clear message to the people of Ontario that this government is anti-union, that they do not believe for one second that people should have the right to join unions, that they don't believe that people should have the right to try to negotiate rates of pay to the degree that they should be. They hide behind -

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: They still have some labour laws or whatever, but the reality is the labour laws in this province have been set back so far that it's very difficult for workers to join and to be able to negotiate fair collective agreements, given the particular labour laws that this government has brought through.

This government comes to us today and says, "We want to introduce a bill that's going to say that people who are on workfare are not going to have the right to join a union or go on strike." Excuse me. You just can't take away democratic rights from individuals when you feel like it, and I think it demonstrates that this government really is a government that doesn't believe in rights of individuals as they should exist in a democracy, pure and simple.

The second point I would make is this: I don't believe for one second that workers who are unemployed who happen to find themselves on workfare and are forced into those programs would en masse run and sign cards. I talk to people in my community who are on workfare. The last thing they're talking about is signing cards and joining unions. What they want to do is try to find a job, get a decent salary so they can get on with their lives and provide for their families.

1540

For this government to all of a sudden come back and say, "We need to block these individuals' rights," I think is a bit much. Most people on welfare are all there for the same reason: They're out of work, their UI has run out and they're saying, "I'd like to be able to get back to work, get a half-decent paying job, get back to the life of trying to provide for my family and make a better life for all of us."

This government is saying: "Let's throw them on workfare. They're on welfare because they want to be there and they're a bunch of lazy people. If we don't force them on to workfare, they'll never get off the system." That's the first method this government is setting, and I think that's a terrible message to be sending, because the people in my community on welfare, for the most part, I would say 90% to 95%, want to get off welfare in a big way. The problem is the economy is not providing the kind of jobs that used to be available in our society in the past.

The government will hide behind the figures and say, "We're creating more jobs now than we ever did before, blah, blah, blah." The reality is, put yourself in the place of somebody on welfare. I want you to come to the city of Timmins, I want you to go to the community of Sault Ste Marie, I want you to go to Ottawa, I want you to come here to Toronto and I want to put you in the position of a lot of people I see, who may be 35 or 45 years old, who have worked for a particular firm for a number of years.

For example, somebody in Timmins might have been working in a local mine for a good part of 15 or 20 years and gets laid off because of the economic situation that has happened - no fault of this government particularly, but what's generally happening within the economy - and they find themselves out of work. Here they are all banged up, hurt because of their experiences within the workplace, their back is not as good as it used to be, their hearing might be a little bit weaker than it used to be because of the noise environment they were exposed to, and they find themselves in the position of having to compete to get a job alongside a young person who's probably better educated, more than likely in better physical condition, and these people who are 40, 45, 50 years old, who are trying to get these jobs in competition with them, are having an extremely hard time.

I see more people in my community, unfortunately - and again, I don't blame this government for all of that problem - that I worked with years ago who are perfectly capable of working today. The problem is that they're a compensation risk and the employers don't want to take a chance on them, or they don't have the level of education that employers are asking for today. That's why they're in the welfare system.

I look at the city of Timmins, for example, when they hire somebody to work on the garbage truck. They ask for a minimum of grade 12. Why? Because the pool of workers available to employers today is much larger. There's more unemployment so they have a better ability to pick and choose who they want to work for them. So they raise the standards of the jobs that are available to people out there and by doing so - not because they're mean people as employers, but because they have the ability to choose the best of the crop, as they say - they end up excluding a whole group of people who no longer qualify. They're a bit too old, they're a bit banged up or they're undereducated to the point of not having a current grade 12 diploma, or whatever it might be. Those are the reasons that people are on welfare.

For the government to come in as they did back when and introduce workfare and say by inference - they won't say this publicly - "If we create workfare, it's going to force people out of welfare," you might push some people out. There are a lot of proud people in my community. There are people who may not go apply for welfare because they're afraid of the stigma that you're causing in the welfare system, but you're not doing anything to solve the problem. All you're doing is attacking the people most vulnerable, most in need.

Don't shake your head no. Come around Ontario; take a look around. We have more street people today in the city of Toronto and in the city of Timmins than we've ever had in the history of the province.

Mr Klees: Take your head out of the sand.

Mr Bisson: The member says, "Take your head out of the sand." The reality is you're sending a message saying: "People on welfare are a bunch of lazy bums. If we bring in workfare, it's going to force those lazy bums off the system." That's what you guys are saying by inference. You're not saying that directly. I don't pretend for one second that the Premier has actually said those words, or the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): He might do.

Mr Bisson: He might say it.

Mr Wildman: He said they drink beer a lot.

Mr Bisson: He said they drink beer. That's a very good comment, the comment of the Premier of about a month ago. The point is, by your actions, that you introduced workfare and the kind of legislation that you have here today, you're by inference saying that people who are on welfare are lazy and if we introduce workfare, they're going to be forced off the system.

Let me remind you, people are on welfare because they are unemployed. They're proud individuals who want to get back to work, they want to participate in our economy, and I would argue that the policies that your government has put forward are doing very little to create high-paid jobs that people want to get in order to get on with their lives. Lots of $8- and $9-an-hour jobs, but not a heck of a lot over the 12-hour limit. You people, as far as I'm concerned, are looking for more confrontation by way of this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I sit here and listen to this gentleman talking, the member across the floor from Cochrane South, saying that there was a very peaceful demonstration outside this House. Well, when I came down here, I was democratically elected to represent the people of Etobicoke-Humber. When I pulled my car up outside of this House -

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Ford: - I came down here to represent the people from Etobicoke-Humber. My car was rocked vigorously by a lot of those peaceful demonstrators. Not only are we -

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Ford: Did I let you speak?

Mr Bisson: No, you didn't.

Mr Ford: Oh, I didn't let you speak.

The Deputy Speaker: Speak through the Chair, please.

Mr Ford: Anyway, I had somebody go down the side of my car with a key, cut it all up. I didn't see anybody coming back to offer to pay for it. Not only that, when I got out of my vehicle, I was threatened, abused, spit at and various other things by those nice, friendly people outside this House.

The police were not there at that time, as you mentioned, but these peaceful people told me to stand right outside my car for 15 minutes and they would let me move.

After that - I did not stand for 15 minutes, being democratically elected by many thousands of people in my riding - I pursued the issue to go into this House. They stood in front of me, pushed me, shoved me against the car. We have films of those peaceful demonstrators. I'll tell you one thing: Every member of this House should be protected and every union person should be protected against violent thugs. I want you to understand that. Nobody has to take threats from individuals like that.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I would like to comment in support of the speaker today on the bill at hand. We are going to find that this bill is simply something that was missed earlier on and required for the government to carry on with what they consider to be one of pillars of their platforms that actually got them elected. What we're going to see is that this, along with several other pillars of their platform, simply is not turning out even as they would like it to be, and we have more and more examples of that.

Just this week in my own city of Windsor, they came to the determination that there's going to be a property tax increase. That has not happened my city for the last eight years and that specifically is being blamed by the city on the provincial downloading which this government has gotten itself involved with in order to move the debt from the province on to municipalities across Ontario. That - the whole discussion of debt and the elimination of the deficit - was a major plank in this government's platform in order to get elected. That too is failing, because all you've succeeded to do so far is move debt from the Ontario level down to the city level, specifically down to the residents and property taxpayers in Windsor.

Many of the members in the House today are coming from ridings that are now seeing increases in property taxes specifically linked to downloading from the Ontario government. It's a fact that you cannot deny is happening. What we have is a move in terms of taxation at one level to another level.

I guess the worst thing is that we knew it was coming, and now it has arrived here in Ontario. We will get to carry on and speak further to this bill, yet another plank in the Ontario platform of the government.

1550

Mr Wildman: I want to congratulate the member for Cochrane South for his remarks. I listened very carefully to what he had to say and I know the sincerity with which he expressed his views.

I also know the member for Etobicoke-Humber was quite sincere in his remarks, and I regret the incident he described, as we all do. I would say, though, that that unfortunate incident should not be seen as a reason to take measures against the rank and file of the labour movement, the vast majority of whom are peaceable, concerned citizens.

This bill is an attack on the labour movement. But more than that, it's an attack on the very people that workfare is supposed to assist. I believe it's an attack on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One of the basic rights we have in this democracy is the freedom of association. People have the right to join together freely, by their own volition, in any organization that is a legitimate organization in our society, and yet this bill will take that right away from so-called participants, often involuntary participants, in workfare. Any government that purports to be democratic, which dislikes the kinds of incidents described by the member for Etobicoke-Humber, could hardly justify taking away one of the most basic rights of any democracy.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, you can sum up.

Mr Bisson: To the member for Etobicoke-Humber, I don't for one second condone people having the right to use force in any way. That's not the point I'm making here. But what I think I heard the member say, in winding up his comments, is that they were nothing but a bunch of thugs, which I think goes a bit far. I was there. I was on the lawn of that building all morning. I talked to a number of people who were there. Most of the people, 99.9% of the people who were here were doing exactly what the member for Algoma said they were doing. They were exercising their democratic right to gather and to protest what this government was doing.

To refer to them as a bunch of thugs I think makes my point that this government seems to have an idea that it needs to always confront. It has a confrontational way of dealing with people within the labour movement and those people who are less fortunate in our society. I think that sends the wrong tone that we want our government to send to the people.

When it comes to the member for Windsor-Sandwich, I think her point was very well made. In her municipality she is seeing that municipal taxes haven't gone up for the past eight years, and very little before that, within Windsor. Now, because of the actions of this government, and quite frankly their bungling of the whole property tax assessment system, their bungling of the entire downloading agenda that they have, we're seeing taxes in communities like Windsor, Timmins, Toronto and every other municipality in the province go up over the next little while to numbers that I don't even want to contemplate. Some municipalities are talking of increases up to 20%.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: So much for the lost 10 years, because it was under the rule of the last 10 years, under the rule of the Liberal and the NDP governments, that you had stability when it came to property taxes. Now this government is going to allow it to go through the roof.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Klees: I am pleased to rise to participate in this debate on a bill that really does need clarification. I find it interesting that the member for Cochrane South would read into the record a clause of this bill but not take the time to discuss specifically the meaning of what he read into the record. I would like to do it for him and perhaps help him and others to understand a little more clearly what the intent of this bill is.

