Journal des débats 1998-juin-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Bill 21, An Act to promote Safety in Ontario Schools and create positive Learning Environments for Ontario Students by making amendments to the Education Act / Projet de loi 21, Loi visant à promouvoir la sécurité dans les écoles de l'Ontario et à créer des milieux d'apprentissage favorables pour les élèves ontariens en apportant des modifications à la Loi sur l'éducation.

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

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Over the past decade, school yard violence has changed throughout North America, and Ontario has certainly not been immune to that change.

While many may argue whether violence in schools has or has not increased over the years, one thing is indeed certain: The acts have become more violent in recent years. More weapons are finding their way into our schools, and students are becoming more accepting of retaliation and violence as the norm in our society.

The problems do not exist solely in our largest cities. Small communities in Ontario are beginning to see changes as well.

Although Ontario schools cannot be compared to US schools, with metal detectors and armed guards roaming school corridors, we must not shy away from the issue just because it has not yet exploded here.

My Safe Schools Act will ensure that Ontario's schools are the safest places in the world to study and to work.

During the past two and a half years, I have been consulting with principals, teachers, students, parents, police and others across Ontario about school safety and what changes are needed. The overwhelming majority of people said that the province needed clear and consistent policies and programs, programs that would ensure safe learning and working environments for all students and teachers in Ontario, whether in a school in Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor or Thessalon. They told me that legislation needed to address all aspects of school safety, from programs to deal with those who had engaged in misconduct to programs designed to ensure that violence does not happen in the first place.

My Safe Schools Act provides a provincial framework and set of standards, while allowing local communities to tailor the specific programs and policies to their own local needs. My Safe Schools Act will ensure that generations to come are raised in an environment that stresses conflict resolution, not conflict, and teaches responsibility for one's actions.

My Safe Schools Act has certainly been a collaborative effort with education partners from across our province, and it will be an effective tool for reducing violence in Ontario's schools because it was developed with the input of people who will use it in Ontario's schools.

My Safe Schools Act, if passed by the Legislature, will create a new power entitled "exclusion" that will provide principals with a means to exclude students from regular classroom settings who are at risk of engaging in dangerous conduct, whose conduct is detrimental to the safety and security of other students or staff or as a response to students' misconduct. These students will be assigned to a guidance counsellor and directed to attend an alternative education program where they will remain until such time as the principal and the guidance counsellor are satisfied that the student is no longer a risk.

My act will also create a new provincial offence for trespassing on school property, with mandatory reporting of such incidents on the student's official record.

Further, my Safe Schools Act will require school boards to establish safe school programs, anti-bullying policies, school codes of conduct and anti-vandalism policies.

Safe school programs will have to include measurable objectives for improving school safety and a procedure to provide a public report card, on an annual basis, to demonstrate whether those objectives are being met.

Anti-bullying policies will require mandatory reporting procedures and will help to recognize and halt bullying before these students grow older and more violent.

School codes of conduct will also require mandatory reporting procedures and may include such things as a ban on pagers, cellular phones and gang paraphernalia.

Anti-vandalism policies will provide principals with the ability to order students to make restitution or to perform community service.

My act will make parents liable for damage done by their children.

My act will also require school boards to appoint court liaison officers, who will monitor proceedings involving board students, act as a link between courts and schools and assist in the development and monitoring of bail and sentencing conditions.

If passed, my Safe Schools Act will allow boards to direct psychological assessments of students who present a risk of engaging in dangerous conduct and will require parents to advise a board if they believe there is a risk of their child engaging in dangerous conduct.

My act will also require school boards to provide training to students and staff in such skills as conflict resolution and anger management.

My Safe Schools Act will create a provincial weapons and violence-free schools policy that will apply not only to misconduct committed at school but on school buses, at school-sponsored functions off school property and anywhere else that misconduct has a direct impact on the safety or wellbeing of any student or staff member.

This policy will mandate automatic exclusion and possible expulsion for students who commit assault or who possess a prohibited or restricted weapon. It will provide principals with a framework for responding to other student violence as well. My act also gives principals powers to search for and confiscate prohibited items, and it gives teachers and staff immunity from civil liability in specific circumstances where they act to maintain order in our schools.

My Safe Schools Act will require all boards in Ontario to design and implement alternative education programs for students who are suspended or excluded and will require those programs to meet some specific provincial standards. The programs will be required to take place at alternative sites from regular classes. They will have a maximum class size of 10 students. They will focus on the fundamentals of literacy and numeracy and will teach skills like conflict resolution and anger management.

Finally, if passed in this House, my act will require all school boards to establish safe school advisory committees that will make recommendations to their board.

My Safe Schools Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation that not only responds to student misconduct but provides for early intervention, education and rehabilitation. This bill provides principals, boards and police with better tools than they have today to deal with at-risk students and to make Ontario schools safer places to study and to work. The response and support from across Ontario for my act has been overwhelming. I have received literally hundreds of e-mails via my Web site at www.HelloNewman.com, numerous phone calls, faxes and other calls from across Ontario.

1010

Deborah Knapp, a parent and chair of the Robert Service Senior Public School council, who is in the members' gallery today, says: "I appreciate the fact that we are no longer going to tolerate violence in our schools. As a parent, I am glad to see that we will finally have consistency in all schools in Ontario."

Keith Currie, a principal from the Algoma District School Board, says: "This is legislation that sets out an excellent framework so that local policies can be developed that will have a consistency throughout the province of Ontario. This is legislation that will put order back into our school system. As a principal for the past 28 years I can say, `A job well done!'"

Bob Heath, the associate director of education for the Toronto District School Board says: "This act has captured most of the `best practices' of schools and school boards that are successfully addressing the safe schools issue. It includes measures for prevention, intervention and response to school violence and will be strongly supported by school administrators, parents, students and the community."

Our students know how important this bill is. Geoff Alston, an OAC student at Cedarbrae Collegiate Institute in my riding of Scarborough Centre, says: "There needs to be more discipline and respect for authority in our schools. This act will certainly set things straight, and that's important to me because my younger sister will be entering high school next year and I want to feel that she'll be in a safer environment." I commend Geoff for putting those comments forward.

I received an e-mail from Carp, Ontario, from a concerned citizen who hoped that there will be the political will in this House to pass this bill. I do hope there is political will in this House to pass this bill, because this bill's important to everyone in Ontario.

I look forward to the support of every member of the Legislature, regardless of their political affiliation, so we can pass this bill to make Ontario's schools the safest places in the world to study and to work. We owe it to our students; we owe it to our teachers.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I don't think anybody in the House would argue with the stated purpose of this bill, which is to ensure that Ontario's schools are safe and secure learning and working environments and to reduce the potential for violence. This is an initiative which members of our caucus and party supported when the safe schools policy was put forward by the previous government, and we continue to be wholehearted supporters of the safe schools policy.

In fact, Mr Newman notes in his prefatory notes to his bill that where quality violence- and weapons-free school policies are indeed enforced in schools, school violence has dropped dramatically. I would suggest that what those safe schools policies need are support and resources to be enforced rather than additional legislation.

Mr Newman's bill is much less, I believe, than what his crime commission colleagues have suggested should be in a Safe Schools Act. It doesn't seem to have things like the isolation of students within the school setting. What the bill adds is "exclusion" to the provisions that already exist in the Education Act to have a 20-day suspension or an expulsion of students.

I want to note that it also has some good ideas: an alternative program for students who are suspended or excluded from school. The difficulty I have is not with the alternative program; it's the fact that there is no money for alternative programs now. The bill also suggests that there should be a monitoring of any excluded student by guidance counsellors, and I think that is a superb idea. My concern is that, as I look at the funding formula that this member's own government has put forward, I see that guidance counsellors are included with librarians and that boards are going to be forced to cut both librarians and guidance counsellors. In fact, in our elementary schools, there will only be one guidance counsellor to every 5,000 students, according to this government's formula. I don't know how one guidance counsellor to 5,000 students can monitor the day-to-day activities of excluded or suspended students, as much as I believe that's a good idea.

I also think that the idea of boards having court liaison officers is a good idea. We now have attendance counsellors who could serve that role. What has happened to attendance counsellors under this government's funding formula? They are included in a category of professionals and paraprofessionals. The boards must fund, out of that specific funding line, psychologists, psychometrists, speech pathologists, social workers, child and youth workers, community workers, library technicians, computer technicians and attendance counsellors. Where would boards get the money to add attendance counsellors, let alone designate them as court liaison officers?

I would suggest to the member opposite that, as a member of the government caucus, he pressure his government to provide the resources to implement what we would all agree are good ideas. In the absence of resources, in the absence of real support, this bill leaves us only with another form of exclusion, a moderated form of expulsion. I don't believe it requires legislation to put in place the good ideas of alternative programs and the monitoring of guidance counsellors; it requires the support and the dollars of government.

Despite the good ideas and the concerns I have that those good ideas are not supported by government resources, my major reason for not being able to support this bill today is a very specific clause which falls within this bill. The member opposite should not be surprised, because he's put this bill together very carefully, and I respect that. That's why I am extremely concerned about the clauses in this bill which give the freedom to board employees to use reasonable force to maintain order in the schools.

Beyond that - and the bill is very specifically worded - it gives protection from liability to a board employee or to a teacher who uses reasonable force for correction, provided that force is used in good faith. This is in this bill without any kind of qualification, without any kind of condition. This is not about freedom from liability if you use restraint to prevent a student from doing violence to himself, to others or to the school property. This says reasonable force for correction.

I've spent almost 30 years involved in public education, and consistently throughout those 30 years I have believed that we should not open the door in any way to the sanctioning of physical discipline or corporal punishment. I cannot read this bill in any way other than to believe it does that, and for that reason I cannot support it.

I'm joined in my concern by the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations, who have said they have grave concerns about this bill. They believe it clearly infringes upon human rights and is open to subjective interpretation. There has been no province-wide public consultation with parents, teaching staff or students. For that reason, the home and school associations call upon parents, their members and educational partners to lobby their local MPPs to delay the second reading of this bill until the formal consultation process has been established. I share their concerns and will not be supporting second reading of the bill.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to participate in this debate. I think I understand the motivation of the member in bringing forward this bill. He has attempted to craft the bill carefully. However, the member himself mentions that if there are safe schools policies in place, the amount of violence has dropped in the schools where they are in place. Also, under the previous government, school boards were supposed to implement the policy which deals with a number of the issues raised by Mr Newman in the arguments he makes for his bill.

The safe schools policy that was instituted by the previous government takes a broad view of violence, including in it not only bullying and the possession of weapons and these very difficult problems experienced in some school yards and schools, but also racial and other types of slurs and discrimination, discriminatory attitudes. I'm not sure that these kinds of violence are properly addressed by the legislation. Also, if the boards across Ontario have properly implemented the safe schools policy instituted by the previous government, I think legislation is not really necessary.

1020

I also want to point, as my colleague from Fort William did, to the current situation faced by boards across Ontario. Whether or not we support the legislation proposed by my friend from Scarborough Centre, it will be very difficult for boards to do a number of things that he proposes in his legislation simply because of the cutting formula that has been instituted by his government, the amount of funding that has been taken away from classrooms and taken away from schools in this province despite the promises made by the party of which the member for Scarborough Centre is a member when they were running for election.

We have situations across the province where there will not be adequate guidance counsellors available to do the kinds of things that guidance counsellors are responsible for, and if they are to be given additional responsibilities under this legislation, I don't know how that will be funded.

Also, many schools now, particularly at the elementary level, are eliminating vice-principals because of the cutting formula that has been brought in by this government. In many schools now the principal is being twinned; in other words, one principal in charge of two schools. So the principal will not even be in the school all the time because the principal is responsible for more than one school and thus will be in one school in the morning and the other school in the afternoon, or alternate days and so on.

In many other cases where this is not happening, boards are having principals who will return to the classroom; in other words, they will be part-time principals. They will still have the full-time responsibilities of the principal, but they will only have part time to do it, and the rest of the time they'll be teaching, back in the classroom. The Minister of Education and Training has specifically advocated this kind of measure as a way of trying to cut costs.

If the principal had the proper resources, the proper time and support - of vice-principals, in larger schools, of the guidance counsellors who are required, of the psychologists and support staff who are required - then we could deal with a lot of these issues. But to cut funding and at the same time add these responsibilities to ensure safe schools is to be self-defeating. It can't be done because of the funding.

The other thing that the cutting formula is doing is significantly cutting the number of custodial staff in schools. Particularly at the elementary level but also at the secondary level, custodians don't just ensure that we have a clean, environmentally safe school; they also are the eyes and ears, in many cases, for the teaching staff and for the administration of the school in determining if there are problems among students. If there is a student who is acting out, if there is a student who is perhaps skipping class and so on, the custodian is often the first one to know and the first one to alert the teachers and the principal or the vice-principal.

Yet what we're seeing now, because of the cutting formula of this government, is that many schools will not have a full-time custodian, or even a part-time custodian in many cases. In many cases the boards now will have teams of custodial staff who will go to a school perhaps once a week or every two weeks to clean, or they may go more often than that but it may be in the middle of the night when the school isn't even operating. They will not be able to give the kind of support to ensure a safe, secure environment in the school that they now provide. Unfortunately, this government doesn't see custodial services as part of the classroom. Despite the fact that they say they are putting more money into the classroom, they've significantly cut the funds that provide support for the classroom. As a result, we're seeing many custodial staff laid off by boards across this province, thanks directly to the cuts that this government has brought in. How they are going to play the kind of role that I think is necessary to implement a safe schools policy, and certainly necessary to support and help to implement the kind of legislation that's being proposed by the member for Scarborough Centre, I don't know.

I regret that we have what appears to be an attempt to deal with a serious concern of parents, of teachers, of trustees and administrators and of students across Ontario in the proposal of this legislation at the same time we have a government that isn't prepared to put its money where its mouth is in terms of funding proper, safe, secure schools for our students in Ontario.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I am pleased to support this bill which has been brought forward by my colleague from Scarborough Centre. It's a step to assist our educators and students; that's what this bill is all about.

For too many years they have been faced with an onslaught of anti-social behaviour. Every day we hear stories of violence, drugs, gangs, vandalism, swarming, suicide, and other anti-social behaviour which jeopardizes what should be safe havens of learning for our young people. We need to take affirmative action. We need to help our educators maintain and regain control in our schools. We have to reassure teachers that they are not alone in their battle against aggressive, anti-social behaviour, behaviour with which they have been faced for the last 10 or 20 years.

I recently introduced a bill aimed at rewarding responsible students by elevating the responsibility criteria for students' eligibility to obtain or maintain a driver's licence. This bill that my colleague has brought forward is an additional step, a very favourable step, along the path which we need to provide our educators and our students.

I support the bill. Thank you very much to my colleague.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I am very pleased to join this debate. I'd like to say at the outset that no one in this House opposes safe schools and the intent of the kinds of measures that are in this legislation. I know that in my past as a former member of a board of education, I took many actions and worked with school communities, worked with groups like the North York Parent Assembly, to promote safe schools.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): What results did you get?

Mr Caplan: Well, safe school policies are not new to most boards and to most schools, and I'm going to comment on a few issues.

My initial reading of this bill and my initial thoughts on it are that this bill amounts to nothing more than grandstanding. Many of the measures in this bill are contained in current legislation, and the current practices in place seem to be working. In fact, a study done by the member's three crime-busting colleagues, if you will, says that the violence-free school policy which was brought in by the previous government, which mandated that incidents of violence have to be reported as they occur in schools, shows a 23.6% decrease in violent incidents. Amazing. If you read this bill, you get the sense that there is a mounting and escalating problem. It's not held up in fact. In fact, this bill weakens current practices and current legislation.

The second issue that I'm going to talk about is the implementation, because there is no money in the funding formula to provide for some of the measures in this bill.

Finally, I'm going to talk about how far this legislation will go, particularly as it mandates court liaison officers and safe school committees - those provisions are very vague - and some of the potential problems when it comes to privacy issues.

My initial remarks talked about grandstanding, and that's what this is. Some of the measures in this bill, as I said, are already in current legislation, and in fact some of them weaken existing legislation.

The member suggested that he's brought in a new concept of exclusion from schools. I happened to take a look at the Education Act, section 265, under "Access to school or class." It says: "(m) subject to an appeal to the board, to refuse to admit to the school or classroom a person whose presence in the school or classroom would in the principal's judgement be detrimental to the physical or mental wellbeing of the pupils."

Exclusion: The principal can exclude kids from classrooms and from school. This is a new power that the member claims is being proposed. It exists in legislation, it can be enforced by principals, and there's an appeal route to the board. Quite amazing that the member would pass off something that already exists as a new power.

1030

The second instance that I would suggest is in the area of trespass. I have problems with the way this law is set up, because it is far too loose. The prohibitions to entering school property are covered in something called the Trespass to Property Act, an existing piece of legislation. In fact, section 2 of the Trespass to Property Act outlines the rights of school boards. I'll give you one example that I dealt with as a school board trustee.

A family unfortunately had broken up; there was a divorce. The custodial parent was the mother. One day the father showed up at the school, walked into the school and removed the young boy at lunch. The mother hit the roof, because the father did not have that right. The Safe Schools Act allows for unfettered access by any parent to school property. If this was going to have any teeth, they should be custodial parents. That is a very dangerous and difficult practice, and I think the measure that the member has brought in is not well thought out.

I don't have much time, so I'm going to have to go very quickly, but in the area of parental responsibility, the member is proposing to throw out hundreds of years of our justice system, where you no longer have a defence. If you take every reasonable action to maintain discipline with your kids, then you should have a defence against this parental liability issue. What the member is proposing is that you have no defence. If you've been negligent, certainly you should be able to be held liable, but you have no defence.