I read as follows subsection 73.1(2):

"...no person shall do any of the following with respect to his or her participation in a community participation activity:

"1. Join a trade union.

"2. Have the terms and conditions under which he or she participates determined through collective bargaining.

"3. Strike."

What the member for Cochrane South failed to note is that this clause specifically states that this is with respect to his or her participation in community participation. Yes, it's true that this government does not feel it is appropriate for individuals who are volunteering in a community participation as part of the Ontario Works program to strike, to organize into a union and to organize in effectively a labour type of organization, because under the Ontario Works program the community participation component of Ontario Works that we're referring to here specifically refers to an individual's volunteer activity within a community.

If the member for Cochrane South is suggesting that people who are volunteering in this province, whether that be with the cancer society, the March of Dimes or any other organization, should be organized into trade unions, then let him say so. That's precisely the message that he's giving -

Mr Wildman: These people are participating in workfare; this is not volunteering.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, member for Algoma.

Mr Klees: The member opposite says, "This is not volunteering."

Mr Wildman: It's workfare.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Algoma.

Mr Klees: The fact of the matter is that it is a volunteer initiative.

Mr Wildman: You lose your income if you don't do it. That's why you volunteer.

Mr Klees: The fact of the matter is that no one in Ontario Works is forced to do anything they choose not to do. Everyone in Ontario Works has an opportunity to be interviewed, to interview the agency with which the community participation is taking place. If there is an objection of any kind to doing that particular volunteer function, they have the option to withdraw. I think it's important that members of this House, and in fact people across the province, understand that is the essence of this program.

In my responsibilities as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services, I've had the opportunity to travel the province over the last number of months. My primary responsibility on those site visits to various areas of the province - I've been to Cornwall, I've been to Windsor, I've been to northern Ontario and southwestern Ontario - I make it a point on those site visits to meet not only with the ministry personnel who have the responsibility to work with municipalities in the Ontario Works program, but I specifically ask to meet with front-line workers who have the responsibility to interview with people on welfare to discuss with them the Ontario Works program and what their options are under the program.

I ask specifically to meet with Ontario Works participants, and these are the people on welfare who are given the opportunity to participate in community participation - workfare, as you put it - and I can tell you the feedback I'm getting from across the province, and it matters not where we are. Overwhelmingly, we are told that this program that gives people an opportunity to participate in voluntary activity within their community is welcomed by workers who understand that it's important for people to get back into the community, to have something productive to do on a day-to-day basis, to learn some skills, to interact with people, to have an opportunity to meet people in the course of doing that activity. Overwhelmingly, we are told that this is positive.

1600

Mr Wildman: You sound as if this is a church supper.

Mr Klees: Let me correct the record for you, because members previously in the debate on this have suggested that under Ontario Works people are forced to do things beyond their will. That's not true. The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of choice within this program.

The member for Cochrane South indicated correctly that there are many people who are on welfare. We know they don't want to be there, but one of the reasons they're still there is because there are barriers in their lives that keep them from moving into full-time employment. Many of those barriers relate to perhaps skills, a lack of education.

The Ontario Works program that we're talking about in this province now contains an employment support component that deals specifically with those barriers and it provides people who are on welfare with training, with the opportunity to upgrade their skills, with high school equivalency opportunities. It provides day care support. It provides opportunity for people to move from where they are to where they want to be, to overcome those barriers in their lives.

When we talk about the message that's being given to people in this province about the Ontario Works program, it's not this government that is representing that this is a program that is forcing people to do anything. That is a message that's being perpetrated by members opposite. I should say to you that that is not in the best interests of the people who are depending on social assistance and in fact depending on this program to help them move on into a paying job. That doesn't do anything to support people in the community who need the kind of supports that have been organized into this program.

I would challenge members opposite, the member for Cochrane South, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, to familiarize themselves with the details of the program so that they in turn can help the government help people in their community to ensure that this program is a successful program.

I would like to take a moment and clarify some of the misinformation around this program, and that is, as has been suggested, that if someone is on welfare, the right to participate in union activities is prohibited. The fact of the matter is that anyone can organize or gather in any way they choose. If an individual wants to participate in a union activity, that's their choice. We're simply saying that for the purpose of the volunteer functions that people are performing in the community participation aspect of Ontario Works, organization into a trade union is inappropriate.

If someone has a part-time job and they're still involved in Ontario Works and on welfare, if they choose to organize as a union member through that part-time job, that's their option. No one is going to hold them back from doing that. So this is not about restricting individuals' rights. It's not about restricting the ability to gather. It's not about restricting freedoms whatsoever. What it is about is giving freedom to people to participate in these community participation programs. Let me explain what I mean by that.

Time and again I hear from municipalities, I hear from organizations that they would like to open up volunteer opportunities within their organizations for people on welfare under the Ontario Works program, but they are being intimidated not to do so, in many cases by labour leaders, in many cases by organizations which are threatening that if they participate in the community participation component of Ontario Works, funding will be cut off to their organization. Where's the freedom in that, I would put to the member for Cochrane South.

Is it not appropriate that as a Legislature we take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that people in our province are free to participate in a program that will help them overcome the barriers that are there in their lives that are between them and a full-time, paying job? That is the objective of this bill: to simply say, "You will be free to participate in community activities without having to be threatened by outside organizations, without having to feel you are doing something that will somehow jeopardize funding of an agency that is going to support or nominate you for participation."

I think all of us in this House will benefit if we come to fully understand the intent of this program and how it works. I'm amazed at the amount of misinformation that continues to be perpetuated across the province around the Ontario Works program. Time after time we are getting examples from individuals who have started in a community participation program as a volunteer, doing meaningful work, involved in an organization where they have an opportunity to meet other people, and who, as a result of having been in a volunteer position for a number of weeks or a number of months, are actually offered full-time jobs in that same organization.

I was recently in Barrie, where I was visiting a nursing home where someone in community participation voluntarily had been placed to do some work in that organization. After some time of being there in that place, interacting with residents in that nursing home, that individual, who had been on welfare for a number of months, was offered a full-time job. Why? Because people had an opportunity to observe the kind of work that was being done, to observe the interaction with the residents in that place. They needed someone to continue to carry on those responsibilities and offered the job.

I was recently in Chatham, where the same story was given us, this time at a day nursery, where someone who had been there as a volunteer was offered a full-time job in that place.

That is the intention of the community participation component of Ontario Works: to give people an opportunity who otherwise would not have the chance to get back into the community, to learn some skills, to get some education, to meet people.

If we step back and simply take into consideration what is in the best interests of the people I'm sure we're all concerned about, namely, the people on welfare, who I agree are not there for reasons they have chosen - I agree with the member for Cochrane South that people on welfare don't choose to be there. They are there, in most cases, for reasons beyond their control. Whether it be as a result of the loss of a job, a breakup in the family or some other situation that has happened in their lives, they're there; they choose not to be there, but many times there are barriers that keep them there for too long.

The Ontario Works program, and particularly the community participation component of it, which this bill is addressing, is designed to help people take that very important first step, to get back into the community, to become involved in the community, to learn some skills so that they can, if you will, be in the traffic of being recognized by potential employers.

Community participation does not stand alone; it is only one of three components of the Ontario Works program. As I mentioned before, the second component is employment support, through which we provide education, through which we provide many other supports for individuals to get them to the point where they will be employment-ready.

The third component of Ontario Works is the employment placement, where municipalities actually contract with employment placement agencies to help them find that permanent job.

I fail to understand why the members opposite, the members from the NDP and Liberal Party, would actually get up in this House and say they are in support of volunteers in this province and that volunteers within the Ontario Works program should be unionized. I fail to understand how you can justify that, and I frankly look forward to getting some public reaction to the position that the parties opposite have taken on this issue.

1610

I can assure you that everyone I've spoken to sees the legitimate reasons, understands the motivation of our government for wanting to help people on welfare become active, become actively involved in their community. What they don't understand are the demonstrations that are taking place in some places in this province against that activity. They don't understand, whether it be trade unions or whether it be other activists in communities, actually threatening agencies who are volunteering to give that assistance to people on welfare to get that on-the-job, if you will, training experience, to get that community experience. They don't understand that.

I believe at the end of the day, as the Ontario Works program continues to be implemented across the province, particularly with the freedoms that this bill will allow us to extend to municipalities and agencies across the province, that as more and more people are able to leave the dependency on welfare and become active in the community and find those jobs, the wisdom of this bill, the wisdom of the Ontario Works program, will be recognized.

We today have over a quarter-million fewer people on welfare than we did when we were elected in 1995. Yes, there are many reasons for that, but I can tell you that the fact that this government has come forward and actually put in place a program that makes it possible for people to do something meaningful while they are yet on welfare, gives them a program that helps them train, gives them a program and a means to get into community activity to find that full-time job, without doubt has had a great deal to do with those results. We can report that on a weekly basis, more and more people are moving from the welfare rolls into part-time or paying jobs. And I will say to the member for Cochrane South that, yes, we as a government do believe that any job is a good job, that any job is a stepping stone to the next job. None of us in this place, I'm sure, has had the same job. All of us, I'm sure, have experienced the stepping-stone nature of our careers.

For someone who's dependent on social assistance, we will do what we have to do to help them. We have a responsibility to help people who can't help themselves. But we can't allow people to sit back and not take their personal responsibility as well. So the Ontario Works program, and particularly the community placement component, allows individuals to unleash their personal responsibility, to step forward, to become actively involved.

We believe that in the final analysis, we will look back on this time in the province of Ontario and it will be marked as a major change in public policy as it relates to welfare. More people will be working; fewer people will be dependent on social assistance. More people will have hope in their lives. When we talk about poverty, and particularly child poverty, nothing solves poverty more than employment. There is no better example to children in our province than to have parents who are working, and we believe this program will achieve that.

I challenge members opposite not to stand in the way of achieving that success with us. Let's do this in partnership. Let's do this together, not because it's a policy that we've proposed, but because it's the right thing to do for the people, for the children, of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bisson: The member for York-Mackenzie says he wants to clear the record, that there's a lot of misinformation about workfare. I only can say that this government is an agent of misinformation when you listen to the comments that he makes. He says that we are saying - and that I am saying as a member - that we want to see all volunteers across this province unionized. That's not what I said. If you look at your bill, your bill is specific to people on workfare. It doesn't talk for one second about preventing people from joining unions who are volunteers in community organizations. It says specifically "people in the Ontario Works program." So I would say to the member across the way that he's completely off base when he tries to paint this picture as otherwise.

He is also, I think, announcing a change of policy on the part of his government because he's trying to tell people that workfare is completely voluntary. I say to the member across the way, next time I have somebody in my constituency office who comes in and says, "I don't want to participate in workfare," I will tell him it's completely voluntary and that the member for York-Mackenzie said that if they refuse to participate in the workfare program in the city of Timmins, they will not lose their cheque. Is that what you're announcing? That's not at all what the policy is. You know full well that if a person says, "No, I'm not participating," they're going to be cut off welfare. That is what's going on.

The other thing is that he cited a person in Barrie who got a job through the workfare program, as if his government came up with some sort of brainchild. Our government introduced what was called Jobs Ontario Training. We put literally thousands of people to work by providing to the private sector the training dollars necessary to hire people who were on welfare into real jobs. We provided them with day care, we provided them with training, we provided them with upgrading, and it was completely successful when it came to what it had to do as compared to this.

I don't have enough time to go on to the rest of it, but I'd love to have another five minutes with this member.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's really exhilarating to join in and listen to the remarks by the member for York-Mackenzie, because he argues the case for workfare with a solid base of knowledge, with a cogent approach of tone, and he lays out exactly what we're trying to do with workfare.

I don't want to go into detail -

Mr Bisson: Please don't.

Mr Hastings: Well, I'm afraid we're going to have to because it's important to set the record straight. The member for Cochrane South was saying how great the previous NDP's works program was for jobs when in fact the record shows - I have some files that will indicate that in point of fact it was a great boondoggle for contractors, who would bring people in and show them how to write a résumé and eight months later the same people who had had their hopes raised in the expectation that they would get some kind of job had zilch. They didn't have any job.

There is one thing I want to set on the record and that is, why do the members of the opposition persist in denying people an opportunity to get into the community placement section of this particular program?

I'd like to read for the record from Frank, a woodworker, on Kitchener radio station CKCO, in quoting Steve Parr, who said: "Frank...found a job after nearly five years on welfare. It may have saved his life.

Frank: "One year pass and you don't find a job. Another year pass, you feel down. Like I had many time...I thought I can kill myself. I don't want to live like this any more."

Why would members opposite allow that kind of anxiety to reside in Frank, who got a successful job?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for York-Mackenzie.

Mr Klees: I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Etobicoke-Rexdale. I thank the member for Cochrane South for his comments.

Yes, I will stand by the comments I made that under this program there are choices. People are not forced into specific activities that they have objections to. Under the Ontario Works program, which is mandatory - it is mandatory for individuals to participate in the Ontario Works program - individuals have an option to participate in specific voluntary activities.

The interview process takes place in the same way that it does for employment interviews. Individuals are screened by workers. They are introduced to the agency that has made the volunteer opportunity available. They can be rejected by the agency. The individual has the right to say, "I'm not comfortable in performing this particular volunteer activity." They will be referred on to something that will be more conducive to their skills and to their liking. We will seek as much as possible to make sure that it's an appropriate match for people in this province.

We ask that individuals participate in the training, either in the community participation component or the employment placement of this program. But there is a great deal of choice. That choice is in the best interests of the individual who is involved in the program.

We believe that this bill will open many more doors to individuals in our province who need this opportunity, who want the opportunity, and we urge members of this House to vote for it.

1620

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Pupatello: In the leadoff for my party, I would like to able to split the time with my colleague from Hamilton East and will be doing so within this next hour.

I am very pleased to speak today to this particular bill, which I think was very inappropriately named. The bill is called An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act. I would like to ask the government why they've selected that particular title when a much more appropriate one would have been the sleeping beauty bill.

Why do we have this bill here today? Because last fall, on Tuesday, November 4, while our committee was meeting to go over clause-by-clause of this bill, your sleeping beauty from London South fell asleep at committee and he forgot to vote. On a key section, namely, number 73, the vote was lost by the government and the section didn't get passed. That section was, as the Toronto Star quoted it, "Sleeping Tories Let Key Section of Bill Die." That was November 1997, and at that time the minister confirmed that the clause would be reintroduced next year.

Here we are, the next year, under Bill 22, the sleeping beauty bill. But it's been renamed because since that time your whiz kids in the back room decided you'd get political on us. You decided that while you have the opportunity, while you needed to get that little boost with your core supporters who have been driving you to implement workfare because it was a key pillar of your platform, you needed to add a little bit of politics into this. So you decided to change the name of the bill, and you changed it so you could have one more kick at the labour can while you were at it. The fact is that in the original bill, which is the one we travelled around the province with, section 73 was simply entitled "community participation."

It said specifically, "participation in a community participation activity or a prescribed activity under this act is not employment for the purposes of any act." But that was the one your sleeping beauty from London South missed the vote on. As a matter of fact, I will quote from a newspaper report:

"In addition to a napping Bob Wood, the other Tories were: Tom Froese...who was catching up on correspondence; Bert Johnson...who was reading; and Peter Preston...who was out of the room."

As a result of them not being able to pass this subsection, they missed it. We now have a minimum of seven hours of debate, which is what it will take to introduce this two-page little bill, which is just the subsection that you missed the first time around because one of your members was catnapping in the corner. It's absolutely true.

Not only that, but the section you've included in Bill 22 is section 73. It's the same section of the original bill that he slept through. Why didn't you just stand up and say, when you introduced the bill in the House about three weeks ago: "Our sleeping beauty from London South catnapped through the subsection and we missed the vote. As the result of our sleeping beauty, we missed the subsection - "

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'd ask you to rule on the member's comments, because I think it's impugning the integrity of the member for London South.

The Deputy Speaker: No, I would say that's not a point of order.

Mrs Pupatello: What the people of Ontario are looking for in government is credibility, integrity and honesty. When you introduce a bill, you should tell people what it is.

The fact is, Bill 22 has one subsection called subsection 73. Truth: Last fall, November 4, in a committee room on the first floor of this main building, your member was immobile for half an hour with his eyes closed. That was widely reported in the press at the time. I have surmised that during that half hour he was likely asleep. At that time, as it was widely reported, there were others out of the room, others reading and writing correspondence. With your subsection not having been passed, your minister, being questioned by the press at the time, said, "We'll have to introduce another bill next year to take care of it," because you needed it for your workfare program. So why not rename it what it really is? The sleeping beauty bill.

But I want to make another point. I started to say earlier that this bill will take us a minimum of seven hours of debate in the House. Every time government members choose to think that the opposition members are wasting time in this House, they decide to peg a dollar figure to it. You've said, "Every hour we are in this House is $100,000" - your figure. A minimum of seven hours on Bill 22, the sleeping beauty bill, so your beauty sleeping through subsection 73 will now cost the Ontario taxpayers a minimum of $700,000. You didn't even tell the public why we are here in the House this afternoon debating Bill 22.

You slept through it, your government members missed the vote. We decided we don't want this bill to pass. That subsection didn't make it. But you have a majority on the committee. You blew it. It was your error, and your sleeping beauty from London South cost the Ontario taxpayers a minimum of $700,000, calculated at seven hours in this House debating this little subsection.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member's making a fine speech and there aren't enough Tory members here to hear it. Would you check for quorum please?

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, could you check for quorum, please?

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1630

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Pupatello: The point must be made about the $700,000. Whether it was a half-hour catnap or a 10-second catnap by the sleeping beauty from London South, needless to say -

Mr Klees: Speaker, on a point of order: Regardless of how attracted the member may be to the member for London South, I believe there is general consensus that the member for London South does not at all resemble a sleeping beauty.

The Deputy Speaker: I take your point of order. I think we are venturing into dangerous territory here. I don't know if "sleeping beauty" is unparliamentary, but I ask the member to refrain from referring to the member for London South that way; refer to him by his riding.

Mrs Pupatello: The point is that when it's convenient to the government to accuse the opposition of wasting House time, you choose to put a figure on it of $100,000 an hour. The truth is that this bill was called into the House for debate at the very last moment - not because you don't need it, because you do. To enact your Ontario Works legislation you do need this piece. You need it specifically because you couldn't get the subsection passed last November when you were supposed to, with a majority of Conservative members on committee.

The only reason there was a quick switch on what bills would be discussed tonight is because you're having trouble with Bill 15, with your tax assessment bill, which will affect every municipality across Ontario, which changes and limits what cities and towns can do across Ontario. The only reason this bill is on the House docket tonight is because the first thing this morning, your minister withdrew the other bill that was on. In fact, at 10 o'clock we were notified officially that it was being withdrawn.

Also, we did not discuss the right bill last night, because your Minister of Municipal Affairs withdrew the tax assessment bill last night too. You realize that's the case. You realize that again this morning you couldn't go forward to discuss the tax assessment bill because the treasurers and clerks from across Ontario arrived at Queen's Park yesterday. For the first time in the history of their organization they held a press conference here at Queen's Park in the media studio and decided to lay bare the facts of what on earth you have done to tax assessment in Ontario.

They publicly, for the first time, said, "We are entering into the most chaotic period we will ever see in Ontario," towns and cities across Ontario that will not know the interpretation of the bill that you are trying to shove through so quickly with so many errors. Because they did that yesterday, the minister was questioned in the House. He didn't give sufficient answer. What he said was, "As a matter of fact, while we're speaking here we're having a meeting with them." We found out after the fact that that was not the case. There was no meeting. There still has been no meeting.

What the clerks and treasurers needed by this Friday was to have the bill passed, but they also know that the bill is so riddled with holes that it's not acceptable for use. We know that. We looked in detail at what their summary was. We know they've met with officials of the ministry for a long time and have gotten no answer.

The government has not recognized the chaos they are bringing to bear on municipalities across Ontario through tax assessment. It's so relevant in this discussion tonight that because the minister has now realized that there are panic and chaos to come in this implementation of the new tax assessment scheme, you pulled it from the docket tonight and threw in Bill 22 at the last moment; this which could have come at any time, this which the government needed anyway, this which will have a minimum of seven hours in the House at $100,000 an hour - a $700,000 error because you did not pass it in committee last fall. That is the fact.