As the member for Fort William and the member for Algoma spoke about, the funding has been cut by this government. How are they going to come up with the dollars to implement some of these ideas? I would much rather have seen the member stand in his place and talk about adequacy of funding for our schools and fight for adequate funding for our schools.

A couple of other matters: The court liaison officers section is vague. You say "school advisory committees." The access to information I think is quite troublesome as well.

I will not be supporting this legislation, and I can advise the member for Scarborough Centre that he doesn't have to have his constituency assistant call to solicit opinion posing as a home and school group.

I will turn this over to my colleagues.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It's a little bit of a wacky bill, if you get right down to it. I understand the title. The title's consistent with the style over there of titling bills to put a nice spin on them, but when you go through the bill and see what's actually included - and it was so readily commented on by Bud Wildman, the member for Algoma, as well as the member for Fort William, Ms McLeod, and Mr Caplan. It becomes pretty obvious.

I wonder, is this a wannabe crime commissioner? Is he trying to outgun the Three Stooges? I'd be interested in hearing from Mr Newman's close friend and colleague. I know he has a strong rapport with Mr Brown; I know he and Mr Brown share some common interests and they work closely together in a spirit of cooperation. I know they've abandoned self-interest in this level of cooperation, that they join each other. I know they have no dispute between them.

I'm concerned, and I'm anticipating Mr Brown joining this debate. Would Mr Brown attack this as being another liberal bleeding-heart sort of move that is only going to cause further deterioration in our communities? What would a real crime commissioner have to say about this? I'm anxious to hear from a real crime commissioner rather than somebody who merely wants to outgun him.

You've got some weird stuff in here. Maybe I'm out of touch. Look, I come from Niagara, from small-town Ontario. I'm in schools there on a frequent basis.

The business of trespassing on school property: I understand there are a couple of Tory backbenchers, one in particular, who have some intimate familiarity with exclusion from school property. He was told: "Go away. We don't want you here. You're trespassing. Be gone with you." That was the member for Halton Centre. He wasn't charged with trespassing, but it was clear that the school administration, the principal, utilized his powers under the Trespass to Property Act to say: "Go away. We don't want you here. You have no business on the school property." I don't know whether he knew who Mr Young was or not and, if he did know him, whether that was what prompted him to say, "Go away," as compared to a mere stranger on the premises. But in any event, clearly a principal of a school has powers, and Mr Caplan referred to them, under the Trespass to Property Act to say: "Go away. You're not welcome here, and if you don't go away, you'll be arrested." It's as simple as that.

There's a provision in here permitting school boards to have a ban on wearing hats. I understand that for generations past wearing a hat indoors was considered at the very least impolite. I understand that.

Mr Wildman: By a male.

Mr Kormos: By a man. Quite right. I remember going to church as a kid, and women traditionally wore hats; it was required of them.

Interjection.

Mr Kormos: You're right, it's tough to imagine me as a kid, but I remember well women wearing hats in church. It was required of them, quite frankly, in the church that my family belonged to.

A ban on wearing hats smacks of being - I remember the hysteria of the 1960s, when it wasn't hats, it was length of hair. Some of us had hair in the 1960s; some of us have hair now, as compared to other members of this assembly. The subversive quality of long hair - you recall that, Speaker, don't you? By God, the world was going to collapse; we were going to fall into thorough moral decay because kids wanted to grow their hair over their ears, or Lord knows where they wanted - who cares? But the mania, the obsession with long hair, which proved so stupid at the end of the day - the fact is, whether or not it's considered polite by previous generations for somebody to wear a cap with the bill, the beak - what do you call it?

Mr Wildman: The peak.

Mr Kormos: The peak, whatever it is, the sun visor on the cap, down the back of your neck as compared to over your front - do you really care? I'm far more interested in seeing that kid in school, where that kid should be. If that kid feels he's a little cooler, as compared to being less cool, by wearing his cap, do we really care about that? Is that the sort of thing we want to become obsessed with?

As Ms McLeod mentioned, this bill turns back the clock a good number of years. Someone's going to say that's a good thing. This bill endorses corporal punishment. We already know the Criminal Code. Mr Caplan has made reference to it. The Criminal Code makes it clear that anybody can use physical force to resist violence. That's clear; that's a given. This bill encourages the use of violence. I find that very bizarre, that a bill the theme of which is to control violence would at the same time endorse it and reinstate violence as a means of correction. What a bizarre concept it is now, in 1998. I understand that 40 years ago that was considered appropriate. Thank goodness a whole lot has changed in 40 years.

The bill, to me, smacks of something of an insult to the teachers and the young people I know at schools in Welland and Thorold. It denies the reality that down in Niagara region alone we've lost 200 teaching jobs in the last week and a half, 200 jobs gone. Just this week, 94 support staff gone from our schools, not to be replaced: not people who are retiring, who are going to be replaced by new staff, but gone, eliminated.

I hear the member when he says he has consulted with teachers. I don't think the teachers where I come from have been talked to by Mr Newman or by this government, not that they haven't been talked at because Bill 160 spoke volumes to them.

Here's a government that has demoralized the teaching profession, that has gutted - we're going to lose up to 10,000 teachers across the province. It talks about imposing these sorts of standards on what's left. What this government has done by way of Bill 160 is going to result in fewer kids finishing high school, in more discord, more acrimony, more violence, not less.

1040

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure to add some brief comments to the debate this morning. I'd like to start by congratulating my colleague from Scarborough Centre for his perseverance and diligence in the preparation of this bill. Certainly, through my involvement with the ministry, his dedication has been very evident, given the number of hours he has allocated to crafting this bill and the extent of the work he has undertaken with the ministry in preparing the legislation itself, as well as those people who find this issue important in his community.

I would say at the outset that I certainly support the thrust and the intent of this bill, as I trust all members of this Legislature do, in our efforts to ensure that every effort has been taken to protect the safety of our students and our teachers in the classroom.

That issue was heightened again last night as I participated in a public forum on education issues with my colleague from Peterborough, where a parent came forward expressing this very issue, an issue that was important to her as it relates to the young children she has participating in the elementary school system in the Peterborough area. It's a recurring theme I see and hear constantly across this province as I have the opportunity to visit with different education communities and representatives, and it's that recurring theme that re-emphasizes the need, as has been indicated by other members, that is very important: the safety of our schools.

As well, the context of the member's bill, to promote safety and create a positive learning environment for Ontario's students, is very consistent with the government's objectives with respect to education reform in this province. Contrary to the point of view expressed by my friend from Algoma, the government's objective with respect to education reform in this province is clearly one of investing in the students of this province and investing in front-line teachers. It's about making schools places of academic excellence, and clearly my colleague from Scarborough Centre shares that point of view, by ensuring that each and every day that students are in the classroom, the safety mechanisms are there that they need to achieve the academic excellence that both parents and others want to see them achieve in their academic career.

I am somewhat surprised by the comments from the member for Oriole, given his past experiences as a trustee. He will know that typically the use and application of the terminology of exclusion has not been pursued in practice, albeit there is reference in the Education Act. The strength of the Education Act is in the reference to the terminology as it applies to expulsion and suspension. That is why the member for Scarborough Centre has moved, in my opinion, to strengthen the language around the exclusionary provisions that are referenced in the Education Act by placing it in a stronger context with respect to school safety in the future. It's my understanding as well that this is consistent with the direction the Ministry of Education is pursuing in terms of anti-violence and violence-free schools.

I congratulate the member for bringing this forward, I congratulate him for his diligence and for his concern for the safety of students and teachers in this province.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to join the debate here today. I'm not going to repeat what my colleagues on this side of the House have already mentioned. I think there is some violence in our schools, some difficulty in our schools, but if you listen to the government members you'd think that every single student in this province is running around with guns, knives and gang colours on.

The reality is that there are some bad kids, some kids who cause problems. The vast majority of kids in the schools in this province today do not cause the types of problems we've talked about here today. Most of the kids go to school for the right reasons. Most kids go to school and behave.

I want to focus in on the issue of reasonable force. I find it absolutely amazing and ironic that the intent of a bill that is to curb violence in schools advocates violence as a way of achieving that result. Most parents in this province would be appalled to believe that this government wants to give teachers the right to physically assault their kids. Reasonable force is totally open-ended.

My colleague mentioned the defence issue, and nobody would argue with that, in self-defence. Why should any teacher in this province, with the exception of self-defence, have the right to use force on a student? That concept of 30 or 40 years ago, where teachers thought it was appropriate to slam students against lockers, where teachers thought it was appropriate to pick up students and slam them against the wall: I think we have progressed from that stage as a province and as a society. What message do you send to the student?

Teachers don't want that power. They don't want the responsibility in trying to make them police officers in the schools that you're trying to give them. They don't want that.

We got rid of the strap in this province for good reasons. I can tell you I was the victim of 40 or 50 beatings by the strap as a kid. I didn't enjoy it. It was wrong.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Should have got it more often.

Mr Agostino: I can tell my colleague across the floor, sitting there with that smirk, "Should have got it more often," that if you think it's acceptable for your kids to be assaulted by a teacher in a school, I sure don't agree with that concept.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr Agostino: I believe that what you want is simply to continue bully tactics and you're going to try to force teachers to be bullies. Teachers don't want to be bullies. They don't want to use force against students.

Why in a bill that's supposed to promote safe schools, supposed to curb violence, would you suggest that a means to that continues to be giving teachers some power that they don't have or want today, to use force? Think about it, the example to 25 or 30 kids in that classroom when a teacher uses force against one student. It sends out the message that it's acceptable for the kids to use force against each other or against a teacher, and that is a wrong message.

Any educator, anyone who's dealt in the field will tell you that this bill, as it invites the use of force, is wrong. It's detrimental to the kids and it's detrimental to education in the province.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's amazing to hear some of the remarks from members opposite, that there hardly is any problem of violence in the schools today, that the schools are almost like Beaver Cleaver of 1950. I guess reality does impinge in some areas and it certainly has in Metropolitan Toronto and throughout other parts of the province.

To me, the member for Scarborough Centre's bill is one of the fundamental ways of dealing with the problem. What is the problem? Two weeks ago in my own area we had two students stabbed near a school. We've had other incidents in the last year of using guns. But of course the members across would say that's not a product of the schools, it's not a product of society; of course we do have a gun control law from the federal government and that should have solved that problem.

There is no doubt this particular bill deals with some of the specific problems that not only bother teachers and parents, but kids in the schools. Let me quote. The students of Lakeshore Catholic High School, in their own submission to the Crime Control Commission, said, "There should also be zero tolerance in all schools to deal with youth crimes in the area of drugs, weapons and acts of violence."

I have to commend the member for Scarborough Centre for getting this bill prepared with the diligence and the careful preparation that he has brought forward in the bill, because it deals with some of these fundamental problems.

If you look at some of the school boards that have amalgamated, they still haven't developed a coordinated anti-violence policy dealing with this whole issue that the member for Fort William has mentioned. That is another fundamental reason for bringing forward this bill. Not only that, she spoke about the necessity of more resources. In point of fact the Rotary Clubs across this country and in the Metro area haven't been waiting to deal with sexually abused kids who are sometimes the products of schools. We've dealt with it through what is called the Gatehouse, which will be setting up very shortly in the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore's riding. The Gatehouse is funded by the Rotary Club of Toronto West, Etobicoke Sunshine and the Etobicoke Rotary Club. This is community based resources focused at its best.

I hope that the problems we're dealing with in this particular area aren't around, so that the member for Scarborough Centre's son, who was just born about three weeks ago - congratulations - is able to go to school in a free learning environment. That's what we need.

1050

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm going to start by commending and congratulating my good friend the member for Scarborough Centre, Mr Newman, on bringing forward a policy that's long overdue. Zero violence policies and, as the member for Fort William said, safe schools policies are not new. Clarification is what students, parents, teachers and school community councils have wanted for a long time. They've wanted it to clarify their role, duty and what they're authorized to do. But let's face it, today our politically correct, litigious society makes all our jobs much more difficult. Really we need clarification.

I think Mr Newman's attempt in this private member's bill is to outline clearly and specifically the school codes of conduct. I think there's a great role here for all of us to play to clarify the role within the school.

In my riding of Durham East I've met with many parents, parent councils, schools and educators. For the record, recently I met with one of the teachers, Mr Aggett, from Port Perry High School, and the OAC class. They attended a working forum here at Queen's Park. I can tell you, for the record, I was impressed. I was impressed with their behaviour.

I'm generally impressed with youth in our society today. We are generally letting the few marginal people spoil it for the rest of the decent citizens. I think Mr Newman's bill attempts to segregate those groups of individuals that want to spoil it for the rest.

In my riding I've met with principals and school community council chairs who work very hard to develop good working relationships in the schools and make it safe for our students, principals like Sharron Turbovitch and her school community council; Allan Garbe, from Hampton Junior Public School; Sue Medd, from Newcastle Public School; Joanne O'Sullivan; and the Christian schools in my riding.

I think all members here today would want to look at Bill 21, the Safe Schools Act. We need all members to support this. A vote for Mr Newman's bill is a vote for safe school communities. I ask every member to give it serious consideration.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): It gives me great pleasure to rise today and join with my colleagues in support of Dan Newman's private member's bill, the Safe Schools Act, 1998.

I would like to speak to amendments made to subsection (23), suspension and expulsion of pupils, of the Education Act, which creates a new category of suspension called "exclusion." This new tool allows principals to exclude a student under the age of 16 years from the regular class setting and direct that student to attend an alternative education program.

The principal makes these decisions based on a number of criteria, such as, is there a serious risk of the student engaging in dangerous conduct or is the pupil's conduct detrimental to the safety and security of other students or staff? The student shall remain in the alternative program until the principal and other staff are satisfied that the student has received training, therapy or counselling and is unlikely to engage in dangerous conduct or commit conduct similar to that for which the student was excluded.

Too often today kids consider suspension from school an unscheduled holiday. They do not consider this punishment. Parents, on the other hand, are put in the difficult position of having to decide whether or not they leave this child at home unsupervised for the duration because they do not have the flexibility to take unscheduled time from their work. No one wins in this situation. The student, now behind in his school work, will continue to be angry and disruptive. There has been no lesson learned, other than the unintended consequence of a holiday.

Schools and taxpayers cannot be expected to take over parents' responsibilities for the actions of these children. We have to create an environment at home and at school that teaches kids how to think, not just what to think. This should be a process where kids learn that they can make choices, decisions and mistakes, and can continue to grow from all of these. Kids need responsibility and decision-making opportunities so that as they approach adulthood they will be making all their own decisions and will be truly responsible for their own behaviour.

The existing system does not meet these needs; the Safe Schools Act and the alternative education program do. "Exclusion" provides a way for dangerous or at-risk students to be removed from regular classroom settings, while leaving principals enough flexibility to design programs that meet their individual needs. We should remember that the most effective deterrent is not the severity of the punishment but the certainty of it.

Mr Klees: I want to join with my colleagues in congratulating my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre for bringing this bill forward for debate.

I will be supporting this bill for two reasons: first, because I know that my constituents, in the vast majority, support this initiative; second, because I personally believe it's time that this Legislature deal with matters of substance that relate to young people in our province.

This bill deals with some key principles that I'm sure we all support: first, that all students in this province should have the right to know that when they go to school, they're going to a safe place in which they can learn and develop positive relationships; second, the principle that all parents in this province should have the right to know that when their children leave in the morning they are going to a safe place where they can learn, where they can play, where they can develop positive relationships in a supportive and friendly environment that is not threatening to them; third, that all teachers in the province have a right to know they can carry out their profession, they can teach in an environment that is safe, that is conducive to learning and that in the end is positive in developing characteristics in the young people for whom they have responsibility; fourth, this bill sets a framework for our education system within which there are known consequences for inappropriate behaviour, and it also builds in a support system for those young people who have special needs, behavioural problems, and gives them a support to ensure that they can go on to live supportive and productive lives.

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

Mr Newman: I'd like to thank the members for Kitchener, Middlesex, Etobicoke-Rexdale, Durham East, Durham-York and York-Mackenzie for their comments and their support of Bill 21. I want to thank the member for Algoma for his comments. To the member for Welland-Thorold, as wacky as his comments were, I appreciated hearing them; they were rather entertaining. To the member for Fort William, I am quite frankly shocked and disappointed that you're not in favour of this bill and you're not in favour of safe schools. To the member for Oriole, I think you have a lot of nerve making the accusations you made today in your comments, and quite frankly your debate is not even worthy of response on my part.

I'd like to remind all members that this private members' hour is a time when private members can bring forward bills or ideas on behalf of their constituents. That's what I've done here today. This is not a government bill. So I remind opposition members today to show some courage, go against how your leaders' offices are telling to vote against this bill, stand up for safe schools, stand up for the students of Ontario, stand up for the teachers of Ontario and show some courage, because a vote for this bill is a vote for safe schools; a vote against this bill is a vote against safe schools.

Judging from the debate today on the part of the Liberals and NDP, they're simply playing partisan politics and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. I ask them again to show some courage, stand up and vote for this bill, because this bill is what's needed in Ontario today.

In fact, in my own community there was a stabbing right across the road from the high school I attended, R.H. King Academy. So I say to the members opposite, get your heads out of the sand, get out and see what's happening in Ontario today, and you'll know that this is what's needed. This bill is needed in Ontario so we have safer schools.