You should have simply said that's what it was, but you chose at this time, while you had the chance from last November, to take one more kick at the labour can and entitle it - for no good reason, because you didn't have to entitle it this - about prevention of unionization.

Like Buzz Hargrove has been on the phone hour after hour trying to unionize workfare people. You don't think he's got better things to do? I just can't imagine that Buzz Hargrove has had his binoculars peeled for those welfare people: "Boy, we're going to get those into the union." How absolutely ridiculous. This whole thing is just political drivel that gets written by those young whiz kids in the Conservative Party to throw up yet another political slogan out there for you, to take yet another kick at the labour can.

That's what the bill is about, and I just wish you'd say it. What I wish too is to take copies of the Hansard from the member who just spoke for the government party, because I want him to take this same Hansard and read that same speech to the Tory faithful at your next annual convention. The Conservatives in Ontario, and all the non-Conservatives that voted for the Conservatives in the last government, in the last election they were looking for workfare.

Interjection.

Mrs Pupatello: No, you told them you were going to give them workfare. When you said it to them, whether you said it in black and white, you certainly said it in the back rooms of the big halls during the election. The people of Ontario had visions at the time. Whether you meant to do it or not, what people inferred or gathered from your workfare discussions - when the candidate in my riding stood on the side of any rural road he could with huge three by six signs that said, "Welfare into Workfare" - that was your platform; it was your pillar.

I want to know why this same member, who just spoke in the House tonight on behalf of the Conservative government, has yet to release the numbers of the people who've actually had placements in workfare. I mean really workfare in the last three years of this government. I want that number to be enlarged and pasted up on your walls at the next gathering of your Tory faithful.

I want you to tell the people, because journalists, my own order paper questions - I cannot get answers from the government that will identify how many people are actually enrolled in workfare. Not all the other choices that were always there before, not the other items that were introduced by long-past governments that worked, not that part; I want the work placement part. I want the number. I've asked it on order paper questions and I have not received the response. We have called -

Interjection.

Mrs Pupatello: No, the truth is the numbers are so embarrassingly low that you won't divulge what they are.

"Back at Queen's Park," this is another journalist's report, "the Tories beg to differ. They continue to trumpet the program's success, even when the numbers defy them. Frank Klees, parliamentary assistant to the minister, says: `It's probably one of the strongest components of Ontario Works.'" He's talking about those real workfare placement now. "`We've had excellent success,' he said."

But this next headline says, "Fessing Up". "For Toronto it turns out isn't the only laggard. To the west, the city of London has signed up 35. To the east, Ottawa-Carleton is also behind with only 115. But trying to get a province-wide figure on the number of sign-ups is not easy. The Tories, it seems, are having trouble fessing up. The only figures Klees has are totals for the entire Ontario Works program." And I want to be clear about this number.

Mr Klees: 260,000 new jobs.

Mrs Pupatello: I am asking specifically for your workfare numbers because this is your pillar, this is your cornerstone. This is what you went to the electorate with. You said, "We're going to make them work for benefits." You, Minister, have a responsibility now to tell your Tories. Tell them what your numbers are. We can't get your numbers out of your ministry.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): End of the argument, member for Hamilton East.

Mr Marchese: The problem is on the other side.

The Acting Speaker: I don't want to get into an argument with the member from High Park. I would like to have some order.

Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: For the purpose of clarification, I think it's important that the House understand that there are some 260,000 people involved in this program today. The member doesn't understand that. I wanted to set the record straight.

1640

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I want to be able to hear the member. I don't know whether it's a point of order or not. I have to hear. I want order.

The Chair recognizes the member for York-Mackenzie on a point of order.

Mr Klees: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to be sure, because there was so much noise going on. The member indicated that she didn't know how many people were involved in this program. It's 260,000-plus who are involved in this -

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have been advised by my colleague from Fort York that I was named by the Chair a moment ago and I am puzzled by that. I'm bemused, Speaker, and I wonder if you could guide me in this regard. I confess I was completely overwhelmed with indifference by the speech being given by the member for Windsor-Sandwich, so I don't know for what cause I would be named, sir.

The Acting Speaker: I believe that I mistakenly referred to High Park instead of Fort York. My apology.

The Chair recognizes the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Pupatello: What the public of Ontario needs to understand is that this is the government that went into the election with a major pillar and that major pillar was workfare. The way they espoused it during their campaign was, "These people are going to work for their benefits." They didn't tell people that most of the program was going to remain exactly as it had always been for years, that in fact the lion's share of the people were going to still be given opportunities for education, even though since that time the Ministry of Education has made cuts to programs like adult ed and training programs. They are still going to make the same offers of programs that were developed years ago. They didn't tell their party faithful that. They didn't tell people when they knocked on the doors that most of the program is the status quo.

I want the same speech of the member who just spoke read to the party faithful at the next annual convention. I want him to tell everyone about the volunteer nature of this program, because what strikes me most similarly many, many times is that, depending on the audience, these government MPPs continue to change their script. When they're talking to the party faithful, they tell them, "We're going to get these people to work." Then when they happen to be in a room full of people who - I don't know - maybe they think are concerned with social justice, they start talking about the voluntary nature of Ontario Works and, "Really, we're not forcing people to do anything."

I want the same speech given to the same groups time and time again, and that is not what we have here. At minimum, you could have some integrity about your message. At minimum, you should just do what you said you would do, because you're not even doing that. As a matter of fact - and these are very recent calls that we've been able to establish, actual numbers that are involved - we see that we have only 20 people in the entire Windsor area that are actually involved.

With the new standardized report card that this government has generated, which was developed over the last 10 years, frankly, this government wouldn't even register a one on a report card with the implementation of this program so far - not even a one.

We asked the people in Ottawa. The people in Ottawa haven't even reached 200 yet. You've had three years. You've been in government three years.

When we talk about why this is failing, they say it's labour, it's unions; they won't let the program work. Labour? Unions? Wait a minute. Every time a minister goes to talk to a chamber of commerce in Ontario, they launch into what they view as the success story of the government because they beat down labour with Bill 7, remember? You got rid of those pesky troublemakers right at the beginning of your term. You can't turn around now and say it's that same group that you beat down in your first year that is giving you problems now with workfare. Did it ever occur to you that it may actually be because you cannot write policy on the back of a napkin from the Bradgate Arms, that you might actually have to think policy through a little bit broader than that, and that what worked as a slogan in a campaign is not implementable as policy in Ontario?

Let me give you a little bit of proof, legal implications of the changes to Ontario Works. Let's talk about what's legal. At the very minimum, members who are elected to this office, in particular those who are given cabinet positions, have a requirement to bring laws to the House that are going to stand up to the laws of the land. Ontario Works does not do that.

Ontario Works, with all of its regulations that are still being rolled out, we now know is in violation of the charter. We had a look at this and we said under this some of the welfare regulations that have come in - we're talking specifically about the use of family status as grounds for discrimination. It is specifically forbidden by the Ontario Human Rights Code. It may also be addressed by the charter guarantee of equal protection of the law without discrimination. Specifically, I'll read section 1. It forbids discrimination in services by establishing the following right: "Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of...age, marital status, family status or handicap."

We've seen the government purposely go forward and break its own laws before. The first example that I can recall is Bill 26. It wiped out pay equity. The groups that were bound to receive it took the government to court and won the right to be paid pay equity, even though this same government brought in Bill 26 to wipe out the whole section. Even though they've been taken to court and the government is being forced to pay, the government still is not paying it. That was discovered yet again this week.

Here we have another case. The difficulty with this case is that the people who are being affected by it likely are the same people who will never be able to access the courts. These are the people who more than likely would not have the funding to access a lawyer, to access the legal system. These are the cuts imposed by your government to the legal aid system, so even though it should be available to them, it isn't. The same government cut funding to the legal aid system, so they won't be able to access the courts to understand that the Charter of Rights has been violated.

I guess some people are going to say, "Big deal." But there are a lot of other people, some of whom did vote for you, who think that is a big deal, that we have a Charter of Rights in Ontario for a very good reason and that should be upheld.

At a minimum, that should be espoused by the government itself, that you have an obligation to bring laws into this House, to pass laws, that are actually in favour of the Charter of Rights. Now we see that regulations that are coming in simply are not. Those are not views expressed just by me. We knew that the city of Toronto itself was looking at this very thing. They said very specifically, "Our legal staff are telling us that the regulations treat two individuals with the same needs in very different ways." It's a violation.

You may think it's just us in opposition saying it, but it isn't. They're very qualified, professional people who deal with this law, who deal with the welfare system and who have done so for many years. You need to take these professionals into account, and so far you haven't done that.

I wanted to mention as well comments from Mae Harman. It was very interesting, last night I was able to participate in a bit of a debate that was put on by the association of social workers at the U of T. I met a woman there who I met for the first time several months ago, during hearings on Bill 142. At that time I hadn't met her before, but I was listening very carefully to the presentation that she made on September 30, 1997. She is a representative from the Canadian Pensioners Concerned.

1650

At the time, I thought she just might be coming to be advocating for the government here because she seemed, at least visually, to kind of fit the pattern of people who might be supporters of the government. I thought: "Well, she's from a seniors group. Seniors have tended, I suppose, to be supportive of Tories historically." I was really surprised by her presentation. It was very poignant. She talked about 1920, the year that she was born. She talked about the trouble that she was having: "We are troubled by the turning of welfare into a loan."

Everyone at the time thought that she was crazy. "We're not turning welfare into a loan." But the government has repeatedly stood up and talked about how the welfare rolls have stopped, and we know that there are people getting jobs because the economy is strong. We also know that a very large number of people are moving from welfare into OSAP and they're not doing so by choice. These people, who know they need to get help to get a job, they know they need to enhance their education, are now being forced to go from welfare into OSAP, which is in fact a loan program.

We know what's happened. Last time, I remember being in the House talking about the big ch-ching and who was really winning when you were forcing people from welfare into OSAP. We talked about the very same family, a single mom who was moving into an educational program now in OSAP, paying through private institutions a very huge tuition for a two-year program. All the supplemental needs, all the funding required to live, plus tuition, was now being funnelled through OSAP and she in fact was part of your statistic of lower cases in welfare. She was. It's not as though she's not on the system, but it's the perfect example of once again moving the debt from Ontario's debt to another level of debt.

In this case, that young woman is now heavily in debt and it's a tragic story. What we knew about this specific woman is that she couldn't finish her schooling because the amount of funding that's allowable under OSAP didn't give her enough money by the end of the month to buy her bus pass, so she couldn't get to her classes to finish the course. So what happened? By the middle of the program, which is at the end of just this first year, she now had an enormous debt, she didn't have the certificate that she had gone to school for, and she wasn't on welfare. She was absolutely nowhere, and she had a $40,000 debt.

She's part of the stats that the member from the Tory party just talked about, the fabulous workings of the workfare program. She's part of your statistic, and the government refuses to acknowledge these kinds of problems in the system that it introduced.

It doesn't even say that in Bill 142. It doesn't say that's what's going to happen to people, but in almost every section it says "except as prescribed." All of the regulations that you've advanced very slowly over time, over these last six months, have left people in the lurch like this. If the member from the opposite side could acknowledge that people are in this predicament most of the time because they don't want to be there and because they've had life happen to them, then why can you not acknowledge that you have a system in place that is not working for everybody?

What we found out in fact in our calls to several cities is that the numbers are so poor that it's no wonder you won't answer our order paper questions. Our questions were very simple. We want to know exactly how many people are in the placement program. Here you have all of these requirements, four of them: Satisfy community participation; participate in employment measures; accept and undertake basic education; accept and maintain employment. Most of those things are not new at all. I just want to know the number that's in the new part you added, because that's the thing that you got elected for.

Why you won't give me the answer is intriguing to me. Don't give me the 200-and-something-thousand number, because that number is not the truth. That's the number the lion's share of which has always been in every other section of the bill that had been there for some time. Only the new section, that's what I want to know. That's the part you went to your Tory faithful on at your last convention. That's what you get standing ovations for from your communities, from your supporters. But you won't tell us that.

Why, if it really is your pillar, will you simply not give us the information? Some of you I think genuinely want to know. Some of you must think that I would not spend a Thursday afternoon here just to say something. I want to honestly contribute to this matter. I honestly want to make people understand. You were elected on this platform. Give us the answer, then. Tell us what the number is in that new section you added to this bill.

Mr Ford: You don't want to listen.

Mrs Pupatello: That's the answer we get, then. We get absolutely nothing. What we get is what the press gets. What the press gets is the same thing: "Tories, it seems, are having trouble fessing up. The only figures are for the entire program, not the new complement." That's what I'm getting today as well. There is some reason you've elected not to be so forthcoming.

I was mentioning earlier about the biggest tax hike to hit Windsor since 1990, "Tax Hike Biggest Since '90." What's quite interesting about this report in today's paper is that the city blames provincial downloading for the first major boost in eight years.

The truth is that you elected to effect your platform on the backs of my city's residents, property taxpayers. As if this were the only city this was happening to. We are getting more and more reports now, as they try to get through their deliberations of their budgets, that they're increasing taxes at the property tax level.

You came in here saying that there's only one taxpayer. Now we are getting all this evidence of new user fees. Within the first year of your mandate, you had introduced 1,008 new user fees. That too is coming from the same taxpayer.

So here we have the two biggest pillars of your government's election. You talked about the income tax cut, you talked about the deficit and the debt and you talked about workfare. If you hadn't given the income tax cut, you would have already balanced your budget. I find that quite interesting. If that was so important, you should have done it firstly.

Every other economist acknowledges that the growth in our economy today is due in large part to the increase in trade. We also know that the increase in trade has the most to do with the Canadian dollar value as well as low interest rates. Economists are telling the government that as well, that you could very well have saved your tax cut. You could have had your books balanced by now, but you chose not to do that. Moreover, the fact that you are still in debt and you have downloaded your responsibility on to cities and towns across Ontario, this is what you're causing to happen now, this is the unintended consequence of your policy-setting: that the residents now in the city of Windsor are paying more, but they're paying more at the property tax level instead of the income tax level.

I guess the point is that it's really not lost on Ontarians. When you see all of the media reports and they do their interviews with the readers, people say: "I have noticed nothing. I have not noticed a difference." You're paying, you're paying, you're paying. You're paying in user fees, you're paying in property tax increases, and you're still paying. In the meantime, I think we just have to remember the simple fact is that this government has been given the same rating by bond agencies that the NDP government got, and you're still there, even with your fiscal policies.

Clearly we have two significant planks of the Tory election and both of them are failing. Your workfare failure will probably be the biggest legacy you will leave. If some of the members choose to look so intently this way, I suggest that you be as interested as I am in finding out what the real numbers are for your placements, because I will tell you that in your new standardized report card, you would not even register a one.

1700

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I am certainly pleased to join in the debate and follow the words of my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich, who has expressed very well the difficulties with workfare and who has expressed very eloquently the pitfalls and the shell game this government is playing when it comes to workfare.

What this bill is all about and what workfare has continued to be all about is nothing more than a simple exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. This government won an election on pushing hot buttons. You ran an election frankly not giving a damn whom you're going to hurt, how you're going to hurt them.

You decided that the way you were going to get elected was to blame people: "We have a problem with welfare, so let's blame the welfare recipients. You see, it's those lazy bums, it's that laid-off steelworker, that laid-off construction worker, who are to blame for our welfare problems because they don't want to work. They don't want to make $60,000 a year at Stelco or Dofasco. They want to be on welfare making $700 or $800 a month." So you exploited those individuals.

You decided you were going to attack employment equity so you exploited minorities and women in this province. You ran an election campaign and have continued a pattern of exploitation, of abuse, of the politics of division. The most vile, hatred type of politics that exist in a democratic society you have practised to a fine art. You've exploited the politics of division in this province to an end that no other government ever has or ever will in the history of this province and this country.

You decide it's okay by adding, by subtracting: "Do you know what? We will lose those folks, but it's okay. It doesn't matter how we hurt them, because there's a whole bunch on this other side that we'll gain from." Workfare is a classic example of that type of mentality, of that type of exploitation.

My colleague mentioned the real numbers on workfare. You run around and take credit for 200,000 or 300,000. The next thing you know it will be half a million or whatever numbers you choose to place on that. Again, the question has not been answered. How many of those placements are new? You think you can fool the public. What you have done is - and the minister knows this and the members of the government caucus know that - you have taken programs that existed.

Municipalities have run good back-to-work training programs for years. They didn't need the brain waves of Mike Harris, David Tsubouchi and Janet Ecker to figure this out. There have been very successful programs in place that municipalities have operated over the years. What you have done is you've taken those programs and you've put them under the umbrella of workfare and said these are all workfare placements. That is bogus; that is phoney.

What you need to do is come clean and tell the people of Ontario how many new placements have occurred since you've brought in workfare. You look at the amount of money that you have budgeted for workfare and compare the value of that, and compare the facts that first of all, you're not getting the bang for your buck; and secondly, that the programs are not doing anything the help welfare recipients get off welfare and into the workforce. Sure, you've lowered the numbers. How have you lowered the numbers? You've cut the benefits. You've cut the eligibility. You've shifted them to OSAP. You've put them on to food banks, you've put them on to shelters and you've put them out on the streets.

That is not how you deal with the welfare problem in this province, or anywhere else across North America. States that have tried programs such as you have have failed miserably. What we have seen here is simply a public relations exercise that is costing taxpayers in this province hundreds of millions of dollars.

What is most disgusting about all this is that you don't care whom you run over in your process. You don't care whom you hurt. Your welfare policies are a classic example of that. You came in and you blindly cut benefits by 22%. You said to 500,000 kids across this province who are dependent on welfare: "You've got too much money. You're living too well. We're going to punish you. We're going to punish you for being poor and we're going to punish your parents for being unemployed. We're going to punish your parents because they may have a drug or alcohol problem or they may have a disability. We are going to punish you."

What you did in your first action with great fanfare when you took office was you said to 500,000 kids: "Tough luck. We're going to cut the amount of money you get for food, for coats, for shoes, for shelter by 22%." Explain to me how that helps kids in this province. Explain to me how that helps the 500,000 kids when you've decided that they now have to go to a food bank or maybe a shelter or maybe they'll have to go a winter without boots or a coat because you thought those kids were living way too high off the hog on benefits across Ontario. That was the first step in your platform. It pushed the hot button, it exploited a hot button, but it hurt a hell of a lot of people.

You don't seem to understand that. You pound your chest and you're proud of the fact that you've cut welfare benefits by 22% in this province. That is disgraceful; that is demeaning; that is exploiting; that is hurtful. But it doesn't matter, does it? It doesn't matter because the folks at the Albany Club don't get affected by that. The rich folks you represent don't care. As you're walking through the Albany Club, you just close your eyes and step over that homeless person sleeping on the street whom you have forced there. Workfare follows those patterns.

Workfare doesn't do anything to get anybody back to work. It doesn't get anybody off welfare. It simply labels and exploits. That's all you've chosen to do. You can say, "You know, those bums, we want to get them back to work." Again I challenge the minister or members of the government to tell me how workfare is going to benefit, how 10 or 15 or 20 hours of volunteer work are going to help a construction worker or steelworker or factory worker in my riding who's been forced on to welfare as the result of a job loss. I resent the fact that you think those people are lazy. I resent the fact that you think you've got to cut their benefits and you've got to force them into programs. I resent that fact. That is what you're basing it on because that is clearly the philosophy you have in dealing with welfare recipients. If you didn't think that, you wouldn't cut their benefits.

If you thought they were motivated, you wouldn't force them into workfare. You force them into a program that has no benefits whatsoever except to make you feel good. Ultimately, you will expand this program to do slave labour for private sector firms. Mark my words, that is where you're moving because workfare is not working. It's not working because the agencies that are in the business of helping the needy are not going to participate in your exploitation of the needy. They've made that clear to you. That is why your numbers are not where they want to be. That is why you've rolled all the programs together. That is the simple truth of what is happening here.

Explain to me again how forcing someone, who has worked 10, 15 years and gets laid off, into sweeping floors or painting park benches or answering phones somewhere is going to get him back. These people don't need your self-dignity that you're trying to impose them. I resent the moralistic, holier-than-thou approach that you take when you say, "We need the dignity of work, damn it." Most of the people on welfare know the dignity of work. They don't need you to teach them that lesson. That's what you base it on. You don't base it on meaning well or trying to help people. It is cheap, sleazy political points.