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

1100

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Whereas a 1996 agreement signed by the Ontario government and the Ontario Medical Association commits the Ministry of Health to spend $36.4 million of new moneys to implement alternative payment plans in medically underserviced communities in the fiscal years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000; and

Whereas in the past fiscal year virtually none of this committed funding was spent due to the government's insistent on funding only a minimum of physicians per community rather than a sustainable physician complement necessary to retain and recruit needed physicians; and

Whereas the Ministry of Health has stated in the Legislature that she is looking for proposals to utilize these funds; and

Whereas a group of 38 physicians in northwestern Ontario eligible for globally funded group practice agreements have worked together with the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario, the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce and the OMA to put such a proposal forward to the Ministry of Health that identifies realistic and practical improvements to the present GFGPA model which, if implemented, would result in sustainable physician recruitment and retention in northwestern Ontario communities; and

Whereas the proposal, if accepted by the Ministry of Health, could serve as a model for many northern and rural medically underserviced communities in the province;

Be it resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Health must fulfil her commitment to provide the positive incentives necessary to attract needed physicians to northern and rural communities; the Minister of Health should negotiate a change in the alternative payment plan agreement so that the committed group practice funding would be based on a sustainable physician complement, a critical mass, in underserviced communities rather than the present underserviced minimum designations; and the Minister of Health should allow funding for physician services to recognize the special and unique workload and responsibilities of physicians practising in northern and rural underserviced areas.

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

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is a very important issue. I think we should have quorum and I don't believe we have one.

The Acting Speaker: Would you please check if we have quorum.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr Gravelle: As you know, Mr Speaker, I have stood in the Legislature on many occasions and spoken about the need for improved, or at least equal, health care service for the people I represent in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario.

The delivery and accessibility of health care is, unquestionably, the number one concern of my constituents, as well as the people across Ontario, and while these concerns involve a wide range of issues from hospital closings, as well as severe acute care bed closures imposed by the restructuring commission, to the growing need for more long-term-care beds, to the massive job losses suffered by our nursing professionals and the need to move forward with the unique services that can be provided by nurse practitioners - and certainly I cannot fail to mention the dire state of our mental health care system - there is still one area of service that has bedevilled governments of all stripes for many, many years, and that is the chronic shortage of doctors in our northern and rural communities.

Speaker, think about it. What could be more upsetting to an individual and their families than to seek needed medical care from a qualified physician and discover that no physician is there to treat them. That sounds like something that should not be happening in Ontario. Yet, as all members of this House will know, that is a harsh reality in many parts of the province, a reality that is at present being dealt with by designating an extraordinary number of communities in northern and rural Ontario as underserviced and providing a variety of incentives to attract doctors to locate and stay in these communities.

But it is very clear that in 1998 the measures that are now in place under this program are not sufficient to meet this crisis and new, innovative ideas, which will require some flexibility by the Ministry of Health, must be considered seriously and then put into place. Let's make no mistake about it. New concepts must be agreed upon by the minister that will make recruitment of doctors more successful in all these communities, but the real measure of success will ultimately be the retention of these physicians; in other words, will they stay?

Until we deal with the retention issue, we will continue in the cycle that we now find ourselves: Too many communities with too few doctors treating too many patients; the doctors, dedicated as they are, becoming burned out by the extraordinary demands and being forced to make the inevitable decision that there are only so many years they can provide their services and, as a result, they move, leaving patients in underserviced areas scrambling to find a doctor.

Yet I believe there is hope. It is with that hope in mind that I stand here today seeking all-party support for my private member's resolution, a resolution that calls upon the Minister of Health to fulfil her commitment to provide the necessary incentives to attract needed physicians to northern and rural communities.

To give the government its due, that commitment has been made by the Minister of Health. Late in 1996, an agreement was signed by the Ontario government and the Ontario Medical Association that committed the Ministry of Health to spend $36.4 million of new moneys to implement alternative payment plans in medically underserviced communities through the fiscal years of 1997-98 to 1999-2000. The problem? The fiscal year 1997-98 has come and gone and virtually none of the committed $36.4 million was spent recruiting physicians to our underserviced communities.

I recognize that there is not a simple solution to this long-standing problem; in fact there may be different solutions in different communities. My resolution does not ask this House to support one model or one method of using these committed funds. However, in the Legislature recently, in response to a question that I asked about the moneys not being spent last year, the Ministry of Health stated that, "The money is there, it's ready to go; we're simply waiting for people to take us up on the offer."

I can tell the House today that at least one proposal has been brought forward that, in many ways, has motivated this resolution today. Last year, in response to the agreement signed by the Ontario government and the Ontario Medical Association, a group of physicians in northwestern Ontario, with the support of the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario, put forward a proposal that they believe, if implemented, could solve the problem of chronic doctor shortages in many of our underserviced communities.

Their proposal has several components to it, but the crucial aspect of it deals with the issue of critical mass, the need for a sustainable physician complement in our underserviced communities. At the present time the underserviced area program designates the number of doctors who are required in each community, but the fact is that these minimum designations frequently do not take into account the reality of providing medical services in many northern and rural communities. The on-call demands alone can be overwhelming as, with too few physicians, one could be working virtually non-stop and finding that's the only way that doctors can meet the patients' needs.

The proposal put forward also calls for globally funded and salaried contracts, not fee for service, so that physicians are all working through a group practice for the community. The fact is that our northern and rural communities require unique solutions to solve the chronic doctor shortages, and this well-thought-out local proposal recognizes and deals with that reality. The fact also is that unless the minister is prepared to look at this proposal seriously, the problem of doctor shortages will persist in many of our communities and continued opportunities will be lost.

As George Macey, vice-president of the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce put it, and I'll quote him: "This resolution deals head on with the issues faced by doctors practising in northern and rural communities. The government took a positive first step in signing the agreement, yet they are refusing to let northern communities work out precise local service priorities." And that gets to the heart of it. Each community knows its local needs the best. Flexibility must be shown by the minister in order to have these committed and needed funds properly utilized.

1110

In wrapping up, I want to thank the many people and communities that have helped me put together this resolution and offered me their very strong support.

Certainly I want to thank Dr Michael Sylvester, the Marathon physician who is a spokesperson for the northwestern Ontario group putting forward the proposal, and Dr George Macey, Dave Barker and Dick McKenzie, executive members of the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce, who are strongly supportive of the proposal, and of course, PAIRO, for their advice and support.

I also want to thank Dr Ian Park, chair of the Ontario Medical Association on Rural Practice, for the invaluable information and insight he provided.

I must give particular thanks to the municipalities that wrote me in support of this resolution, for this is an issue that affects them and the residents of their communities so profoundly. I think it's important to note that this support came from all across the province, with representatives of all three parties looking after these constituents. So thanks to the townships of Terrace Bay and Norwich, the township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen, the towns of Nickel Centre, Aylmer, Kirkland Lake, New Liskeard, Mount Forest and Sioux Lookout, which supported this resolution strongly themselves but did it also on behalf of the towns of Ignace and Pickle Lake, the municipality of Bayham and the villages of Dundalk and Newbury, and all the others that time does not permit me to mention, but I'm very grateful.

The truth is that we have an opportunity today to do something good, and something good for the residents of northern and rural communities all across this province, and I think we need to seize that opportunity. All the residents of our northern and rural communities deserve high-quality and accessible health care, and access to a physician is clearly a priority. Support for this resolution today by all parties in the House may convince the minister to look at the proposal put forward in northwestern Ontario more seriously and, if she does, we will all be the better for it. For the truth is that this proposal can serve as a model for the province, and it is not stretching the truth to say that the globally funded model could also one day be applied in larger communities, like my home town of Thunder Bay, for clinics and services that focus on group practices.

We need to see the possibilities and to grab the opportunity. I believe that today we can move in that direction by supporting this resolution and providing the people of northern and rural Ontario with the quality health care that they prize, that they need and that they deserve.

I thank you for the time today. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and hope that I am able to receive all-party support for this resolution.

Mrs Boyd: I want to thank the member for bringing forward this issue in this way today because it is extremely important at this juncture in time for people in Ontario to understand that there are ways we can solve the underservicing problem. There are many mechanisms that could be used to solve this problem of communities that have a hard time keeping and retaining physicians in their community.

These models are models that have the support, particularly of the young interns and residents complements that have been coming forward over the last few years, but also of the community groups that have struggled to find ways to break through the fee-for-service system of payment of doctors which has disadvantaged rural and northern communities for a long period of time.

The issue of alternative payment plans for physicians is a very thorny one, and no one should underestimate the effect of the political pressure that governments of every stripe have faced from the established political direction of the OMA. It is quite clear that the resistance to any change to fee for service is a political issue that continues to be fostered by the leadership of the OMA. I think it would naïve of any of us not to see that kind of pressure as being one of the reasons that the government has not moved forward with a specific provision of the agreement that it signed with the OMA, which is now in its second year.

In fact, I would go so far as to say this is one of the few positive aspects of that agreement at all, the provision of $36.4 million for globally funded group practices for northern and rural areas. There's very little else that serves the community in that OMA agreement. There's a great deal that serves the pocketbooks of physicians. There's little that serves the community as a whole; there's little that serves the other health care professionals; there's little that serves the province as a whole. It is simply a mechanism whereby most of the additional operating dollars that are in the health budget are going directly into the pockets of fee-for-service physicians, and I think we need to be very clear about that.

When the government did agree to a plan that set aside additional dollars to go forward with this, there was great hope that at last the government was going to recognize the need to move forward. When I talk about the resistance of the OMA to alternative payment plans, you only have to read their various publications to understand how deep this goes, and to read the plans and the speeches of Dr Wendy Graham, who led the so-called pilot effort around alternative payment plans.

For one thing, the OMA, although it appears to have dropped its very vehement opposition to existing community health centres, is very clear that it will oppose the establishment of any additional community health centres, even though communities all over this province have made it clear that they favoured the model of community health care centres in some areas. The $36.4 million and the lack of success in terms of the negotiation which the member has outlined so clearly in terms of the rigidity that the ministry has insisted upon in terms of number of physicians, in terms of the mix of health care professionals, is another area.

I'd like to talk specifically about the issue of the agreement itself and how it in itself mitigates against changes, conversions to an alternative payment plan. I think we all ought to be concerned to realize that very clearly the OMA has taken a position in that agreement that any further conversions to any form of alternative payment plan are not allowed. They are claiming that even the $36.4 million is a conversion. I can give some backup to that, because in a letter from Minister Witmer dated December 10, 1997, in response to a request from Seeleys Bay, a small two-doctor community in southeastern Ontario, for community-sponsored contracts, she said:

"The current ministry agreement with the Ontario Medical Association stipulates that the fee-for-service funding amount shall not be reduced by conversions that occur from fee-for-service to alternative payment plans. As a result, the ministry's ability to negotiate and finance new alternative payment arrangements needs to be resolved within our current framework of discussions with the OMA."

In other words, the agreement that this government signed with the OMA gave the OMA the complete whip hand in terms of determining how we were going to provide services to underserviced areas, the complete whip hand to prevent conversion to alternative payment plans, which every community that is underserviced wants available to them as a mechanism.

1120

The Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario has done us all a great service in this province by going throughout the province, throughout northern Ontario and most recently in southwestern Ontario, talking to communities about what it is they want, what they would support, what they expect the government to do. Their reports are very clear. They had very extensive consultations. Their report that is dated March 1998, Toward Solutions: Recruiting and Retaining Physicians in Southwestern Ontario, states very clearly that communities understand they are not served by the fee-for-service mechanism when they are small, when they are rural, when many of the amenities that are there for physicians in large urban areas are not present for them.

Communities are demanding that the government take a much more active role in its so-called negotiations with the OMA to prevent the OMA from stopping them from coming into these alternative payment plans. The difficulty that Mr Gravelle mentioned faced by communities throughout northern Ontario is replicated in southwestern and southeastern Ontario, where the very same problems prevail, although the mileage may be somewhat different.

The real issue here is, are we, as a community, signing agreements with the OMA to benefit doctors or are we signing agreements with the OMA to benefit patients? The answer from the agreement that was signed by this government some time ago was that it was clearly to the benefit of physicians, but there's much less clarity about how it benefits the citizens.

I know that when the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health gets up he's going to talk about the wonderful pilot projects that have been set up, and he's going to try and tell us that these are the answer. He needs to explain in his speech why there is no control on those projects to prevent those networks of physicians from creaming out of their patient complement all the difficult and time-consuming patients that they don't wish to service. He also needs to explain in his speech how the government is actually going to evaluate whether or not the service is improved for consumers, not just whether doctors like it, which is what seems to prevail in the dealings that this current minister and this government have with physicians, but whether the citizens of Ontario are better served by the huge numbers of dollars that we're pouring into health care.

As we debate this resolution, it's extremely important for us to ask why, when the government did include a specific amount of money for globally funded group practices, they have not listened to both the communities and physicians who know how that will work, who know the minimum requirements to make that work and insist on the inflexibility and the absolute roadblock that has been set up by the OMA and by the Ministry of Health.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to rise to offer my comments on the member for Port Arthur's resolution before the House today, and a couple of other members of my caucus as well. As previous speakers have said, it's not an issue of physician supply in Ontario; it's an issue of distribution. How do we get the physicians to come to the underserviced areas, whether it's in the riding of Port Arthur or in Niagara South or in Middlesex, around London, for example?

In terms of a general perspective, some of the recent government announcements of improvements in health care help to make Ontario a better place to attract health care professionals like physicians either to stay in Ontario or to come into Ontario. A couple of examples: the $1.2 billion invested in long-term care; 20,000 new beds across the province, with thousands of other refurbishments and improvements in long-term-care facilities, relieving some of the pressures in that area and helping to make the province more attractive, a better health care system; $60 million announced recently for mental health, to improve community-based programs for mental health patients, the multidisciplinary approach and the ACTT programs, for example, again to improve the quality of health care in the community and make it more attractive for health care professionals to practise in the province.

Primary care pilots, as the member for London Centre had mentioned - I appreciated her advice on my comments, but my time is constrained and I'll address Mr Gravelle's resolution. That's a debate we can have another time. But we certainly see primary care reform as a key to helping to attract physicians to the rural, northern and underserviced areas and I think we lose track of this. We have seen a 7% increase in physicians in the past five years in the province. Again the issue is, how do you get them to Port Colborne to support the work of Dr Remington and his team there - Fort Erie, the same thing, Marathon or Emo or other parts of the province?

There are three basic principles in the member from Port Arthur's resolution after the preamble: first of all, to offer the proper incentives to attract physicians to rural and northern areas. I believe that the incentives we've put into place in this government will work: the negative incentives, the discounted billing through OHIP for the overserviced areas, coupled with positive incentives like the $36 million, like the community contracts and the group practice issue that we're dealing with today. The payment is about $10,000 on top of the average fee-for-service billing in that area. I think the proper incentives are there. I agree that they're necessary, no doubt about it: negative incentives for overserviced areas, positive ones for underserviced. I believe that in the approach we've taken, those incentives are there.

The member also asks for a change in the ultimate payment program plans for "sustainable physician complement." I would say there's a flexibility in the group practice to allow for a sustainable group complement. In fact, that's what the goal is, I would say, to the package we are offering. In Marathon, which was brought up in the earlier discussions, on a strict population basis, and correct me if I'm wrong, the complement would be three physicians. The group practice allocation complement is five. We are recognizing the unique needs of rural and northern areas. That is a sustainable complement, I would argue, not a minimum. The minimum would be around three or fewer. We are approaching that and the ministry has been flexible in negotiating with communities to ensure that sustainable complement is there.

Third, he talks about the unique responsibilities and workload. Again, I would say that the GFGP does this already. The contract plan is for the average fee-for-service billing for that particular region, not for other parts of the province or the province as a whole but the particular region in which the municipality exists plus about $10,000. There are additional fees available for additional services provided by the doctors in that community: locum support; some time, obviously, as any person would raising a family; vacation, additional training and such.

I would argue that the principles are on line in terms of proper incentives, in terms of sustainable physician complement and recognizing the unique workloads and responsibilities. I support the principles in the resolution. I would argue that there is not the need to go and renegotiate the contract that was negotiated in late 1996 into 1997. We have the flexibility in our current program to meet those needs. We have seen more communities come on board - Manitouwadge, for example. Three others have recently expressed interest. We're negotiating with Little Current, Englehart and Emo, to name three. Four more, I guess, have entered into the initial stages. I believe that the package we have fits the needs. I support the member's resolution in principle and therefore I'll be voting in favour of the principles in the resolution of the member for Port Arthur.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): We are very heartened to hear that the parliamentary assistant in his non-partisan capacity is able to support this resolution. It is important. This is a time that the House has to be able to provide some advice to the government, to be able to tell them where they may be falling down and where they need to improve. Thanks to the member for Port Arthur, we have that opportunity here today.

The $36.4 million is not the largest expenditure this government hasn't made or could make, but there's a lot more at stake. The fundamentals of this are about, do people who live in rural and northern areas of this province have the right for this government to make every effort to give them access to physicians? Is that not something we would expect of any reasonable government? In effect, this is the only measure we can look to in terms of being able to provide that effective right to the people of this area. The success of this means that fundamental service is either available or it's not. It means that those of us who live in urban areas can only relate very conceptually to the idea of not having a doctor there to respond when you have all the same fundamental health needs. So the service component is first and foremost.

1130

But this goes deeper because this is about this government's promises. This is a government that promised explicitly, clearly in December 1996, as part of the deal with physicians in this province, that it would spend each year $36 million. It helped some of the people in this province believe that this government was getting the message that quality things had to be done for health care. People in all communities appreciated that some extra effort had to be made to ensure access to physicians in this province, which many people are now calling a crisis. It doesn't just affect what we would traditionally think of as underserviced areas, northern and rural areas, but also places like Windsor and Kitchener-Waterloo and Guelph. If the government can't yet determine where it is most conspicuous, what chance do we have that they're going to do it elsewhere?