Every time you're down in the polls, you go into your little bag of tricks of welfare reform and you bring another measure up. I remember when Minister Tsubouchi brought it in. I was the social services critic at that time. We stood in the House and tried to get some answers on how this program was going to work. You didn't have a clue, the Premier didn't have a clue, still today you don't have a clue, but you know what? Your focus groups, your public opinion polls told you it won't work, damn it, and whom it hurts.

This bill here is a continuation of that exploitation and that attack. It is anti-union; it is anti-worker; it is anti-poor. How dare individuals whom you work, whom you force into programs, try to organize? How dare they try to have some rights in Ontario in 1998 under a Conservative government? How dare those people try to defend themselves? You'll fix them, you'll take care of them, and you know what? If that doesn't put them in place, you'll come back with even more hideous legislation to put them in place.

We have seen programs that work. In my own municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth I chaired health and social services for five years. I know the programs that work. We had a program called Helping Hands before your government ever came along. These are programs developed by previous Tory, Liberal and NDP governments. These programs took the hardest-to-employ young people who had been out of work, who had drug or alcohol problems, who had literacy problems and put them into meaningful training programs that involved classroom experience, that involved résumé writing, that involved on-the-job training. Those programs worked. We had a 70% success rate in some of the hardest-to-employ young people who had been on welfare.

1710

Why did it work? Because it was tailored to individuals. Programs were not just across the board, forcing everybody into it whether they wanted to or not. They dealt with the individual. They tailored a program. There was an expenditure. There was a follow-up. There was training. You weren't simply thrown into a volunteer situation to comply with your 10, 15 or 20 hours of work.

We had a job-finding club that dealt with people 50 and over who were on welfare. There was 60% to 70% success there as well, because those programs were tailored to individuals.

Don't think that you have somehow come up with something revolutionary here. What you have done is you've taken programs that were in place, you've cut funding to municipalities to run those programs, you've cut welfare funding, and you've labelled them all under workfare. You think somehow that is going to fix the problem.

We're going to have a lost generation here. I hope this government understands that. We're going to have a group of people going through your programs who are bitter, who are angry, who are disillusioned, who are no closer to finding a job today than they were before you brought in workfare.

If you were really committed to the workfare program, and if you do your homework and look at programs that have worked in other provinces, in other jurisdictions across North America, there has to be an investment, a financial commitment. It is not cheap; it is expensive in the short term. There is a long-term payback, there is a long-term gain, but in the short term governments have to make some real, substantial investments in people, in training, in education, in long-term skills upgrading; not the feel-good quick fix that you're promoting and suggesting here.

But you know what? That doesn't sound as sexy. That doesn't force people. That doesn't give you a chance to pound your chests and say: "Hey, folks, we're fixing those bums. We're getting them back to work, damn it."

If you look at jurisdictions where programs have worked, it has involved a number of measures. It has involved getting long-term skills and basic adult education. What have you done? You've cut adult education. How can you on the one hand sit here and say, "We want to get people back to work," and then cut the programs that are supposed to help those people go back to work? How do you benefit a welfare recipient by cutting funding for adult education? How can those folks get the skills, the upgrading, the education and the training they need when you've cut those funds? They don't, but you don't care.

What money have you put into long-term skills training? Maybe the minister or another member can tell me what money you've put into skills training, real long-term upgrading in skills so that people who have lost their jobs because of downsizing, because of the economy, because of plant closures can get into something substantial, into a job that's going to last for a period of time, into a job that's going to bring in a decent income - not into a minimum wage job that keeps them in that cycle.

You've taken these benefits away. You've taken incentives away. There used to be programs that would give people an opportunity to work part-time and still continue to collect some benefits. If you didn't make enough money, you could still ensure that your kids, if you were poor, had an opportunity for prescription drugs, for glasses, for dental care. Parents didn't have to choose. You've taken those programs away.

Everything you have done has hurt individuals who are trying to break the welfare cycle. Yes, there is a small percentage of individuals who are what we call generational welfare recipients. That's been common and that will be there forever. Yes, there is a small percentage of individuals who are not motivated and frankly have no intention of getting off welfare, but that is a very small percentage. That does not reflect the vast majority of welfare recipients in this province, and your attitude is that it does.

Programs that have worked have also meant an investment in child care to give parents the opportunity to go into a program, to go to work and know that their child is safe and being well looked after and not in unregulated, for-profit child care that you have introduced in this province.

All of the real characteristics that you have in your workfare program totally contradict all of the experiences where programs have worked. I find it insulting that this government expresses the cockiness and the arrogance it does towards their welfare reform. I frankly don't know sometimes how you can look at yourselves in the mirror and sit there with a clear conscience and believe in your heart of hearts, away from politics, that you're not hurting people. I don't understand how you can do that. I find it offensive how you continue to exploit and abuse, and it is abuse. What you're doing in your welfare cuts amounts to nothing more than government child abuse, nothing more than that. That is exactly what you are doing by cutting those benefits. That is exactly what you are doing by forcing people into programs simply to make you feel good, by cutting funding to municipalities.

You don't understand the cause often of welfare. If you look at the statistics and you look at the numbers, most people do not stay on welfare for years and years, as you believe they do. Most people are on welfare a short period of time, three to six months. That is an average. When you look at the statistics that every municipality can provide to you, the reasons why individuals have got on to welfare are generally economic or job loss.

The mentality of your program was set by Mike Harris as leader of the third party. I remember under the NDP government, I believe, he paraded this woman forward who was making $40,000 or $45,000 a year and said: "It's cheaper, it's better for this woman to go on to welfare. She'll make more money." Mike Harris brought forward an individual making over $40,000 a year, paraded her in front of the cameras, totally misinformed, and said, "This person can make more money on welfare than she can working for over $40,000 a year." It took less than four hours for that myth to be blown out of the water completely and for every credible welfare official, civil servant in this province who dealt with that to say, "You are wrong."

But that was the mentality. That was the mentality that drove workfare. It didn't matter to Mike Harris that he was wrong. It didn't matter to Mike Harris that when he brought this woman forward he had the wrong facts and figures and, no, she could not make more money on welfare than she did working. It didn't matter because it pushed a button and that button was to exploit welfare recipients, and that was the mindset.

There was no depth in your workfare program. You didn't have a clue when you proposed workfare how it was going to work. You stood in front of that sign, "Ontario welfare population: 1.3 million," I believe it was. That was your big election - you stood in front of that sign, again somehow blaming the victims. Punishing people because they were poor was the answer to your problem.

I challenge ministers and members of this government to spend a day in a welfare office or spend a day with a case worker when they do house visits. I challenge you to do that. Just one day, that's all, and then get a sense of what it's all about. I challenge you to spend a day in a shelter or spend a day in a food bank and then see what it's all about.

Frankly, it's easier to sit here in this ivory tower of ours, within these confines in this wonderful building, these great walls, and to blame those folks for the situation they're in. It registers well. Your focus groups tell you that; your pollsters tell you that. But at the end of the day, I believe that in government we have a responsibility, a bigger responsibility than simply cheap political points and cheap exploitation. We have a responsibility to bring in real programs that work, real programs that help get people off welfare, real programs that mean long-term, sustainable employment.

You believe that everything that goes well in this province you can take credit for; everything that goes lousy, it's either the welfare recipients or the labour unions or the federal government or some other body who's to blame.

You take all this credit for the job creation. If you go to another province, they take credit for it. The federal government takes credit for it. Frankly, had there been job losses in this province, as there were in 1990-95 through the recession, I don't think too many government members would stand and say, "It's our fault." You'd blame the other side.

Don't overestimate our importance in here in regard to job creation, folks. Don't overestimate the wonderful role you think you have in changing this world or this country, because many of those factors are well beyond our control, your control.

The NDP was not totally responsible for what happened between 1990 and 1995. Any government would have faced some difficult times and conditions. Any government would have faced some of those difficulties. There was a recession. There were economic conditions way beyond our boundaries. Frankly, any government that would have taken today would have benefited from the upturn of the economic conditions that we face today, whether it had been a Liberal, NDP or Conservative government. So don't give me your arrogance and your cockiness to suggest that you're responsible for job creation in this province.

1720

We talk about the great fiscal responsibility of this government. They talk about spending. Your government, by the time the time your mandate is over and the people of Ontario give you the quick, swift boot in the butt that you deserve, will have brought up expenditures for the accumulated debt in this province by $20 billion. You have taken a deficit of almost $100 billion to $120 billion. Is that fiscal responsibility? Borrowing money for a tax cut, is that fiscal responsibility? You're not going to fool the public.

Yes, you can talk about job creation and you can accumulate what everybody does and take all this wonderful credit for it. The reality is that Ontarians are not going to be fooled by all your public relations efforts, all your spin doctors, all your consultants. All the hundreds of millions of dollars you spend on spinning are not going to work because the public is starting to see very clearly through what you're doing.

Let me tell you, this bill that we're discussing today, this workfare program, is going to go down as one of the legacies of mismanagement, one of the legacies of abuse, one of the legacies of exploitation of this government, and nothing else. You're going to look back years from now and you're going to regret what you have done to people in this province. You're going to have to look those 400,000 or 500,000 kids in the eyes and tell them why you've cut their benefits by 22%, tell them why they can't have an extra pair of boots, or why they have go to a food bank. Look them in the eyes and tell them that. Don't stand in here and pound your chest and talk about your polls and your arrogance and your cockiness. Look at those kids and explain to those kids what you've done to them.

Explain to the single mom why she can't buy shoes for her kids this winter. Explain to her. Explain to her why you think it's beneficial to force her into a program of no benefit and tell her why you believe it is more important for cheap, political, sleazy exploitation. You have to live with your conscience and you'll have to live with the consequences of your actions.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Marchese: I want to congratulate the two Liberal members who have spoken, the members for Hamilton East and Windsor-Sandwich, and particularly say that I enjoyed the social democratic speech by the member for Windsor-Sandwich because it indeed was a very social democratic speech. It's the kind of thing you will hear from me in a little while.

I too, like her and the member for Hamilton East, decry and attack the policies of this government in terms of the effects it has on very vulnerable people. I remind you that 50% of these people on welfare are young kids, and that's the effect that your policies have on families, but particularly young children.

I too have been one of those who attacked federal policies for a long time. You will recall that the Tories did this in 1989-90, when they began to reduce the benefits that would come to the provinces as it relates to issues of post-secondary education, social assistance and the like. We used to cost-share between us and the federal government, and you will recall that the Tories decided they would no longer share 50-50 between the provinces and the federal government. That was the beginning of the assault on provincial governments, particularly Ontario, when we got into power and experienced the recession and all of a sudden were hit with federal cutbacks. The federal Liberal government as well continued with that policy, where the cap on the Canada assistance plan hurt us tremendously. So we were on our own as a provincial government.

I've got to tell you that I decry the policies of this provincial government, as I decried the cutback policies of the federal Liberal and Conservative governments as well.

Mr Hastings: I would like to set the record straight with regard to some of the rather questionable remarks made by the member for Hamilton East. I'd like to quote actually from what was called at that time the Ontario Liberal Plan, their red book - "gliberal" might be more appropriate - where it says, dealing with workfare: "All others now on the welfare system will go into the new Ontario transitional incentive program (OTIP). We believe that people who are unemployed will always choose to upgrade their skills and to work" - it sounds like workfare, doesn't it? - "if given a chance and the proper support. However, when people who are able to work refuse to participate in any of these programs, they will receive only a basic allowance that reflects the national average and is less than the current allowance."

In other words, the member for Hamilton East is actually denouncing the program that he and the member for Windsor-Sandwich ran under in 1995.

What is absolutely more fascinating about the "gliberal" plan is that on page 19 of this document there is a quote which just about bowled me over. It talks about dealing with youth unemployment. They actually did at that time recognize the problem. It says: "Policy commitment. A Liberal government will create a young Ontario Works program for 17- to 25-year-olds." If the workfare program is such a drastic problem, why then doesn't he offer a solid, more specific alternative than he has in his remarks today, or at least re-endorse what they had in this "gliberal" plan?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich has two minutes to respond.

Mrs Pupatello: I would like to remind Ontarians of what we were doing today, and that was talking about the sleeping beauty bill, the bill that the government was forced to introduce because last fall at committee your member for London South fell asleep at the table. The vote didn't pass, the subsection didn't pass and you were forced to bring in this section 73 today at $100,000 an hour in this House, for a minimum debate of seven hours, at a total cost of $700,000. I think that is the most telling.

My colleague from Hamilton East also addressed the whole issue of mismanagement of government, of policy that cannot be implemented because quite simply it was written on the back of a napkin some night with a bunch of young whiz kids around, no supportive documentation you could find that would show you a workfare program that actually worked. We have found all the examples and all the problems with it, and you've decided to go down that same road. What have you discovered? The same problems, which is exactly why we cannot today get in real numbers those who are actually placed in the workfare that you sold to your voters in the last election.

We have order paper questions out there that we cannot get answers to. We are calling your ministry. You will not give us the answers. You are quoted in the press as government saying, "We don't know those kinds of specifics." I will continue to press you for those specifics because it was your pillar. You ran on it. All your candidates did. You had better come clean with the very fact that this is one of your largest failures of government. Let us call it what it is.

The sleeping beauty bill that we addressed today is the best example of the biggest failure this government has made since June 1995.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Marchese: I am happy to have this opportunity to speak to Bill 22. I will begin by saying that I had an opportunity to listen to my friend from York-Mackenzie, and I've got to tell you it was really hard to take. I listened to the whole 20 minutes because through the things that he said he attracted my interest. He said things such as this: "This is a program that is about volunteers. They're not forced to do any of this stuff. They volunteer to do it." He said: "Organizing in a trade union is inappropriate. This bill is not about restricting rights or ability to gather." I will show you by the title that this is totally unsound as a statement.

I like this one, Frank: "This bill gives them freedom to participate." I love that.

What I like is how you said it in the same way that the Minister of Education does it, and the Minister of Health as well. I love their monotonous drone. I have to tell you, you do the same kind of thing. You looked serious, you sounded serious. It was good.

I suspect that some people listening to you probably said, "He sounds like a reasonable guy, yes."

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): He is.

Mr Marchese: I know. When the Minister of Education speaks, people listen to him and say: "He's so smooth, not slippery or reptilian, no, no. He's smooth, honey sounding, the kind of guy you want as your father, or next door."

Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm overcome by the compliments, and I really would ask you to stop the member. This is difficult for me to take.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. The Chair recognizes the member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I wanted him to have that opportunity so the people could be reminded of the style. It's full of honey. It sounds full of reason. A good-looking man, I would say. Who would disbelieve a person like that when they say, "This bill is full of misinformation by the opposition"? One might be tempted to believe him because of the nature in which he said it, right?

What else does he say? He says that some unions are preventing these poor people from working because they are intimidating those poor organizations from taking this program on, and he asks, "Where's the freedom in that?" - supposedly meaning that this bill would prevent that kind of stuff from happening, I would think. We'll get to that in a moment, if I can.

Then he says they're free to participate now without having to feel intimidated, more or less.

It was pretty hard for me, I have to tell you. I know that he's part of the same choir - monotonous baritone kinds of voices. We don't get too many sopranos on the other side, except we hear the soprano kinds of effects when these bills are put into effect. But the presentation is more baritone in style. It's a fine Tory choir, a good family values kind of crowd.

I wanted to begin by saying it was difficult to stomach. I had to hold it in. I just thought I'd tell the public that so they have the benefit of that. But I want to get to the title of the bill. I'm going to stop praising the member for York-Mackenzie - I think I've done enough praising - and move on to the bill, and speak about the title.

Now, the title is called An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997. That's the title. I know the member for York-Mackenzie loves the title, I appreciate that.

My local newspaper, in one of the editorials, says this - because they too have felt rather awed at the strange nature of this particular title versus so many other titles that I will cite - only a few examples, because I don't have the time. They said, "This bill might have appropriately been labelled `An Act to allow grateful participants in the Ontario workfare program to maximize their opportunities for morally beneficial labour while being freed from the onerous and detrimental financial responsibilities that would undoubtedly be associated with joining a union'"

It's beautiful, isn't it? Because that's exactly the kind of stuff you Tories are normally used to. So when you get a title that is so bold, so naked, I would venture to say -

Hon Mrs Ecker: We don't do that.

Mr Marchese: It's an acceptable term. It is completely without any fig leaf whatsoever, right? It is raw. Why it is that this government would do that - I tell you, this is an obscenity, I would put a fig leaf on this title, indeed I would, as you normally do with the titles of your bills.

A moment just to illustrate. I made some references to indicate the kind of stuff these fine people on the other side do. I'll try to find a few, but it took a bit of time.

I've got to compliment you. The job quota was another raw one. It wasn't a correct one, because "job quota" had nothing to do with the employment equity bill, but that too was rather raw. You didn't put a fig leaf on that one. That was good. That was really getting to the visceral susceptibilities of people. You did well with that one.

Another one here: Government Process Simplification Act. Do you like that, Speaker? Government Process Simplification Act. Beautiful, because when you want to cover something, you hide it with a fig leaf. "Simplification Act." Brilliant. That's why you hire people over there; you hire them to do this kind of stuff.

Let me get to another example. Here it is: Fewer School Boards Act. That's a good one. You decimate boards, and you have fewer there to communicate the intent of what you want to do. Don't tell them what it's about.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: It's true. You're quite right. It's almost as raw as the other one. You're quite right.

Here is the other one: Red Tape Reduction Act. I love that.

Here: Streamlining of Administration of Provincial Offences Act. "Streamlining," right? Love it.

The Water and Sewage Services Improvement Act. I love the word "improvement," because whenever you're about to whack somebody over the head, you call it improvement.

Remember too the Tenant Protection Act. Did you like that one? I loved that one, because that really was about how you support your big-buddy friends, the ones with the grana, the ones with the - M. Leach, mon ami, with the pecunia, the deep pockets.

Mr Klees: Why don't you choose a word in one of the official languages?

Mr Marchese: The grease.

But this title is particularly bold. They wanted to directly communicate a message to the public. They wanted, through this, to say, "Look, folks, this is about unions, and don't you hate those bloody unions out there?" They expect people to say, "Yeah." Isn't that right, Minister? You know that's what it's about. When you want to be as naked as such, you want people to see exactly what you want them to see.

So I was very astonished, because you normally put these people to work, the brilliant young men you've got - and young women, I suspect; that's probably true - to come up with some good stuff, right? On this one, you said, "I got it." Mr Harris, the Premier, said: "Oh, no problem, we don't need to belabour this particular problem. The staff is so busy. I've got the good one." He came up with a good one. It probably didn't take him more than a minute.

On the title itself, it clearly speaks to what this government is all about. I thought the Premier had become a little gentler in the last couple of weeks or months.

Hon Mrs Ecker: It's my bill.

Mr Marchese: Oh, come on. It's your bill? Please. I know you introduced it, but the Premier has a lot to do with what passes or not. This is the misunderstood Premier, a "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good; oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood" kind of guy. We thought he had acquired this more pussycat, gentle kind of stance, because he was particularly worried that people were beating him up, saying: "Mike Harris is a tough guy. Not only is he tough, he's bloody mean." He didn't like that image.

1740

He wanted to change the image because he was tired of being a tiger. But on this particular issue the fangs are coming out again. He does two things here. He accomplishes two things with this particular bill. He goes after unions -

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: Come on. He does go after unions. How does he do it? Indirectly. He goes after people who he says should not be able to unionize and he goes after unions by clearly working on feelings people have about unions and reminding them how evil they are, right? Yes, that's what you guys are all about.

Your subsection provides, according to the government's general overview of its provisions, that under the Labour Relations Act participants in a community placement activity "shall not join a trade union, bargain collectively or strike with respect to their community...." We believe this is not constitutional. I guarantee to you, folks, and your lawyers, and you've got a few on the other side - I hope the Attorney General is not going to advise you on this, because he's been pretty shaky in the last couple of years in terms of his advice, so I wouldn't go to the Attorney General, with all due respect.