On the issue of promises, a government that can't be depended on to deliver its most fundamental promises, the ones that relate to people's health and wellbeing, that have all-partisan support, is really a government that brings itself into disrepute and distrust. Today the members of that government have a chance to prove otherwise.

We look also for what this means in the north in general. This is something, in terms of access to doctors, that falls into the same category as some of the slashing that's happened to hospitals. Taking apart some of the ability of hospitals to function has implications for a definition of what a northern and rural community can be in terms of quality of life. It starts to govern whether people, no matter where they live - Geraldton or Marathon or any of the communities - can have access to the very things they need to be able to sustain a community. It's shortsighted of us not to recognize that if we're prepared not to concede that quality of life is something we want to be concerned with. Let's at least recognize that economic development can't happen either unless there's a platform of some basic, fundamental services.

We heard from the parliamentary assistant that everything is fine and that the principles of this resolution are simply reinforcing that. We need to understand that it's somewhat different than that. What needs to happen is some real action and some real adjustment in the thinking on the part of the government. We have here a vision on the part of physicians, the people who live in the north. When we look at the people who have signed - Dr Jackson-Hughes in Nipigon, Dr Hollway and Dr Klassen in Marathon, Dr Larochelle in Manitouwadge, Dr Galea in Geraldton - we recognize that this is also an issue of, "Will this government listen?"

Will this government listen to local communities when local communities come together with the doctors they've been able to attract and say, "You need to do something different; you need to adjust"? Can you adjust? Can you bring into account what local communities have been telling you, have gone to considerable energy and effort to say to you as a government that you need to be able to do this, particularly and conspicuously when it's something you've already agreed to do, when you already promised you would do this on behalf of the citizens and physicians of those communities and for the integrity of the province as a whole? If we can't provide and can't commit to provide the best efforts to some equality, some justice in terms of health care, then you can't be credible anywhere in the province if we don't do it where the needs are most conspicuous.

I'm very glad today to be able to rise in support of Mike Gravelle, who has been a champion of this issue, as other members have been for their communities. It is extremely important to learn today whether we in our private members capacity can request and receive that amount of understanding and adjustment from this government. The real test will be, after this vote today, will this government act in a very short time?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I also want to thank the member for Port Arthur for coming forward today and presenting to the government an opportunity that they, I don't think, have any choice but to act on. We've had this problem in northern Ontario and rural Ontario for a long time now. Different governments have come at it from different perspectives and none of us have been successful in finding an answer to the doctor shortage that continues to bewitch all those communities that so desperately need the care of well-trained, committed and dedicated doctors in our communities.

The member bringing the bill forward today talks of a model that has been put together in northwestern Ontario that obviously has a buy-in from the doctors who practise in that area, a goodly number of them, that obviously has a buy-in from the communities which will be served by that particular model that he is fully committed to supporting and trying to be helpful in moving forward.

I want to say to you this morning that there are other models. There has been good work done by other groups of people around this province in an attempt to answer this particular challenge, and it would behoove the government to take a close look at those models and to give the kind of resource and encouragement and support to those groups that will help them put in place or continue to grow those answers that are out there already or that are being developed that will go a way to resolving this very difficult challenge.

In my own community there is the Group Health Centre, a facility that was put together in the early 1960s by the United Steelworkers of America, who recognized that their members weren't getting the kind of health care they needed, given some of the very difficult health problems they were facing at work, in the community and at home. So a group of Steelworkers got together with some other professionals in the community and outside the community to put in place a structure and an operation that has grown in spite of some very aggressive and effective opposition in the community and outside the community and they have succeeded today in providing to our community opportunities that we otherwise would not have.

I only have to speak to you about a couple of doctors I have spoken to who operate through the Group Health Centre to help you understand how effective that institution has been in attracting doctors to Sault Ste Marie and keeping them there, so in Sault Ste Marie we at least have some degree of success on this issue. I remember going to a doctor at the Group Health Centre and his telling me how nice it was that when he came to work in the morning he didn't have to worry about all the administrative details that so many of the doctors do in private practice these days. When he comes to work in the morning, all he has to think about is his patients and delivering the service they require, and when he goes home at night, he doesn't have to worry about whether the nurse is going to make it the next day or whether the office administrator is having a problem at home and won't be able to come in for the shift. He just has to comes in and provide service.

Another doctor said he was attracted to Sault Ste Marie as a young doctor because the Group Health Centre was there, because he could walk into a practice that was already established and set up. He wouldn't have to go through the long-drawn-out process of setting up a practice in the larger areas where it often takes years to get something as simple as hospital privileges.

The Group Health Centre in Sault Ste Marie stands out as a beacon in many ways and is something that the Ministry of Health should be willing to look at as it tries desperately to find an answer to this very difficult and challenging question. I suggest that this government needs to be a bit more courageous, a bit more willing to step out and give leadership and take some risks, because if you're not courageous and you're not willing to take risks on behalf of the people in northern Ontario and rural Ontario who are counting on you to help provide the kind of service they need by way of health care, then it's not going to happen. The Group Health Centre is an excellent example of that.

1140

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I rise in support today, in principle, of Michael Gravelle's private member's resolution asking the government to continue building on its commitment to address the long-standing problems of physician distribution to underserviced areas in northern and rural Ontario.

While Ontario is considered to have an adequate supply of physicians overall, there is a persistent problem with physician distribution, and numerous communities in the province have long-standing difficulties in recruiting and retaining physicians. The government is working with stakeholder groups such as the Ontario Medical Association, the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario and the Council of Ontario Faculties of Medicine to find solutions to this ever-growing concern.

The underserviced area program has been helpful in addressing the problem faced by this communities by initiating financial incentives, locums, visiting clinics and exemptions to billing thresholds, but there still seems to be a reluctance on the part of physicians to relocate in an underserviced area such as Mount Albert, a village located within the town of East Gwillimbury in my riding of Durham-York. Their need for a physician is based on a growing number of seniors, as well as young families, making their home in this village. Public transportation is not readily available, and residents find it difficult or impossible to travel to Newmarket or Toronto.

The Sunderland-Brock Community Health Centre in Brock township, located in my riding of Durham-York, has also applied to be designated as an underserviced area. As of today, this community has raised over $80,000 towards the expansion of their medical facility. They hope the expansion of their medical facility, coupled with an underserviced area designation, will be the winning formula which will encourage doctors to relocate to their area.

International studies suggested that when medical training is provided in rural and remote areas, physicians who have received their training are more inclined to set up practices there. Medical schools not oriented to rural medicine tend to create a negative attitude about rural practice. Our government took this advice and set up the northern Ontario health sciences network. There was a reallocation of training resources from existing programs in southern health science centres to northern Ontario. Its focus is on the unique challenges of northern practice, where family physicians and specialists must be more self-reliant, because specialists and sub-specialists are less available in the north.

There is $36.4 million available to deal with the issue of underfunding and the shortage of doctors. The minister has stated in the Legislature that the money is there and it's ready to go. We are simply waiting for people to take us up on this offer. Our priority is to serve patients first. We have been working hard to accommodate doctors' demands for alternative payment arrangements where they are needed.

The rural and northern health care framework, while focusing on the development of hospital and health care networks, is also committed to expanding rural and northern training opportunities for medical undergraduate students and residents, and to facilitate additional training opportunities for nurses working in rural and northern hospitals. This government is looking at a variety of different options to encourage doctors to practise in underserviced areas. This is in addition to the significant steps we have already taken to help attract doctors to rural and northern communities.

My caucus colleague Helen Johns, MPP for Huron, has introduced a private member's resolution which would have the effect of reducing tuition fees for physicians and doctors going into remote areas. The government has committed to reviewing this suggestion as part of our solution. We recognize that there are other factors that have a significant impact on a physician's decision to relocate to remote or rural areas, such as proximity to family and friends and availability of employment for spouses. Our government has taken more steps than any other government in an attempt to address this issue. We are confident that the incentives put in place by this government will help improve Ontarians' access to medical services.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I'm happy to rise and participate in this debate on an important resolution from my colleague from Port Arthur, a resolution that calls on the Minister of Health to provide the positive incentives that are necessary to get needed physicians to northern and rural communities. I can't stress how essential it is that action be taken. I can't stress enough to members opposite that we face very real situations in our northern communities where access to basic needed health care is seriously threatened by the critical lack of physicians. This is not some potential future danger; this is the reality today.

In my home community of Thunder Bay we are at this point short 28 family doctors. What this means is that people who have come to our community have been there two years, three years and have no hope of being able to get a family doctor. What this means is that there is an overuse of our emergency rooms because there is no place else for people to go. They can't call their family doctor. They don't have a family doctor and they have little hope of having one. It certainly means that there is little ability of the physician to remain to see patients on a regular enough basis that there could be an emphasis on health maintenance and illness prevention.

There are as well shortages in many critical areas, and today I particularly want to stress the shortage we face in psychiatric services in northwestern Ontario, another critically underserviced area.

In southern Ontario you have one psychiatrist to 1,500 people. In northwestern Ontario we have one psychiatrist to 33,000 people. The caseload in southern Ontario would be about 1,200 patients for the average psychiatrist. In northwestern Ontario many psychiatrists have caseloads over 5,000. We are so short of psychiatrists that our psychiatrists have reached the point of saying, "We simply cannot see the patients," and patients in need of immediate care are being turned away. We may have to close psychiatric beds. We may face the prospect of having to send acute psychiatric patients to southern Ontario.

One of the reasons we face this acute crisis in psychiatry is because of the uncertainty in health care planning, and that is related to the underserviced area issue. With our psychiatric hospital to close, with no mental health care agency established to do the planning to provide the community services that are supposed to be in place before any loss of beds, there is tremendous uncertainty about whether we will have psychiatric services, whether we will have enough beds to provide psychiatric care. In that climate of uncertainty, it is very difficult to recruit psychiatrists to fill the void that's left when our psychiatrists are either retiring or indeed leaving the community because the stress of the workload has simply become too great.

But beyond the need for clear planning and action to address the future in psychiatric care, I come back to the fact that we need to have creative ways to meet the needs in all underserviced areas, and that's the focus of my colleague's resolution. His focus is on the fact that $36.4 million that was set aside by the government last year for the Ministry of Health was not spent, despite the fact that the need is acute now and has been acute for many years, despite the fact that models for the creative alternative approach to providing health care in northern communities have been presented. They've been on the minister's desk for months, if not years.

My colleague has specifically talked about the model put forward by the Northeastern Ontario Association of Chambers of Commerce and by PAIRO, the residents and interns association, which have done tremendous work to put forward creative alternatives for ensuring that underserviced areas not only can recruit physicians but can retain physicians.

Two quick facts: It's important to recognize that rostering, which seems to be the government panacea, does not work in underserviced communities. Rostering is for overserviced communities in the hope that doctors will leave the overserviced communities and come to areas in northern and rural Ontario. The second fact is that we need long-term solutions. We need a comprehensive approach to dealing with underserviced area needs.

A four-year incentive program, although it has been a valuable stopgap, isn't enough to keep people in our communities. We need ongoing professional development. We need locums who will come in and give physicians in small communities some respite so they can take a vacation. We need to expand our training programs so that people who come and train in northern Ontario or in rural communities will stay in those communities. We need accurate information, accurate data, on what the needs really are. We can't assume that minimum numbers of physicians are going to be enough to meet the health care needs.

The bottom line is that we need to ensure that every Ontarian, wherever they live in this province, has access to health care services when and where they need them.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to join in the debate on the resolution tabled by the member for Port Arthur. Although I do not necessarily agree with everything the member brings up in his resolution, I do appreciate and support his concern for the provision of quality health care in Ontario.

As the representative for the riding of Perth, I spent a great deal of time over the last three years trying to improve the health services available to my constituents. All too often in the past governments have avoided the issues surrounding health care in small communities in Ontario, and it is the small communities in Ontario that have suffered.

When asked how they would describe the best place in North America to live, my constituents respond by naming their hometowns: Stratford, Listowel, St Marys, Milverton and Mitchell. They see what I see and they know that is why I am proud, honoured and humbled to represent them.

1150

The people of county Perth also see the need for efficient and effective health care services that are available when they need them. They know that I will fight for those needs and they know that is why I support the government's initiatives, such as (1) the $70 an hour sessional fee for physicians working nights, weekends and holidays in emergency departments in rural communities; (2) the community development officer program which matches communities recruiting physicians with physicians looking to establish a practice in rural communities; (3) the development of rural medical training through the rural Ontario medical program in Collingwood and the southwestern rural Ontario rural medical program based in Goderich; (4) the expansion of rural and northern training opportunities for medical undergraduate students, as well as additional training opportunities for nurses working in rural and northern hospitals, which is offered through the government's rural and northern health care framework.

The health care needs of people in rural areas of the province are not the same as the needs in the more urban areas. The initiatives introduced by this government, which I have just mentioned, are the first steps towards addressing the difficulties faced in underserviced rural communities.

A more profound recognition of rural health needs is reflected in the new health care policies adopted by the hospitals in Huron and Perth. I'd like to congratulate the members of the Huron-Perth District Health Council, the task force and the many men and women in the health care field in Perth. They have begun implementing a plan to provide for more efficient and effective health care services in county Perth. Hospitals in my area have implemented a proposal to restructure that will see a reduction in administration and an increase in service provision.

The Huron-Perth plan calls for a single board of directors for all eight hospitals and for sharing of administrative staff and resources, such as food and laundry services. Once again, the people of Perth are setting a benchmark for others in the province to rise to, and I congratulate them.

The policies of this government have presented an opportunity for doctors to come to the rural areas and see what is offered. I may be a little biased, but I maintain that anyone who takes the time to come and live and experience the riding of Perth would never willingly leave. The people of Perth county work hard and they deserve the best.

Rural and northern Ontario have different needs in health care provision and this government is recognizing that. I'm happy to see that the member for Port Arthur recognizes that as well, and that he is supportive of this government's initiatives to provide positive incentive to physicians to practise in rural and remote areas of the province.

In response to the resolution presented by the member for Port Arthur, I agree wholeheartedly that the Minister of Health should continue to provide positive incentives necessary to attract needed physicians to rural communities. In addition, we must all, not just the minister, recognize the special and unique workload and responsibilities for physicians practising in rural underserviced areas.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm delighted to be here on this Thursday morning to support the very timely resolution of my colleague the member for Port Arthur. I've enjoyed that part of the debate that I've been able to hear.

As a member from rural eastern Ontario, this is a subject I have dealt with almost all of my time here, and I want to say that it's not just an issue, as my friend from Port Arthur knows, for communities like Red Rock and Nipigon, but a vitally important issue in communities like Barry's Bay, Deep River, Bancroft and Whitney, to name four in my part of eastern and midnorthern Ontario.

The aspect of the resolution that I would like to focus upon is the question of critical mass. Governments of all stripes over my 23 years have, with the best of intentions, developed and amended the so-called underserviced area program, and I say "with the best of intentions" because quite frankly the intentions have often been better than the results.

The major issue I see as a difficulty in producing the results we have wanted is that we have under our underserviced program in too many cases ended up with a sole practitioner in a small town like Whitney, for example, in the district of Nipissing that I represent. The reality is that a sole practitioner in the small, rural and northern communities is, after a relatively short period of time, just pounded into the ground. None of us, notwithstanding our best intentions, is going to be able to survive the kind of rigour and daily pressure that is applied. That has led to very undesirable consequences. We've had a revolving door. People come, they work very hard, and the burnout rate is very high. So the door just keeps spinning.

What I like about the resolution today is this notion of critical mass. For that to work, it's going to mean that communities are going to have to say, "Rather than each one of us having a sole practitioner, a lone ranger running like mad trying to keep up with the pressures of daily practice, we are going to have to all sit down and say, `Maybe it's a better thing to develop a critical mass of a number of practitioners clustered in a given community and from that critical mass have outreach programs into smaller communities.'"

I say to the member for Port Arthur, I commend you for the resolution. I particularly find attractive the argument that new policy has got to deal with the critical mass issue. Lone rangers cannot survive practising modern medicine in these small towns. I have too many examples of very good people who left town battered and beleaguered because they simply couldn't keep up with the professional pressures, and their spouses and their families, as I think the member for Perth and someone else observed, also couldn't cope with the pressures. There's just simply no getting relief; there's no getting away from the daily grind and the pressures that are out there.

I find it interesting that an agreement signed nearly two years ago that allocated over several years millions of dollars to stimulate interest in creative new alternative payment schemes has not been taken up in any meaningful way. I congratulate the government and the OMA for making the deal providing the $35 million or $36 million - but nothing yet spent? We've got a proposal up in northwestern Ontario waiting for attention, waiting for support; still no response.

Again, intentions are one thing, but results are another. There are a lot of people whom I represent and my colleagues from rural and northern constituencies represent who are hopeful that we are going to be able to translate good intentions into good results.

The member for Port Arthur is very timely in his resolution and its focus. I repeat: A critical aspect of achieving a better success is dealing with this critical-mass issue. We have not done a very good job in the past, and the member for Port Arthur points to a better and more positive possibility.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Port Arthur, two minutes.

Mr Gravelle: I want to thank all those who spoke this morning: the members for London Centre, Niagara South, Sault Ste Marie, York South, Fort William, Durham-York, Perth, and of course the member for Renfrew North. I appreciate that they all spoke in essence in support of this resolution.

The member for Fort William talked about the primary health care reform pilot projects that are out there. I think the key point that needs to be made is that indeed the rostering system cannot work unless you have enough doctors there to actually do the rostering. Obviously the intent of this resolution is to ask this government to show the flexibility that's needed to make sure these agreements can be brought forward.

The proposal by the northwestern Ontario physicians is one that can work, but it requires the government to acknowledge that, yes, they've signed the agreement. We acknowledge that and we congratulate them for doing that, but they need to show flexibility and recognize that it's the local communities themselves that will recognize the needs.

I'm also grateful to the member for Renfrew North for talking about the whole essence of critical mass, because that is a very, very important point and it's one that is brought forward very clearly in that proposal.

I'm hoping we can receive all-party support today. There are certainly many other issues of concern that I alluded to ever so briefly in my remarks earlier. I don't want to divert from the main essence of my resolution, but I do want to also make mention of the fact that of course the mental health care crisis in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario is one that we have great concerns about. I did ask the minister yesterday if she would bring forward information as to how the moneys she has announced will be spent and what amount will be spent in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario and asked her to deal with the issue of the closure of Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital. I hope that she is able to follow through and provide us with that information today.

In terms of my resolution, I am grateful for the support. I hope it is forthcoming from all members. I believe this is something that could really make a difference to the people who need health care desperately in northwestern Ontario and all across the province.

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

SAFE SCHOOLS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES ÉCOLES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 15 standing in the name of Mr Newman.

Mr Newman has moved second reading of Bill 21, An Act to promote Safety in Ontario Schools and create positive Learning Environments for Ontario Students by making amendments to the Education Act.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 16 standing in the name of the member for Port Arthur.

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

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

SAFE SCHOOLS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES ÉCOLES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We're now voting on second reading of Bill 21 presented by Mr Newman.

All those in favour of the bill will please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Boushy, Dave

Bradley, James J.

Chudleigh, Ted

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Grimmett, Bill

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Phillips, Gerry

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Boyd, Marion

Caplan, David

Cullen, Alex

Lessard, Wayne Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 36; the nays are 7.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

This bill will now be referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'd request that Bill 21 be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour, please rise. We have a majority. Therefore, the bill will be referred to general government.

All matters related to private members' business having been completed, I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On behalf of our Liberal caucus I rise for the purpose of recognizing a special event that occurred 100 years ago, on June 12, 1898, the establishment of a free, independent and democratic republic of the Philippines.

Philippines Independence Day is not only an important date in history, but it has great significance to our Canadian citizens of Filipino heritage.

In recognition of the important contributions that Canadians of Filipino heritage have made to the economic and cultural enrichment of our province and country, the blue, red and white flag of the independent Philippines will be raised in Toronto tomorrow on June 12, 1998. These Philippines colours have become an international symbol of the indomitable spirit of democracy and serve as an inspiration to us all to strengthen the bonds of friendship, to strengthen us all and to respect as we have the affection in mind of Filipino Canadians.

Today, we encourage all Canadians to observe this anniversary because it fosters within us a deeper appreciation of freedom, liberty and democratic ideals.

In the Speaker's gallery we have a number of Filipinos who are helping us today to celebrate: the consul general, Mr Santos, Mr Ricky Castellvi and Mr Rick Falco, who is from the Catholic school board.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have in my hand a copy of a letter dated April 20, 1995, sent by one Michael D. Harris, the leader of the Conservative Party, to the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, in which extensive promises are made by the then leader of the third party about what this government would do when it was in office. Of course, this government is great at saying, "A promise made, a promise kept," but they certainly haven't kept their promises with respect to tobacco control, and the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco wants that noted.

I mentioned the other night in the debate on Bill 25 the refusal of the cabinet to accept the harmonization of tobacco replacement technologies on over-the-counter drugs. But this is an example of the kind of promise that the government doesn't like to even think about.

In this area the Premier was asked, "In common shopping malls, would the government designate the following facilities as smoke-free?" He said, "A Harris government will continue to work with shopping malls toward a goal of 100% smoke-free by 1998." Where is the legislation?

"A Harris government believes that any place used as a recreational facility, particularly by young people, should be smoke-free," and it goes on.

MUDCAT FESTIVAL

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): On a positive note, I am pleased to stand today to announce the 24th anniversary of the Mudcat Festival in Dunnville. This festival celebrates the friendship of the people in Dunnville, it celebrates the Grand River and it celebrates agriculture, which is at the base of all of Ontario.

In the parade on June 13 the honorary parade marshal is going to be Ms Becky Kellar, women's hockey silver medallist from Nagano, and it is going to be a grand event. There are all kinds of craft sales. The Salvation Army is going to be there with a number of services. There are car competitions. There is something for everybody.

Come out, enjoy the Grand River, enjoy the people of Dunnville and enjoy a good spring festival.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I am here to tell you today that this government is once again ignoring the advice of local people and forging ahead with its own agenda. In Kingston, our district health council undertook a review of the health services in Kingston. The DHC presented a vision for us, locally made, called Charting the Course.

What happened next? Mike Harris sent in his front men, sometimes known as the Health Services Restructuring Commission. They ignored the advice of the local people, who know the needs of their area best, and among others have closed the Hotel Dieu Hospital. After giving compassionate and excellent health care to thousands of patients for over 153 years, the Sisters of the Religious Hospitallers of St Joseph were told they were no longer capable of running and providing governance to a hospital.

Mike Harris's commission recommended closing a downtown hospital which is accessible to all, including the elderly and individuals with special needs who live in the downtown area of Kingston. This hospital also plays an important role in keeping our downtown vibrant and economically prosperous.

The Harris commission can't even get its numbers right. They have been totally underestimating the cost of their plan. Professionals have said that the commission underestimated the restructuring plan by at least $76 million.

I'm here to tell you that the people of Kingston and area, which includes the 60,000 individuals who signed a petition, want the Hotel Dieu to remain open. We have a homemade solution. We don't need Mike Harris to come in and tell us that the sisters are no longer capable of running a hospital.

NORTHERN TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to take a short moment this afternoon to expand on the question I asked the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services yesterday afternoon on the Northern Treatment Centre and the potential closure of that facility.

He may not know that this is the only centre of its sort in all of northern Ontario, which accepts inmates from across the province. It's a centre that deals with areas of anger management, drug and alcohol rehab and inmates with difficulties of a sexual nature. It also has a very clear first nations or native Canadian focus that is unique in the province.

The history of its placement in Sault Ste Marie has not been an easy one. Sault Ste Marie and the mayor of the day, Joe Fratesi, actually went out on a limb to take that facility into our community at a time when other communities, particularly Sudbury, did not want it. It has become a success story of many dimensions. The excellent staff and professionals who work there contribute not only to the success of that facility but also to a need that is very real in the community of Sault Ste Marie, and the volunteer program that has developed around that facility is of a very first-class and excellent nature as well.

Yesterday it was pretty obvious by his answer that the minister wasn't aware of this facility. I would today like to invite him to come up and take a tour of the Northern Treatment Centre at his earliest convenience.

ROHYPNOL

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Today I rise to speak on an issue which is quickly becoming a major problem for young people right across the province. I'm speaking about the drug Rohypnol, better known as "roofies" or the date rape drug. When slipped into someone's drink, this drug can render a person in a near-comatose state, leaving them vulnerable to sexual assault.

The increase in the number of cases involving this drug is alarming. In Hamilton alone, there have been 11 cases reported in the past eight months. I say "reported," because countless victims do not report the crime to police.

As a mother of two daughters, both in their 20s, I am extremely concerned about the serious danger this drug represents to the young people of today. That is why I'm pleased to announce that on Friday, June 19, radio station 102.9 is sponsoring an event, Groove Night at the Olympia, to benefit the Hamilton Sexual Assault Centre's rape drug awareness campaign. I am proud to be honorary co-chair of this campaign.

The Hamilton Sexual Assault Centre will use the proceeds from this event to educate and make aware the potential victims of this horrible drug. I strongly support their efforts, and want the Legislature to know about this.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I rise to bring to the attention of this House today an issue on behalf of the employees of Yorkview Lifecare Centre, situated in my constituency.

Yorkview Lifecare is a nursing home and as such is a predominantly female workplace. Despite these workers having repeatedly asking the government for information regarding their pay equity increases, to date they have been totally ignored. It seems as though pay equity for Ontario women is at the bottom of the list of priorities for the Harris government.

As part of Seniors' Month, this week is designated as Caregivers Week so that we may have a greater appreciation of those who assist our seniors with activities of daily living or specific health problems.

There are 28,000 employees in Ontario nursing homes. Our seniors rely on the high level of care they receive from these workers, who are committed to providing the best service possible.

Now is the time for this government to quit stalling. The courts ordered you to reinstate pay equity for these employees more than eight months ago. The Minister of Finance committed $140 million for retroactive pay equity settlements. What's the problem, Premier? I remind you that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this government's actions on the elimination of the proxy method of achieving pay equity violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Live up to your obligation under the court order and pay these women.

1340

BOROUGH OF EAST YORK

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today I will be introducing a private member's bill, or perhaps I should say I will once again be introducing a private member's bill, because this is actually the third private member's bill I have introduced dealing with the issue of achieving a third councillor for the area of East York.

This private member's bill will correct a couple of technical concerns that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs had with the previous bill I submitted. In fact, that means that the Minister of Municipal Affairs will have given his blessing to this bill. That's very exciting for the people of East York. This Legislature will therefore in the next two weeks be dealing with this private member's bill when the government calls it forward and it will receive second and third readings, and we will achieve the goal of the people of East York for equitable representation.

I suppose I am nothing if not persistent, and my persistence in this case has paid off and there has been a very cooperative attitude from the minister and his staff. I want to thank Minister Leach and Jeff Bangs, his executive assistant; legal staff within the ministry, Scott Gray, who worked very quickly to turn this around and give us an opinion on this; and of course legislative counsel, Cornelia Schuh, who has been working with draft after draft for me, getting this bill correct. It is the way the House should work, with this kind of cooperation. I am appreciative and I know the people of East York are appreciative.

SENIORS' MONTH

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): June is Seniors' Month and, in recognition, tomorrow afternoon I will be hosting my 15th annual Salute to Seniors Day in my riding at the Grenadier retirement residence located at 2100 Bloor Street West. We have a full program planned, including entertainment, fashion show, food and refreshments and a nutritional workshop, all geared towards the theme of looking good and feeling good.

This government has taken a vigorous look at how we deliver services to seniors. This is especially clear in yesterday's announcement by the Minister of Health and the minister for seniors made at Copernicus Lodge in my riding of High Park-Swansea of the latest instalment of the $1.2-billion long-term-care initiative that will see care delivered to seniors in their own community. I can appreciate these programs, since I have a 98-year-old mother, Kathleen Shea, who still lives in her own home in my riding -

Applause.

Mr Shea: Thank you, on her behalf - and, I might point out, still finds a way to keep me on the straight and narrow from time to time.

Seniors are a growing part of our population and this government is taking steps to meet their needs. I am keenly aware of the fact that High Park-Swansea is blessed with a higher-than-average population of seniors, who make great contributions to the fabric of a community. They are a tremendous source for volunteers and community leaders. They have much to teach us, for these are the people who built our roads, taught in our schools, fought for our country, and who have known and understood hard times that are practically beyond our imagination.

Seniors are real treasures of Ontario. These are the people I will recognize tomorrow, and I hope all members will join me in celebrating their contributions during Seniors' Month.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I have a couple of quick introductions.

I want to introduce two students from the riding of Prescott and Russell who won a competition to come to Queen's Park today. Marie-France Laflèche and Mathieu Bertrand, welcome.

Interjection: That was first prize?

The Speaker: The second prize was two weeks in Toronto.

There's also a friend of mine, actually, in the government's gallery, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in the 32nd Parliament, Mr Al Kolyn. Welcome.

JANE LEITCH

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Mr Speaker, I'd like to request unanimous consent to make a statement regarding a senior who participated in long-term care in the Speaker's riding.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Unanimous consent for a statement for a senior who resided in my riding and who has died recently. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Hastings: I would like to make a brief statement regarding the recent passage of Jane Leitch. Jane Leitch gave Ontario and its seniors many years of dedicated and outstanding leadership in addressing seniors' issues.

She was president of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario for three years, from 1990 to 1993. She was also a founder and became chairperson of the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance for Long-Term Care Reform, established in 1991. She was one of the founding members of the Good Neighbours seniors' outreach program, promoting independence and safety and the development of an informal neighbourhood mutual support network for the vulnerable.

As well, Mrs Leitch received a Senior Achievement Award from Lieutenant Governor Hal Jackman for her dedication to seniors and was the author of many books, including Roots and Shoots, a history of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, an organization dedicated to the safety and wellbeing of seniors.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I join the member in the condolences being put forward on the passing of this great senior. This is Seniors' Month in Ontario; in fact this is Caregivers Week. At the beginning of this month we recognized, and I hope continue to recognize throughout this month and throughout the year, both those seniors who have contributed to the quality of life in the province, as this senior has, and those who continue to work on behalf of seniors in this great province of ours.

Seniors are a wealth, the same as our youth are a wealth, to this province of Ontario. We recognize them and also those who go that extra step in working towards making us recognize the contributions that seniors have made to the province and continue to make.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I too want to add our very sincere condolences to the family and all the colleagues of Jane Leitch and to say how much we will miss the kind of contribution she made to all our communities.

When our government was going through the long-term-care reform, Jane Leitch was one of the most important activists involved in the public consultations, involved in working with all of the various groups. Although she indeed was primarily associated with the United Senior Citizens, she worked with all groups of seniors and worked well with the disabled groups, who sometimes thought they might have different interests. But when Jane talked to them about their concerns, she was able to bring those together, and we were very grateful for that.

We know she will be deeply missed. In fact, the Friday before she died I was doing a cable show with two representatives of the United Senior Citizens in preparation for Seniors' Month, and they were asking me if I knew how Jane was, knowing that she was ill and in hospital. We were all shocked to hear the next day that she had passed away.

We're very fortunate that we have so many active and dedicated seniors acting on their own behalf and on behalf of their friends, their relatives and their community. When we honour Jane, we honour that kind of service.

I want to express to her husband, to her sons, Hal and David, and to the rest of her family the very sincere condolences of the New Democratic Party and tell them that Jane will always stand in our minds as one of the great citizens of the province of Ontario.

1350

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO

Ms Lankin moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 41, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 41, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la cité de Toronto.

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

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): As I alluded to in my statement earlier, this act, in amending the City of Toronto Act, will provide for a third councillor for the ward of East York. This bill is being reintroduced. The Minister of Municipal Affairs had a couple of technical concerns which we have now addressed, and I am proud that with his support this will become law.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): For years, victims of crime have not had a voice in the justice system of Ontario. But through the efforts of a few dedicated organizations, the voices of victims are now being heard loud and clear. Today I would like to recognize the victims and the organizations that work on their behalf, some of whom have joined us in the gallery today.

Victims of crime are a priority for this government. I am proud that over the last year the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services has been able to assist victims in more locations across the province than ever before.

In continuing our commitment to expand services for victims, we have added eight new victim crisis assistance and referral services, VCARS. They serve the regions of Durham, including my riding of Durham Centre, Ottawa-Carleton, Manitoulin-North Shore, Muskoka, Niagara, Nipissing, Owen Sound and Wellington.

There are now 20 VCARS sites across the province; 16 have been launched since this government came into office.

VCARS operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to provide onsite assistance and emotional support to victims of crime. Police officers call on trained VCARS volunteers to provide immediate assistance to victims and make referrals to community services for ongoing support. This partnership between the police and VCARS helps ensure that the needs of victims are met.

We also launched a joint public-private sector partnership with Ericsson Communications and Rogers Cantel called SupportLink. This initiative provides emergency cellular phone support for over 300 victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Piloted in Ottawa and Barrie, it will put wireless phones, pre-programmed to call 911, in the hands of victims whose personal safety is at risk. If victims should be facing a dangerous situation, they can get emergency police service at the push of a button. SupportLink will offer victims of violent crime more freedom and mobility to leave their homes, allowing them to resume more normal lives.

As you can see, we're fighting for victims' rights on several fronts. We have also introduced changes at the Ontario Board of Parole to ensure that public safety is the overriding priority in all release decisions.

The voices of victims are being heard at the parole board. Through public forums and other outreach activities, victims have been encouraged to provide the board with written or oral victim impact statements. These statements are an essential part of any release decision.

Victims of crime are a priority for this government. We made that commitment and we have kept it. But we know there is more to be done. Working with victims' organizations such as those represented in the gallery today, we will continue to seek new ways to provide better services for those who have been victimized by crime.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Today, June 11, we gather in this House in honour of victims of crime in Ontario, and we speak in honour of the families of victims who are left to mourn, to grieve, and for the many who display such courage as they work to end violence in our society.

Two years ago on this day we established the Victims' Bill of Rights. Our goal was to enshrine the rights of victims and their families. It is also our goal to ensure that the bill goes far beyond mere words, that victims' rights are always recognized and respected throughout our justice system.

I am deeply touched by the attendance of the many individuals who are in the House today. You have suffered in ways many of us cannot imagine and endured the tragic loss of family members. Your determination and valour are beacons of courage to us all.

The Ontario women's directorate coordinates the government's violence against women prevention programs, involving more than 30 programs and nine ministries. Almost a year ago we launched the four-year Agenda for Action strategy, Ontario's very first province-wide framework towards ending violence against women and their children, encouraging our ministries to work very hard together.

Through the Agenda for Action strategy, Ontario women and their children who are victims of domestic and sexual assault have more choices and have more supports available to them. We have increased services for children who witness violence in their homes; we have stabilized funding to Ontario's 34 rape crisis/sexual assault centres; we have maintained funding for emergency shelters; we have ensured that women with disabilities can readily access crisis services; and that francophone women can receive crisis services in their own language.