Check out a few other lawyers in the back bench and see what opinions they might have on this matter. Mr Tilson's a lawyer. He might have an opinion; I'm not sure. But I guarantee that this is an unconstitutional bill. The right of individuals or "participants," in the language of Madame Ecker, to form or join a union is a fundamental right. It is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is guaranteed there. So this bill, in my view, runs contrary to the content of the Charter of Rights and I believe you'll see a challenge in this regard. I know you don't believe it. I know you checked with some fine people in your benches, but I think you're on the wrong side of this particular issue.

Will the Tory government invoke section 1 of the charter to deal with this particular issue, which provides that certain rights might be subject to such "reasonable limits...as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"? Would you use that section? That's what governments do when they want to use that section to beat something else down, right? But it's really got to be evil, Minister Ecker. It's got to be an evil kind of thing. To organize in the form of a union is hardly the kind of stuff that I think you could quote section 1 on.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Why would I be interested in that?

Mr Marchese: I think you are. I think your bill does that. Your bill is quite explicit - naked, I argued earlier. It is an act to prevent unionization with respect to community participation. You might have an interpretation which is interesting. I say that this says they can't join a union. To prevent them means they can't join a union. It'll be interesting to see what interpretation we get on this as we go along.

I would say the job of the Attorney General should be to tell her that the bill tramples on fundamental rights. But clearly, from listening to the minister shaking her head in denial, obviously she already got the advice, "It's okay, you're on the right track, it's fine." Other people don't believe you are.

I was reading another individual who wrote a good article, a Mr Adams. He's professor emeritus and past director of McMaster University. He made some interesting comments about this whole thing. He was horrified. Minister Ecker might say: "It's okay if a few professors out there are horrified by this stuff. That's the chance we take when we attack welfare recipients." If some poor professor, who probably is retired, is offended she might say, "That's okay," because as long as the majority of the public says, "You're right on, Ecker; go after those welfare recipients; we're behind you," as long as those folks are behind her, and the Premier, she's on the right track.

I'm assuming that's the politics of it, because the politics have nothing to with facts. The member for York-Mackenzie says: "There's a lot of misinformation. Let me talk to you about facts." He gives you a few numbers and he says, "These are the numbers."

But there's no fact attached to this. This program is a complete failure. We know that. But you can't afford to go out and give the facts, because if you did, those poor people who support you would say, "What the heck is this incompetent government all about?" I've got to tell you, you've demonstrated incompetence in many, many areas. I've been telling you that with every speech I make.

It is up to you to point out the facts, and you will not do that. What is important to you is the perception you create out there, because that's more powerful than fact. The perception you want is to be able to go out there and say: "We're after you. We're after those welfare bums." What you want is for people to say: "That's right. That's what we want." It doesn't matter what you do as long as you say you're say after them, because you know that is what many people in society are feeling. You are promoting a feeling that is negative against all welfare recipients. You promote that. You have been promoting it since the election and post-election, and that is the nature of the politics of this fine, family values, Tory caucus choir that sings the same tune day in and day out.

The professor emeritus said, "Freedom of association has been well established as a fundamental human right for at least 50 years."

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Rainy River on a point of order.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I'm not from Rainy River, but I'm glad you recognized me.

The point of order is that this is a very important speech and I hope members of the assembly would participate and listen to my colleague. I would hope that you would check to see if there is a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker: My apology to the member for Algoma.

Is there a quorum?

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I continue with a quotation from the professor. He says: "It is prominently referred to in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its status as a basic human right was reaffirmed in the covenants of the United Nations adopted in 1960. It was referred to as a fundamental democratic right in the constitution of the International Labour Organization, the UN agency that deals with labour matters. It recently received additional reaffirmation and support in the Vienna Declaration of the World Conference on Human Rights, signed by representatives of over 170 countries in 1993. Not least, it is embedded in Canada's national Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

He read this bill. He's horrified. I'm assuming that people of this calibre read these things very carefully and know what they're talking about. We were as horrified, when you introduced this bill, as fine people like Professor Adams in this regard. He argues, as so many others do, that the pros and cons of workfare and the strategies of unions to oppose it are irrelevant to this issue.

Most of you confound it by talking about that, but he says: "The pros and cons of workfare and the strategies of unions to oppose it are irrelevant to this issue." We argue that what you have done is unconstitutional. Something is embedded in Canada's national Charter of Rights and Freedoms and you are walking and trampling all over those rights, basic, fundamental rights that people have fought for 15 years. I urge everybody listening to oppose this government and oppose Bill 22, and call us if you want to get involved.

1750

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Klees: The member for Fort York made a number of comments. I have to respond to his desire for facts. Here are some:

The fact of the matter is that more than a quarter of a million fewer people are on welfare today in this province than on the day we were elected, in 1995.

Here's another fact for the member: There are more than 260,000 people in this province involved in the Ontario Works program today.

Here's another fact for the member: Every municipality in Ontario today has a business plan to implement this program at various stages, and I can tell you progressively more and more people are leaving the welfare rolls as a result of the Ontario Works program.

I want to also say to the speaker as a last fact for his consideration that this bill before the House today is not something the government chose to bring forward. We are bringing this bill forward in response to threats from organizations, from unions across this province, that if we continued with the Ontario Works program they would unionize those people involved in the voluntary community participation program.

We are not prepared to allow unions to move in, destroy this program and charge union fees to people on welfare. We are not prepared to have organizations, whether they be unions or of any other stripe, interfere with what is hope for the future for people in this province. This bill will bring freedom to the many people who are dependent today on welfare.

Mr Agostino: I will briefly comment on the comments made by my colleagues for Fort York and York-Mackenzie. First of all, I want to congratulate the member for Fort York for his eloquence and how clearly and compassionately he unmasked some of the agenda of the Tory government.

He explained very clearly how you write bills based on public opinion polls and simply put titles on bills based on what the pollsters and your focus groups tell you the bill should read like, without any real reference to the content. He explained very clearly the trickery involved in this, and the fact that you continue to take away the rights of Ontarians. In this case you take away the rights of people who are on welfare and who you've forced on to workfare. You have again abused people, you've again exploited people. I would congratulate my colleague for those comments.

I was interested in the facts from the member for York-Mackenzie. He talked about the 250,000 fewer people. He failed to tell us how many of those individuals you have forced off because you've cut the ceiling level, how many of those individuals you've forced off because you've changed the eligibility if they're working part-time, how many of those individuals you've forced off because you've put them on to OSAP. You continue this shell game you play. You take great credit for that.

I'm always amazed, and my colleague mentioned it earlier, that you take credit for 260,000 on Ontario Works, the workfare program. I challenge you, the next time you're up don't tell me 260,000; tell me the number of people who are on the program additional to those who were on before you brought in workfare. All you've done, as I've told you before, is that you've taken a program, for example, called Helping Hands in Hamilton, that may have had 200 people, and you've put that under something called Ontario Works, so now you think that's a workfare program. That is bogus; that is phoney. Frankly, you know that is a shell game that you're playing. If you want to be sincere about the numbers, parliamentary assistant, tell us how many new people you've moved on to workfare. Don't play this little game; use real numbers.

Mr Wildman: I listened carefully to my friend from Fort York. That's why I wanted others to hear his comments, particularly members of the gallery, who I know always report accurately what happens in this place, especially when a question is asked one day and then asked by another party the next day and there's a story in the paper as a result.

I would also point out, though, that my friend from Fort York pointed out that what is proposed in this bill is a flagrant attack on the basic civil rights that we take for granted as people who live in a democracy. One of the basic rights we all enjoy is the right to freedom of association, the right to join groups freely if we so choose. This bill would limit that right for people who are "participants in workfare." This bill says that such participants in workfare cannot join labour unions. They cannot join a union.

This is a basic human right. If this bill were to say, for instance, that participants in workfare cannot talk about labour issues, all of us would be aghast, because that would be limiting another basic right: freedom of speech. But no, it doesn't limit freedom of speech, it just limits freedom of association. How on earth does a government that purports to be democratic support such a proposal? If this bill said participants in workfare cannot join the Catholic Church or the Anglican Church, we would be aghast. But no, it just says they can't join a union.

Mr Hastings: Listening to some of the comments opposite makes me go back to the comments by Steve Parr, who did an interview recently on CKCO radio in Kitchener. He asked one of the participants in the workfare program - his first name is Frank - what it had been like to be on welfare for so long. He said, "Frank...found a job after nearly five years on welfare. It may have saved his life." That's what Steve Parr quotes him as saying. Then Frank directly says: "One year pass and you don't find a job. Another year pass, you feel down. Like I had many time...I thought I can kill myself. I don't want to live like this any more."

What could be more eloquent from a participant who had been on welfare for that length of time, who was always seeking a job? Yet the member for Hamilton East goes about denigrating people who make an attempt to get off that welfare dependency.

Mr Agostino: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask the member not to cast aspersions. There was no denigrating of anybody, and I would ask him to withdraw that comment.

The Acting Speaker: I think it's a matter of opinion. I don't see anything the matter with it.

Mr Hastings: Thank you very much, Speaker. I guess the most important thing -

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Fort York has two minutes to respond.

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: Please, a little bit of order. I only have two minutes. Please, Speaker. I've got two minutes and I'm going to do my best to use them.

The member for York-Mackenzie talked about facts. The real facts are the following: Homelessness in our streets, not just in Toronto but everywhere, has grown; hostels have grown in terms of the number of people wanting to be in them; tenants have been thrown out of their buildings, many of them, and joined the ranks of those on the streets; poverty has increased under their regime. These are the facts about this Conservative regime. I want to tell you, please, for those of you who are watching, do not be beguiled by the member for York-Mackenzie when he says, "This bill is about freedom." Please don't be beguiled by such language. It is utter nonsense. This title, "An Act to Prevent Unionization," is unequivocal. There's no confusion about its title. They're saying that people who are working in this plan will be prevented from joining a union. It's very unequivocal.

When members talk about these other issues, they befuddle the whole bill, Bill 22. Remember this. The pros and cons of workfare and the strategies of unions to oppose it are irrelevant to this issue. This bill is deleterious to those individuals and it is an assault on the fundamental building blocks of a democratic society, one we have enjoyed for years. Principles that have been supported for 50 years are about to be eroded and certainly attacked and whacked by this Conservative government, and we want people to fight them.

The Acting Speaker: It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock next Monday.

The House adjourned at 1802.

28 mai 1998