We have worked with our community-based, private sector and government partners to ensure that women and their children can get the help that they really need and that they really want. We have increased the number of nurses trained to administer the sexual assault evidence kit so that women can receive competent, compassionate care quickly, including counselling.

With the opening of six new domestic violence courts this past year, we now have a total of eight of these special courts in our province. They provide victims of domestic violence with solid support during the judicial process, and they work very hard to get results by ensuring that the perpetrators are dealt with appropriately. I underline "very hard"; we're not always successful, but we recognize this real need.

Police, crown attorneys, and victim/witness staff are to be congratulated. They're specially trained and they're dedicated and they do their very best to understand domestic violence. They'll never give up on trying to reach their goals, and that's to protect the victims and deal with the perpetrators in our society. Each court includes a mandatory male batterer program, and victims have access to other legal, medical or counselling services they may require.

Research tells us that to change attitudes we must reach our children in families across this great province. This past year we have worked with our Partners for Change network and with our community partners to develop resources for students and children, and to make certain that these resources are used and used properly and extensively. It's a very big challenge. It's a challenge for all of us in our own communities, to work with our children in our schools. We're not only giving information on the effects and consequences of violent behaviour but also giving them the tools to prevent and change negative social attitudes and actions, and hopefully being helpful to parents.

We have supported the development of a training package for elementary school teachers on violence issues, and school-based support services and expanded prevention strategies for children who have witnessed or experienced domestic violence.

We have enhanced violence prevention grants to communities to address the needs of many groups, but especially those needs of immigrant and refugee women and for women with disabilities. We are supporting the development of a curriculum for English-as-a-second-language courses on the issue of violence against women, and we are supporting a conference on sexual harassment to identify and share best practices across this province for dealing with this very serious problem.

Through working with our government, voluntary and private sector stakeholders and victims themselves, together I feel we can develop even better solutions. We will continue to work and we will continue to involve the people of this province in our efforts to ensure that the women and children of Ontario are free to live and work in safe homes, safe communities and safe workplaces.

The prevention of violence is everyone's responsibility.

1400

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I rise today to honour the second annual day of commemoration for victims of crime. I especially would like to recognize the presence today of the leaders of victims' groups and advocates for victims of crime. Their leadership role is important and we are committed to continuing to work with them to advance victims' rights and improve services.

I understand that earlier today victims' groups met with the Ontario Crime Control Commission at a forum especially dedicated to address victims' issues. I applaud all the participants and look forward to hearing the suggestions expressed so that the government can continue to make fundamental changes to the justice system to better meet victims' needs.

On this second anniversary of the Victims' Bill of Rights, this government continues to strengthen its commitment to create a justice system that protects victims of crime.

We lead the country in services for victims of crime and will not tolerate a justice system that does not respect, understand or respond to their needs. At the same time this government is committed to preventing crime by creating safe and secure communities.

In the throne speech of April 23, 1998, we renewed our commitment to "stand on the side of women and men concerned about the safety of rural communities and urban streets, or the security of their homes, or violence in school corridors and playgrounds." We believe that people in Ontario have the right to feel safe in their homes, neighbourhoods and communities.

Since June 11, 1996, this government has been supporting victims of crime through its precedent-setting Victims' Bill of Rights. This bill legislates a set of principles to support victims of crime with timely, respectful and courteous treatment throughout the criminal justice system. It also enshrined the victims' justice fund which guarantees that money will be available strictly for supporting services to victims. In addition, this bill provides better support for all victims who must testify in court.

I am proud to say that we are continuing to build on these programs.

In 1997-98, this government allocated some $11.2 million for victims' services, creating new programs and expanding existing ones so that more victims of crime can be supported throughout all stages of the criminal justice system.

Some of our recent accomplishments include:

Doubling the number of victim/witness assistance program offices from 13 to 26 over the last two years, including six new offices in 1997-98. Our newest site in St Catharines will open June 29, 1998. These offices provide direct support to victim/witnesses going through the criminal court process.

More than doubling the number of victims served by the victim/witness assistance program in 1997-98 to 23,000, up from 11,000 in 1996-97.

Establishing six new domestic violence courts for a total of eight over the past two years, at an additional investment of $5.2 million. These courts provide more support to victims, prosecute domestic assault cases more effectively and intervene early in abusive domestic situations.

Successfully funding these and other important victims' programs through the money raised by the victims' justice fund, which was entrenched in the Victims' Bill of Rights. This money is collected under the victims' fine surcharge that is dedicated to providing programs and services for victims.

In the throne speech on April 23, 1998, we announced that our government is now taking its commitment to victims a step further in the coming year by establishing the office for victims of crime. The office will provide coordination of services that respond to the needs of victims of crime. It will be a focused centre of activity within government for victims' interests. Our government is presently consulting key victims' groups and advocates, many of whom are here today, on how to make sure this office will best serve victims. I thank you for your involvement, advice and suggestions and look forward to continuing to work with you.

While our government is proud of the substantial progress that builds on our initial commitment towards victims of crime, we also realize that more can be done. We will continue to expand victims' services and to consult with victims' groups in order to make the changes necessary to ensure that the rights of victims are supported by Ontario's justice system.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): We've heard this afternoon three statements about the government's commitment to victims of crime, and the response of my party is that this government's record shows quite clearly that they are long on rhetoric and very short on commitment.

This morning, while the government was preparing the platitudes that it was going to present here this afternoon, three real casualties of the justice system, three victims who have had their daughters brutally murdered or themselves hurt in a murder attempt, held a press conference out of frustration, out of pain, out of desperation with a system that has failed them. That's the real story here today. CAVEAT was at that conference and lamented the fact that a Victims' Bill of Rights in this province means nothing. It isn't worth the paper that it's written on.

These are the real stories, and all the fancy words across the way will not change one fact. Look at the record. Look at what you've done with respect to victims. Look what you've done with respect to legal aid. You've had two reports on legal aid, which you have shelved. You've had cuts to the legal aid system. The Ontario Judges Association and McManus in his report clearly stated that 66% of litigants in family court go unrepresented: most of those women, many of them victims of violence. Those are the real hard statistics that this government needs to look at, and that the people of Ontario know all too well.

Look at the cuts to the system generally. Look at the reports from crown attorneys, who too in desperation have put their views forward: a system that doesn't allow for interviewing of victims, that doesn't allow for preparation for hearings, that doesn't allow for basic, simple legal procedures to be followed. And you talk about a commitment to victims.

It affects women disproportionately. Your cuts have done irreparable damage to women.

Again, look at your record. Your spin doctors are busy saying that there has been no damage, that in fact you are a kind and compassionate government and you've targeted women and seniors. The reality is different. You've cut funding for secondary shelters, undermining the safety of women. You've cut, you've eliminated totally, counselling and support programs for abused women. You've cut $1.6 million over two years from administration and some grants that were related to violence against women. You've virtually eliminated every possible avenue of support for women in desperate situations. So don't come here today and tell us about your commitment to victims' rights. In fact, your commitment is appalling. It is non-existent, and the people of Ontario know that only too well.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I would just like to follow up on that. You know, every minister in the government could get up and give a similar statement. The problem is what's happening out there in reality.

In reality, the number of crown attorneys that you have working in the province of Ontario is less than there were three years ago.

Hon Mr Harnick: Wrong. Wrong.

Mr Gerretsen: Yes, it's so. Look at your own budget. See what you're spending on that.

If you had listened to the three individuals who held their press conference this morning, you would have heard that these people were not even being given the simplest of information that they requested from the crown attorneys. I'm not blaming the crown attorneys for a moment. These people are overworked. When you look at the average caseload that these people take into court on a daily and on a weekly basis, they simply do not have the time currently, because of the lack of resources, to converse with the victims.

1410

You can pass as many bills as you want, but unless you actually put the resources into place to make the bills meaningful - you have to give the victims a place at the table. They cannot be an innocent bystander in the legal process.

Attorney General, if you really want to do something, why don't you give the victims of crime status in the legal proceedings? Right now, we all know it's just a situation that involves a crown attorney and that involves the defendant or his counsel. Why don't you take that one extra step, and I challenge you, to make the victims who are involved in these crimes active participants in the criminal justice system? Until that step is taken, all your words are meaningless, because there are an awful lot of people who are going to be left out of the process that your bill so sanctimoniously makes them part of. Until you take that step, no meaningful change will take place in this province on this issue.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It's beyond ironic that the Attorney General stands here this afternoon but two hours after Linda Even, Tracy Christie and Karen Vanscoy, all three of them victims of tragic, violent crime, announced that they're going to be suing this government because they were very specifically and clearly and undeniably denied their rights under this Attorney General's Victims' Bill of Rights.

Let me tell you, Attorney General, let me remind you perhaps, that in the case of Linda Even, that was raised. I raised that case in this Legislature. You had a chance to make it right and you didn't. In the case of Ms Vanscoy from St Catharines, both Jim Bradley, the member for St Catharines, and I raised that in this Legislature. You had a chance to make it right and you didn't. It's your negligence, your failure to act, your disdain for these people that has resulted in you putting the government of Ontario back into the courts this time, once again as a defendant, being sued because these three women, representing I'm sure countless others, were denied their rights under your much-touted Victims' Bill of Rights.

Mrs Boyd from London Centre made it quite clear during second reading debate that there are some serious concerns about section 2, and specifically subsection (5) of section 2. She addressed those. You had a chance to make it right over the course of over two years now, and you haven't: once again, your negligence and your disdain for the people you want to talk about assisting and caring for when you stand up in this House, speaking into the cameras and talking to the press, trying to put a positive spin on what has been a miserable leadership in your Ministry of the Attorney General.

Take a look at the recent survey of crown attorneys here in Ontario and you'll learn that 75% of crown attorneys have less than five minutes to prepare for bail hearings. Do you call that defending victims' rights or interests? Far from it, Attorney General. Some 55% of crown attorneys are allowed to interview victims outside of court time in less than 10% of the cases. Over 55% have almost no time to permit interviews of all victims of crime, including domestic assault. These are shocking figures.

Once again, your disdain for victims, your underresourcing of crown attorneys, your underresourcing of police forces, your underresourcing of courts in this province have turned your Victims' Bill of Rights beyond being merely a set of rights without a remedy and into being a real sham and something that's become quite laughable and quite pathetic, to the detriment of the administration of justice in this province and to the great pain of thousands and thousands of victims of serious and violent crimes about whom you don't care.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): It makes my blood boil today to hear the minister responsible for women's issues stand up and say that victims of domestic and sexual assault have more choices for support available to them. She did not say anything today about putting back in place some of the support systems, some of the safety nets that were there for victims of domestic violence and their children, like social assistance, like child care, like legal aid, which my colleagues have spoken about today, like affordable housing - the government has totally removed itself from that - like the support services at Second Stage Housing.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): That's a shame.

Ms Churley: It is a shame, and it's shameful as well to hear those pretty, flowery words from the minister today. Is she not out there talking to those victims of violence? Is she not aware, from the evidence that OAITH and others have collected, that more and more women, because of the social safety net and the cuts in welfare and housing and all of the others, are being forced to go back to the very violent situations that they walked away from? The minister, in my view, should be ashamed today and get up and say they have more choices.

At the very least today I would have liked to have heard from the minister - all of those programs are fine, and I certainly do not object to some of the support, some of her initiatives, but the very reality is that the women who are victims of this violence, and their children, are losing the supports that were there in place for them. The minister must be aware, must know that these people are being forced to go back in some cases to very dangerous situations, and their children, who used to get some support at shelters or at second-stage housing, no longer can get that support.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is for the Attorney General. Today three victims of crime held a press conference. They told a tale of pain and frustration, of a justice system that ignored them, disrespected them, did not inform them and sometimes even verbally abused them when they tried to insist on their rights. Karen Vanscoy's and Tracy Christie's daughters were brutally murdered. Linda Even was herself stabbed numerous times in an attempted murder. Their pain is real, their treatment by the justice system horrendous.

They have asked for no personal compensation in this lawsuit, simply a declaration that the rights of victims will be clarified and that they will no longer be violated. Will you assure these women and the countless other victims of crime that you are prepared to make the necessary changes and make the Victims' Bill of Rights a real bill of rights and not just a public relations exercise for your government?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I certainly want to acknowledge the tragedies that the three women have suffered, and certainly, on behalf of the administration of justice, to say that we are committed to fundamentally changing the justice system to improve the treatment of victims. That is why I'm very proud that we passed the Victims' Bill of Rights, the most comprehensive piece of victims' legislation in this country today. What is particularly important about the Victims' Bill of Rights in this particular situation is that for the first time victims now have recourse to hold the system of justice accountable in the province.

The opposition can belittle the Victims' Bill of Rights all they want; the fact is we have a system that must be accountable. It's a public system and the fact that we have a Victims' Bill of Rights that people are using to hold the system accountable is something I'm very proud of.

Ms Castrilli: I wonder if the minister truly understands the courage it took for those three women to come forward and the pain they have had to endure to bring their cases forward. We're not talking rhetoric, Minister, we're talking real people, and the reality is that these women have been victimized already. They were victimized when their daughters or they themselves were attacked or killed, they were victimized by a justice system that ignored them and disrespected them, and they are being victimized again by you, being forced to take the government to court to have their rights under the bill of rights insisted on.

The member for Scarborough West said today: "For too long victims have been ignored. Time is of the essence." I ask you, do you agree with the member for Scarborough West and will you not act now to make this bill really an effective bill for victims?

Hon Mr Harnick: I do agree with the member for Scarborough West and I do agree that time is of the essence, because what we want to do in this government is provide victims with the best supports that are possible. We are prepared to work with victims' groups. We're prepared to listen to the suggestions of the member who poses the question, to do everything we can to provide victims with the support they need.

One place we have started is with the Victims' Bill of Rights, a concept, I might add, that was totally rejected by the member's party and by the former government. We are trying to do everything we can to work with victims' groups, to bolster the system and the services available to victims, and also to ensure that victims are heard within the justice system, that their rights are balanced with the rights that accused individuals have. We are trying to do that at every turn.

1420

Ms Castrilli: I remind the Attorney General that my very first act in this Legislature was to present a bill of rights that had far more teeth than what you had and you voted against it.

Let's look at the issue before us. Let's look at what crown attorneys, the people who work in the system, have to say. Let's look at the fact that a recent survey of crown attorneys clearly says that the victims we heard from this morning are right, that they have less than five minutes to prepare for bail hearings, that they seldom have time to interview victims of crime, that they feel compelled to deal expediently when they deal with plea bargains, all as a result of the drastic cuts and your lack of commitment to the system you say you care passionately about. You're not tough on crime. You're tough on victims of crime.

I challenge you, Minister. Under your watch, the delivery of justice has been compromised. Victims are coming forward, crown attorneys are coming forward, at great expense to themselves. Will you commit the resources necessary to the system for the crown attorneys to do their job and for victims to get real justice?

Hon Mr Harnick: It's passing strange that I hear this rhetoric from the member. The member from Burlington proposed a victims' bill of rights going back to 1987. The Liberals voted against it, the NDP voted against it. The member from Burlington -

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Harnick: The member from Burlington presented that bill on a number of occasions and the same two parties voted against it time and again.

I have been to federal-provincial-territorial meetings now for three years. I have begged the former Minister of Justice and the current Minister of Justice to bring in a national victims' bill of rights, to enshrine it in the Criminal Code, to have national standards. I have asked repeatedly for the Liberal government in Ottawa to do that. They totally ignore those requests.

We, in Ontario, have created a bill of rights that provides more victims' protection and services than anywhere else in Canada. We intend to build on it. We intend to work with anyone who has suggestions to make that bill better and to make victims' services better, and we're determined to make sure that victims' rights are protected.

The Speaker: New question, official opposition, member for York South.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I suppose that's why the minister's being sued.

The Speaker: I want to know who your question is to.

NURSING STAFF

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to ask you about your mismanagement of the health system and specifically how you've mismanaged it with respect to patient care. We have a report that came out a few days ago that tells us that you've fired and discouraged so many nurses, according to the Ontario College of Nurses, that we now have the lowest ratio of registered nurses to population in Canada -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Niagara Falls, I know you're not in your seat and I know you want to go to your seat. Thank you.

Mr Kennedy: This is indeed upsetting information because this province, the richest province in the country, now has fewer registered nurses to population than the Northwest Territories, the worst of every province and territory, and it's the direct result of the policies of this government. Minister, I find that completely unacceptable. I want to know what it is you've got against nurses in this province, and really, what it comes down to, what have you got against patients?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Our government has recognized the very legitimate concerns of the nursing organizations in Ontario. We are well aware of the fact that their long-standing concerns and problems were ignored by the two previous governments. In fact, in response to the request that the nurses have made to us, we have indicated that we're establishing a nursing task force to look at the issue of nursing supply in order to ensure that we do have the nursing resources that are required.

Further to the comments that have been made by the member opposite, I would also focus your attention - you talked about I think the news released last week. In there, the RNAO president did say, "The recent funding announcement of base funding of $5 million for nurse practitioners shows that the Minister of Health, Elizabeth Witmer, is listening." Our government is listening to the concerns of the nurses.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I'm about to test whether you listen or not. There are nurse practitioners in this province who aren't even working. What I want you to do is listen to the story of Kim West.

Kim West graduated in this province in 1991. She had casual but full-time hours beginning in 1992 and, under your government, those hours started to decline at South Muskoka Memorial Hospital. She has seen every full-time person leaving that hospital under your regime be replaced by two part-time and two casual people.

She has applied everywhere in the province, all kinds of other hospitals, trying to seek opportunities. She is a registered nurse, she has a critical care background, she's an emergency nurse who has all the training to do that job, and she can't get full-time work in this province.

Minister, a very simple question: Will you call Kim West and explain why you won't let nurses work in this province, why we have the lowest ratio of nurses to population of any province or territory, the worst record in the country, and what you're going to do to help Kim West? Will you do that?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We are very committed to the nursing profession and we recognize the very important role that they play in providing health services to people in this province. In fact, when we made our announcement a couple of months ago regarding the expansion of long-term-care services and community services, that was a $1.2-billion announcement. We also indicated that, as a result of that announcement, there were going to be some new additional nursing opportunities. There are going to be 7,900 new jobs created. In fact, I referred in the first statement and question to the fact that we invested in our budget $5 million in order that we can employ nurse practitioners.

We also indicated, when we responded to the emergency task force, that we recognized there was a need for training of emergency and critical care nurses, and we invested $1 million. We have responded to every one of the concerns that has been brought forward to us by the nursing profession. We are working collaboratively and will continue to do so.

Mr Kennedy: We hear from the Minister of Health directly how she refuses to listen. She won't call Kim West. If you did want to listen, Minister, it would be a long-distance call because last week Kim West went to BC because they want nurses there. That's where she and other nurses have to go to get work. They've taken the measure of confidence in this government and they have none.

Minister, you've failed her and you've failed the nurses of this province. You've failed the patients. It's getting worse because I don't think the nurses of this province asked you to fire 1,400 of them last year. I'm pretty sure that wasn't their request. I'm pretty sure they didn't vote confidence in you when 5,598 of them gave up their registration between 1994 and 1997 - a 138% vote of no confidence in you, Minister, and in your government.

And the poor working conditions: We've got a 22% increase in retirements. We have a 59% increase of nurses unemployed. Minister, will you reconsider? Will you start putting money directly into improving the conditions for nurses -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would encourage the member to look at all the information. As I've indicated, we have been working very collaboratively with the nursing profession. We have addressed all of the concerns that they have brought to our attention in recent months. In fact, it was in response to the concern that we are developing a patient safety act. It was in response to their concern about the issues of supply and some of the working conditions that we are setting up the nursing services task force.

Also, we have invested. As I indicated, there will be 7,900 additional jobs for nurses as we open up new long-term-care facilities and community services. There will be $5 million devoted to nurse practitioners and an additional $1 million to train nurses in the emergency and the critical care rooms.

Also, I would remind the member opposite that despite the information he is providing, last week, on June 4, the RNAO, the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, said quite clearly, "The Minister of Health is listening."

1430

The Speaker: New question?

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, we're tired of having you recite these promises when we know what the reality is. Last week we asked you about hospital funding and we pointed out to you that after taking $800 million out of hospitals already, you're asking them to take another $200-million pressure. This amounts to over $1 billion that's been taken out of hospitals and it's affecting the service to the people of Ontario.

Hospitals have cut nurses' jobs, residents' jobs and operating room time. Part of the pressure comes from an arbitration award to nurses, a mere 2%, which was frankly only a well-deserved cost-of-living increase. If you don't do something to make sure that award is followed through without a further reduction in nurses, the services in Ontario hospitals are going to be even further cut.

Minister, what are you going to do to ensure that nurses get their full salary increase without a further round of layoffs?

Hon Mrs Witmer: First of all, I would indicate to the member opposite that it was under your government that the nursing supply per capita began its decline. Nursing per capita went down 8.9% from 1993 to 1995 under the NDP government. That is certainly significantly more than what we are experiencing now. At the present time, during the same time period, we've seen a decrease of 2.8%.

We are working with nurses. We will be continuing to work with the hospitals, the physicians, the long-term-care facilities and the community services in order that we can ensure that qualified nurses are available to provide the appropriate level of service to people in this province. That's the reason we've set up the nursing task force and we will continue to work with them.

Obviously now we have the additional issue of the settlement, and we are working with the hospitals in order to ensure that they have the additional money to recognize the additional pressures.

Mrs Boyd: We're tired of the fact that you're working with them. You're not requiring them to be accountable.

We've just gathered some salary increase statistics of hospital administrators. From 1996 to 1997, for example, the CEO of Sunnybrook hospital received a 41% increase in the base salary, to over $300,000. The CEO of Laurentian Hospital in Sudbury got a 26% increase. On the other hand, services are in jeopardy because nurses and residents and other hospital workers are being laid off.

Don't you understand what's happening here? You are not requiring hospitals to be accountable for the way they spend their dollars. You are prepared to see those kinds of obscene increases in salaries and yet you're not prepared to support nurses to get a mere 2% increase.

Minister, what are you going to do about this and when are you going to understand that hospital care is provided by nurses, not by hospital administrators?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We do understand. That's why in recent months our government has taken very aggressive steps to ensure that the role of the nurses is enhanced in this province. In fact, it's because of the problems that were created by the NDP government in particular that we're starting to see the decreased numbers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, you remind me of a story my mother used to tell about the mother watching the troops walking by who said, "Oh, look, everyone is out of step but my Johnny."

Quite frankly, doctors are talking, nurses are talking, everyone in this province is talking about the decline in hospital care that has occurred under your government's watch, nobody else's.

In the latest issue of Members'Dialogue, Dr Michael Bell tells a chilling story of the impact on patient safety and on the very safety of lives because there are not enough residents, due to recent cutbacks, to oversee patient care throughout the night. It's not just nurses; everyone working in health care is trying to alert you to the fact that you're destroying a system that once offered very good care and that no longer can do it because of your cuts and because of your bungling of the implementation of restructuring.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, when are you going to require some accountability in the dollars that are spent and make sure that the dollars go to patients, not to the high-priced help in the administrative towers of our hospitals but our -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Witmer: You referred to the salaries. We were the government that actually had the courage to bring in public sector hospital disclosure for salaries. However, you were the government that actually stripped nurses of their wages through the social contract.

You talk about the fact that there's a need to move forward. I'd like to share with you some of the quotations in the letters we're getting from people regarding what this government is doing for nurses.

"Sue Williams, president-elect of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, said the promise of 7,900 new nursing jobs was welcome."

Mary Ellen Jeans, executive director of the Canadian Nurses Association, May 4, says, "Your announcement is...good news for young people." She also says, "I...congratulate your government for making a commitment towards reinvesting in registered nurses."

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To the Chair of Management Board, a question about the Niagara casino coverup. For two weeks, we've been raising questions about the conflict of interest and your coverup, and since yesterday you've been hiding behind the report of the lawyers for the OCC. You know that the report is nothing more than a whitewashing; it's not independent. A dark cloud continues to hang over the shady dealings down in Niagara in the casino choice. The report is absolutely bogus; it's not independent. The law firm that did this report has a solicitor-client relationship with the OCC and they're duty-bound to protect the interests of their client. It's no wonder you gave us the report. It's nothing more than an attempt to cover your political backside.

If you've got nothing to hide and if you're not trying to engage in a coverup, you'll call for an open and independent public inquiry into this matter. The report is a whitewash. Will you do the right thing and call for a public inquiry?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The third party is again calling for a public inquiry. The opposition has called for a public inquiry almost 100 times on over a dozen different issues. On this particular matter, it was a serious allegation that was raised in the Toronto Star and by the opposition parties in this House. I undertook to ask the OCC to ask their lawyers to prepare a report on what the facts were around these allegations. They have done that. I released their report to your party, to the Liberal Party and to the press. Anyone can read the facts. They're quite clear. I can run through the quotes. They say that the allegations you've been making are false. The report states the facts around the matter and it speaks for itself.

1440

Mr Kormos: I know this is really tough for you. Let's take you through the facts. You call upon the OCC to launch an investigation. They use their own lawyers who have working for them through the process of the casino selection to do this inquiry regarding Coopers and Lybrand and Michael French. Michael French worked for one of the proponents, then was part of the selection process.

What do Davies Ward and Beck do? They write to Coopers and Lybrand and ask them, "Was there a conflict of interest?" Coopers and Lybrand writes back and says, "There was no conflict of interest." Then Davies Ward and Beck said, "Well, there was no conflict of interest." What did you expect them to say?

In the June 2 letter from Coopers and Lybrand, it says: "Mr Goldlist acknowledged that it was not necessary to document the numerous prior relationships." As a result, those prior relationships didn't form a part of the investigation, Minister. It doesn't cut it. This whole affair still stinks to high heaven. Are you going to stand there and defend this bogus report?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Now we've heard it all. Now you're not only alleging all your other smear tactics, but you're attacking the integrity of a well-respected law firm in Toronto, Davies Ward and Beck, who were asked to report to the OCC on the facts. They outlined the facts. If you have a problem with those facts, you can state it.

But to say that this is wrong for a legal firm to state its reputation, that here are the facts and that they went through the process - I want to give you a quote from their report that was prepared:

"Mr French and Coopers and Lybrand did have prior involvement with certain participants in all of the four proposals. None of these prior engagements related to the Niagara Falls proposal and all were concluded prior to the opening of bids on April 30, 1997."

Mr Kormos: Minister, Davies Ward and Beck are very good lawyers. They fulfilled their obligations to their client pursuant to that solicitor-client relationship. This is like asking Johnnie Cochran if OJ is guilty, for Pete's sake. You don't understand how serious this is. You can be darned sure that Davies Ward and Beck are going to protect their client's interest and say that everything was on the up and up.

This stinks, Minister. You know it, or you ought to. How can you stand there and defend this report when it was OCC's own lawyers who were advising them through the course of the whole process and who really relied on the letter from Coopers and Lybrand to see if there was no conflict to report back to you that there was no conflict?

This is a coverup, Minister. You're being drawn into this. You're going to end up paying a price for this. Why don't you clear the air now with a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member from the third party is again on this issue. What was asked about it was to report back on the facts around Mr French and Coopers and Lybrand's involvement. The OCC have asked their legal counsel and they've prepared a report, which I've shared with you, that outlines the facts.

To say that they're judge and jury is wrong. What they've done is outline the process. They've outlined Coopers and Lybrand's involvement in it and made that very public. The facts speak for themselves, that they did not, in the OCC lawyer's opinion, influence the process. Their involvement is outlined in some detail, that it in no way influenced the process one way or the other. They were acted upon in good faith, this arm's-length process, this selection panel. This was reviewed by a review commission.

Now they're dealing with the number one rated proposal. As you know, they're in negotiations on that. We just appointed Ron Barbaro as the CEO of that. He will review this report, review the deal itself and make recommendations with his board on where we go from here.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Chair of Management Board as well. My Liberal colleagues and I have told you time and time again that we're opposed to the expansion of gambling in Ontario. In fact, many if not most Ontarians agree that they are opposed to the expansion of gambling in Ontario. Yet you continue along this road to expanding it all over the province, mainly for the benefit of your government and your rich friends.

My question is about net revenue from table games at charity casinos. Your press release, dated April 9, titled No Neighbourhood Gaming with Cancellation of VLT Program, said, "Charities will now receive 100% of net revenue from table games at these charity casinos." But the legislation authorizes the government to make payments from these revenues for other activities, programs, non-profit corporations or charitable organizations.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question?

Mr Crozier: Minister, what happened to your promise about giving 100% to charities? Is it a broken promise, and how can we try to -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): To the opposition, we will keep our promises that the revenue from table gaming goes to charities.

In your preamble you state that you on the Liberal side are against gambling. Why do I get letters from your colleagues, then, asking for an expansion of gambling in their ridings, or asking for a continuation of the old, flawed Monte Carlos, which had 15,000 days of gaming, which had about 5,000 locations? That was hard to regulate and we shut that down on March 31 this year. I got letters from your colleagues in the Liberal Party saying: "Don't close that down. We like that system," because nobody is paying attention to it. They don't want the light shining on it that says that if your community chooses to have gaming, it has to be in a well-controlled, well-regulated, supervised place where children can't have access to it.

Mr Crozier: I'll tell you what, Minister. They didn't have slot machines in charitable casinos before, and we're certainly against those. The people of Ontario aren't going to trust you on this one, because today we introduced an amendment in committee, in clause by clause, that guaranteed that charities would receive 100% of table gaming net revenue. There's no guarantee in your legislation that the charities will benefit from any of it, because they have to share it with everybody else.

Your press release said, "Charities will now receive 100% of net revenue from table games at these charity casinos." Minister what happened to that promise to give 100% of net revenue from these gaming tables to the charities? Why have you broken your promise and why haven't you kept it in this legislation?

Hon Mr Hodgson: If my colleague from the Liberal Party had read the announcement, maybe he wouldn't have introduced an amendment that was so flawed. Some 50% of the table gaming goes to charities through the Trillium Foundation and the other 50% goes through the Ontario Lottery Corp. Your amendment would have made that impossible. Our promise stands, that if a community chooses to have gaming, there are certain rules they have to adhere to, and on those table gaming revenues, 100% will go to charities: 50% through the Trillium; 50% through the catchment areas of the community.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To the Chair of Management Board: Earlier today, while being interviewed by the news media, you said, "I personally would prefer that they," Coopers and Lybrand, "hadn't worked for any of the proponents, but the reality is that Coopers and Lybrand have done work for everyone." Then, when asked, "Why is that?" you said, "I just think you wouldn't have had these allegations in the House for the last few weeks, if indeed that were the case."

Your comments make it clear to all of us that in your view there's the appearance of a conflict of interest regarding somebody who had insider information. You would have preferred that Coopers and Lybrand had not been involved with any of the proponents. I agree with you. It would have been better if there hadn't been a perception of conflict of interest to begin with to undermine the integrity of the bidding process.

You're the minister, and that was the opinion you expressed earlier today. If that's how you felt, that you would have preferred that Coopers and Lybrand hadn't been involved with any of the proponents, why didn't you fire them as part of the OCC process?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Let's get real for a second. Coopers and Lybrand has done work; they're renowned across North America for their expertise in this sector. That's why your government brought them in on the process involving the Windsor casino and that's why our government, through the OCC and the selection committee, brought them in to give advice, along with others in the community, about 20 who are outlined in this report. If you take the time to read it, it goes through the process quite clearly.

To say that somehow my comment reflects poorly upon this process is absolutely false and misleading.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's out of order.

1450

Hon Mr Hodgson: I withdraw that.

As my colleague from Renfrew would say, it's a canard. Let's -

Mr Kormos: Don't listen to him. Just finish your work, for Pete's sake.

Hon Mr Hodgson: "Don't listen to him." The reality is that Coopers and Lybrand have a great reputation. That's why they were hired by firms. They've done work for all four proposals. What is made clear by this report is that it didn't influence the process, that their advice was taken in conjunction with advice received from other experts and that in no way did they rank the proposals. That was done by an arm's-length group.

Mr Kormos: I've got to run this past you again, because I'm sure that the folks watching aren't concerned about whether or not I've read the report. There may well be concerns about whether or not you've read the report and/or whether you understand the implications, the very serious implications here.

You requested an inquiry into the role of Coopers and Lybrand. The lawyers who had been retained and who had acted and who had a solicitor-client relationship with the OCC wrote a letter to Coopers and Lybrand effectively saying, "Was there a conflict of interest?" Coopers and Lybrand said, "There was no conflict of interest." That became the report of Davies Ward and Beck. That became a fact, as you put it, that you rely upon. There was no independent investigation. There was no examination of the prior relationships.

This report is indefensible, you're trying to hide behind it. You're going to pay the price, come hell or high water, once the facts eventually emerge. Why don't you clear the air now with a public inquiry? Otherwise, what are you trying to hide? Does this go all the way to the top? Why is there a coverup? Why are you afraid of a thorough, independent public inquiry? Whose future is at risk here?

Hon Mr Hodgson: This is a lot of nonsense. What you've asked for, and the allegations that were raised by the Toronto Star and by the opposition are very serious - what the Ontario Casino Corp and their lawyers, Davies Ward and Beck, have done is report on the facts. In their report they go through the allegations and they state that most of them are patently false. The others have no grounds to have influenced the process or to have had any impact whatsoever on the fairness of this process as has been reported.

From here Mr Barbaro, a recent appointment as CEO of the casino corporation, will review the report. He will also look at all the dealings as they negotiate with the number one proponent before a contract is entered into.

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. This week marks the third anniversary of the victory of the Common Sense Revolution. June 8, 1995, was the day Ontarians slammed the door on 10 years of tax-and-spend governments, governments that killed jobs, dashed hopes and stifled opportunity. Could you tell this House what the government has done so that June 8, 1995, was also the day that the agricultural sector in Ontario turned the corner?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): It's always a pleasure to answer my colleague from Oxford. I have found this very interesting: the Chatham Daily News, "Harris Champions Agriculture," a headline. Very interesting.

Let me point out that when we put the Common Sense Revolution together, we said that we would get rid of Bill 91, a bill that was attempting to unionize the family farm. What did we do? Bill 91 is no more. We're pleased with that.

The previous governments, both Liberal and NDP, really put agriculture on the back burner because they, through smoke and mirrors - the farm tax rebate - attempted to make it look like the budget was real big.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You cancelled it.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Yes, we actually -

Mr Gerretsen: You got rid of it. You made municipalities pay for it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Previous governments shut down two of our agricultural colleges, which they're not bragging about too much, but they did shut them down. They reduced the budget for agriculture. I'm pleased to say that we turned that around and we now have more money, real money, in the agricultural budget. Research and technology, investment and market development, rural economic development and risk management: four of our main issues, and I can assure my colleagues, both in government and in the opposition, that agriculture is on the front burner.

Mr Hardeman: Clearly June 8, 1995, was the day Ontario turned the corner on 10 lost years of previous Liberal and NDP government. The people of Ontario are now enjoying lower taxes, a strong economy and a welfare system that provides hope and opportunity, not an endless loop of dependency.

Minister, on top of all this, how has the government service improved to our hardworking farmers in Oxford county?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The farm organizations asked the government of Ontario to continue with the provincial sales tax rebate on capital construction, and that was done. It's the third year now that it's been done. It was something that was innovative, because the previous governments never thought of that. We actually listened to what people told us and we did it. We beefed up the OMAFRA Web site - 26,000 hits last month. As you know, our farmers do work late at night. They're able to come in and -

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister deserves the opportunity to respond to the question from the member for Oxford. I'm having a great deal of difficulty hearing. I wish you'd come to order. The minister is having difficulty hearing as well.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Farmers now have, through our Web site, a wealth of information available to them 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and that is very important because agriculture is on the leading edge. Technology is being used by our farmers, and that's why our farmers are some of the best anywhere in the world. I'm very, very proud to have this ministry helping them.

AgriCorp was set up by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to deliver safety nets, among other things. They're farmers working for farmers. They understand the problems, working with them. Indeed there was frost last week in parts of Ontario. AgriCorp is now working on that to compensate farmers.

All in all, agriculture is in good hands and it's on the leading edge of the economy here in Ontario.

YEAR 2000 PROBLEM

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. I met this morning with the executive of the chamber of commerce and they indicated some considerable concern about whether the government of Ontario will be ready from a computer point of view for the year 2000. They are quite concerned about it. I realize the government, although I might say somewhat late, has put some money in the budget. None the less, I think the chamber and indeed many of us are extremely worried that the province will not be ready.

My question is this: Are you prepared to engage an outside, independent, professional firm that can give us an independent, objective assessment on the state of readiness for the year 2000?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The year 2000 is a huge challenge for the government. It's probably the largest challenge governments have had to face in recent memory. It is requiring a lot of resources, as you alluded to. It's going to cost anywhere from $200 million to $400 million. What our government has done is centralize operations in Management Board. We've created a list, an inventory, of the mission-critical systems that have to be done first. We want to have those completed by January 1999, so we have a full year to do it. I've consulted with the federal government and met with the industry task force groups. We're working with the private sector. We want to make sure we're ready and compliant by the year 2000.

Mr Phillips: You didn't answer the question, actually. I just say to the minister that there's an awful lot of scepticism about how ready you'll be. I remember the glitch when the municipalities were standing by waiting for numbers. Then the computer crashed at 3 in the morning or something like that and the province couldn't give them the numbers. There is a lack of confidence in the government's ability to fix this problem.

I say again that I think all of us, including the government, would benefit if we got an objective outside analysis using professional people who are knowledgeable about the year 2000 problem to give us an assessment of it. I say again what I said in my first question: Are you prepared to engage a professional, outside firm to give us an objective analysis of the state of readiness and recommendations on how we can fix it? Are you prepared to do that?

1500

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think it's in everyone's interests that this problem is addressed and done properly so that we're prepared to go into the next millennium without our systems breaking down. If the Liberals are trying to make a partisan issue of this, it's extremely regretful.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): No. We want an outside consultant.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Kingston and The Islands, will you come to order.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know the member opposite has the best interests of the province at heart and I accept the advice.

We've been communicating and working with the chamber of commerce. We've been working with our broader public sector partners. As you know, in the budget there were substantial dollars for health care systems to be upgraded. We welcome any advice that we can get from any sector - the private sector, public sector, other governments, other provinces, other countries. We want to make sure that this is implemented quickly and efficiently and that it's there to serve people as we go forward in the next millennium.

SAME-SEX BENEFITS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question to the Attorney General. It's offensive that, at a time when other provincial governments like Nova Scotia are extending benefits to same-sex partners, this government is conducting a campaign of harassment.

With us today in the House is Kelly Kane. She's a victim of this harassment. She lost her life partner, Robin, in a tragic motor vehicle accident four years ago. They had a joint life insurance policy and the insurer denied coverage, claiming that Robin wasn't a spouse as defined by the Insurance Act. The government was a party to the litigation that proceeded, defending the insurance company and their non-payment on a policy that she and Robin had paid for for several years. But the trial judge ruled that Robin was in fact Kelly's spouse and that the benefit had to be paid. The insurance company agreed and was prepared to pay, but you appealed it.

You talk a lot about how governments shouldn't intervene in domestic matters. You don't even think the courts should intervene most of the time and yet here you've chosen to intervene, not once but on numerous occasions. What's driving you in this matter? What exactly are you afraid of in the trial court's decision?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The member for Welland-Thorold is aware that there are a number of cases before the courts. There are a number of decisions that will be made in the next, I believe, short period of time that will define a number of these long-standing issues. Certainly we will wait for the court to make the decision on these very matters to provide us with the guidance we need to go forward.

Mr Kormos: You see, the problem is you're taking a very clear position in your intervention and participation in this litigation. You are clearly interested in persuading the courts to deny same-sex partners benefits under any number of circumstances. The matter of Ms Kane isn't the only case. In the case of M and H you have appealed once again. Litigants M and H don't want to be in court, you know that, but you're forcing them to remain in court. They've reached an agreement. You're forcing them to continue to litigate. And you've got the nerve to use Ontario tax dollars to intervene in the Vriend case in Alberta.

When are you going to stop wasting Ontario tax dollars to harass citizens by prolonging litigation which has been settled by the parties? There's more at stake here, because you're actively engaged in keeping the issue from being resolved, you're actively engaged in keeping justice from being done.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Kormos: When are you going to stop harassing innocent citizens and when are you going to stop denying the equality of gays and lesbians in Ontario? The courts have recognized that justice must be done, the people have recognized that it must be done. When are you going to -

The Speaker: Thank you. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: This issue was debated in this Legislature, and as a result of the outcome of that debate the law was not changed. As a result, challenges have been made to existing law in Ontario. I believe the government has acted responsibly to deal with challenges to the laws that this Legislature has sanctioned -

Mr Kormos: You don't like what the courts are saying so you keep appealing.

The Speaker: Come to order, please. The Attorney General has the floor.

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly the government has acted very responsibly in dealing with legislation that this Legislature has countenanced, that remains on the books. The courts are now dealing with some of these definitions that the member is concerned with. I believe we will have an answer from the court soon. But certainly we have proceeded responsibly and dealt with the legislation as this Legislature has directed us to do.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services. It concerns recent criticisms from the Ontario Dental Association regarding changes in dental coverage for children, both under Ontario Works and the Ontario disability support program. We would like to know what is your thinking regarding these particular criticisms from the ODA that the changes are both detrimental and hurtful to the kids in Ontario and what is the rationale for the introduction of these changes at this time.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): One of the things we want to do is to improve the services for children. One of our first goals of course is to ensure that more of their parents, more families are in the workplace. We know that over 108,000 fewer children are trapped on welfare - or have left welfare that were there before.

The second part is to improve some of the services for children who are still in families that are relying on welfare. One of the things we have done is to improve the dental coverage. It is now mandatory for all children whose families are relying on welfare. That has added an additional 190,000 children who will have dental services. We've developed an interim benefit package for them to make sure they're getting the services they need, including preventive services, regular checkups, emergency exams and things of that kind, and we are continuing the consultation to finalize a new plan for later this year.

Mr Hastings: In other words, the changes that the ODA has criticized, that they are claiming are both detrimental and hurtful to the kids in this province, are fundamentally not true. How do these changes add to the integrity of the program?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As I said, what we're doing is to improve the dental services for children whose families rely on welfare. One of the things that we're doing is we're committed to the best-quality service that we can get at the most cost-effective price, and this will apply to the administration of this dental plan as well. While municipalities will continue to administer dental services for those children on Ontario Works, the province will continue to administer dental services for those children who are in families that are relying on the disability income support program.

We'll be putting that out for requests for proposals later this year. Organizations, for example, like the Ontario Dental Association, which has been providing a similar service for the province in the last 30 years, may well wish to be part of the proponents that come forward with proposals to continue this service for children who are in families who are disabled and are using disability income for their support.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. As you're aware, after the Plastimet fire your ministry laid charges against the owners of Plastimet. Two days ago, in a court settlement without a plea entered, your ministry lawyers cut a deal with the lawyers for the owners of Plastimet that allowed the sentence for this Plastimet disaster to be 50 hours of community work and $270,000 in restitution, for a fire that cost over $2 million for your ministry to clean up, plus insurmountable and unimaginable damage to the residents of the community.

People are upset about this deal. Anne Buckle, a resident of the neighbourhood said, "I think it stinks like the smoke from the fire."

1510

Minister, she is right. This deal smells: no guilty plea, a backroom deal cut by your ministry lawyers with defence lawyers, without the evidence coming out in court, and frankly hanging the residents out to dry once again and showing a lack of action on your part again in dealing with the Plastimet fire.

Minister, were you aware of the deal, did you approve it and are you satisfied with the settlement that has been reached?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): The member opposite should know from his experience in politics and from his experience in here that it would be quite wrong for a minister of the crown to be involved in any deals which a prosecutor might undertake with any kind of defendant or be involved in any quasi-criminal trial. Therefore, I had nothing to do with any kind of deal which this particular allegation puts forward.

Quite frankly, I have read the press accounts of it, as the member opposite has. I am sorry that the residents do not consider it adequate punishment for this particular event that took place, but unfortunately our criminal law system requires people to be tried by an independent person standing away from the politicians. This is in fact the finding of the crown after the evidence was heard.

Mr Agostino: Minister, I find that to be an amazing answer, how you can just walk away from it, and the inconsistencies between your answer now and an answer given to a previous question by the Attorney General.

Again, it was your ministry's prosecutor, who works for you, for the Ministry of the Environment, who cut this deal. What message does that send out? The message it sends out is very clear: You are continuing this pattern of not going after polluters, not going after people who cause damage to our environment.

Charges are down 50% since you took office, prosecutions are down 50% since you took office, and your answer in the House was, "We're going after the rocks and not the pebbles when we prosecute people." Well, Minister, this was a boulder, and this boulder crushed you and crushed your ministry. This action by your ministry officials in dealing with this Plastimet fire sends out a message across Ontario that it's okay to pollute our air and our water because this minister and this government are going to roll over and play dead and bend at the mercy of environmental polluters in this province.

Minister, in view of the previous answer by the Attorney General, will you today appeal and review the decision made by your ministry officials in this case?

Hon Mr Sterling: I think it's evident from the information which I read from the Hamilton Spectator this morning with regard to the prosecutor who was prosecuting this particular case that their investigation showed no intent or no evidence that these people had in fact lit this fire, nor anybody who was associated with them; that in fact they were acting in accordance with a July 3 letter from the city of Hamilton fire department which allowed them to carry on their business while they were breaking the fire code, so that there was due diligence on their part.

Therefore, the case of the ministry, as I understand it, was relatively weak. The fact that they did get a conviction and got a judgement for some $170,000 of restitution towards the ministry in terms of paying them back for their money sounded to me not bad in terms of the -

Mr Agostino: Are you satisfied?

Hon Mr Sterling: I am not satisfied with regard to what happened with regard to this fire.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Come to order. New question.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Minister, given the fact that just two days ago you introduced Bill 36, which will make sweeping changes to the way we conduct elections in Ontario as well as finance the conducting of those elections, and given the fact that there are only two weeks left before this House rises for the summer recess and the fact that there are some recommendations in your bill which were not recommended by the commission or the ad hoc committee, and given the fact that you've set aside the democratic tradition of having all-party support before such legislation is introduced, I ask you today on behalf of my colleagues and the people of Ontario whether or not you will commit that before that bill is rammed through, you will put it out for public input and give the people of Ontario a say in the conducting of their elections.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member of the third party knows full well that how a bill proceeds through the House is determined by the House leaders and that they negotiate these things, so I can't comment on that. But I can comment on the fact that the need for change has been identified, that we need to modernize the bill by taking advantage of a permanent voters' list, by taking recommendations from the chief electoral officer. There is a savings to the taxpayers of about $15 million. Also, this reality has been recognized by other provinces.

We at one point in our history in the province were able to get unanimous consent, and I think that was the way to proceed. That's why I tried to negotiate with the other parties to get it so we all agreed on the changes. Unfortunately, we have had to proceed like other provinces have had to in recent times - British Columbia, for example, and Saskatchewan - which have had to update the election laws by themselves, unilaterally so to speak, and then the opposition parties take shots at that process.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I can tell you change has to be done now, according to Jack Murray, your past party president and chair of the all-party committee -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, none of that washes. The fact of the matter is that you have waited this late before you have brought in these changes, and now you want people to believe that because there is so little time between now and the next election that you have to rush them through. Then you use the argument that these recommendations were made by other bodies. Well, some of these recommendations were not made by other bodies.

The fact that you refuse to follow the democratic tradition wherein there was a negotiated, agreed-upon piece of legislation that all the parties could live with before it was introduced has left us looking at your track record. You're the government that tried to ram through Bill 26, the omnibus bully bill, where we had to hijack this place to get some decent public hearings. You rammed through a brand-new Ontario Labour Relations Act without one minute of public hearings. You changed the rules of the House unilaterally so there's no input.

Minister, the way you're going, in less than two weeks the people of Ontario will have a new set of rules for elections and the funding and raising of money for those elections that you, and you only, will have had input into. No one else will have had a say. I ask you again, at the very least will you allow a decorum of democracy and ensure that there are public hearings so the public can have a say on their own election rules?

Hon Mr Hodgson: You know full well that the House leaders, at their weekly meetings and at other times, negotiate the proceedings of this House. There was also full recognition, I would think, from your party that the Election Finances Act needed to be changed. That's why in 1991 you had the ad hoc committee. You had the election finances committee, with two members from your party and two members from the Liberal Party and a chair who was your past party president, which made recommendations.

They also said, in fairness to the people of Ontario, in fairness to the accountants, the political candidates and all those involved in elections, "Do this now, in lots of time before the next election, so everyone understands the rules and so it's fair to everyone and they have time to prepare."

Your party delayed for four years on this, and we have tried to get an all-party agreement. Now is the time to act on behalf of the taxpayers and all those people who participate in elections.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to assent to certain bills in her office.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour did assent:

Bill 6, An Act to amend the law with respect to Partnerships / Projet de loi 6, Loi visant à modifier des lois en ce qui concerne les sociétés en nom collectif.

Bill 16, An Act to give Tax Relief to Small Businesses, Charities and Others and to make other amendments respecting the Financing of Local Government and Schools / Projet de loi 16, Loi visant à alléger les impôts des petites entreprises, des organismes de bienfaisance et d'autres et à apporter d'autres modifications en ce qui a trait au financement des administrations locales et des écoles.

Bill 108, An Act to deal with the prosecution of certain provincial offences, to reduce duplication and to streamline administration / Projet de loi 108, Loi traitant des poursuites concernant certaines infractions provinciales, réduisant le double emploi et simplifiant l'administration.

PETITIONS

DURHAM UNIVERSITY CENTRE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Durham University Centre is a cooperative effort between Durham College, York University and Trent University that provides accessible and affordable university education to the students within the region of Durham; and

"Whereas the Durham University Centre provides a pool of skills to contribute to the local economy of our local communities; and

"Whereas local businesses, students, faculty, staff, parents and local municipalities have demonstrated their support for the Durham University Centre;

"We, the undersigned, request that the Minister of Education and Training support the Durham University Centre proposal."

I affix my signature in support.

1520

ABORTION

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I have a petition today from almost 1,400 parishioners of my parish of St Leonard's in Brampton.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas abortion is a `lifestyle' choice which is never medically necessary; and

"Whereas the Ontario government's injunction against 18 pro-life citizens initiated by the NDP in 1993 is an unwarranted suppression of free speech and of peaceful and lawful activity; and

"Whereas health care workers are experiencing coercion to participate in procedures contrary to their consciences and unfair discrimination for acting according to their consciences;

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

"That public funding of abortion should cease;

"That the injunction against pro-life witnessing should be dropped; and

"That the conscience rights of health care workers be given new, explicit protection in law."

I affix my signature to this.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Pursuant to Speaker Morin's suggestion yesterday, I'm pleased to introduce a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by hundreds of residents in my riding and elsewhere in Ontario.

Pursuant to standing order 38(b), I'll just say briefly that their concerns are about the ability for health care workers to have their conscience respected in the choices of the work they perform in hospitals.

I'll affix my signature to this to make it an official record of the Legislature.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm quite willing to give the time to the member from Scarborough, but anyway a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I am presenting this on behalf of the Honourable Chris Hodgson from Victoria-Haliburton. These are signatures from the Lindsay area, Scarborough, Bobcaygeon. Some names are Steve O'Neill and Scott O'Leary.

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

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

I'm pleased to sign my name on this petition.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition from constituents in my riding. It ends:

"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 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."

I'll sign it so that it can be entered into the official record of the Legislature.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by many workers in the Toronto area. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas each year in Ontario approximately 300 workers are killed on the job, several thousand die of occupational diseases and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas during the past decade the Workers' Health and Safety Centre proved to be the most cost-effective WCB-funded prevention organization dedicated to worker health and safety concerns; and

"Whereas the WCB provides over 80% of its legislated prevention funding to several employer-controlled safety associations and less than 20% to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre recently lost several million dollars in funding and course revenue due to government changes to legislated training requirements; and

"Whereas 30% of Workers' Health and Safety Centre staff were laid off due to these lost training funds; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre now faces an additional 25% cut to its 1998 budget, which will be used to augment new funding for employer safety associations in the health, education and services sector; and

"Whereas the WCB's 1998 planned baseline budget cuts for safety associations and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre will be disproportionately against the workers' centre and reduce its 1998 budget allocation to less than 15% of the WCB prevention funding;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the WCB's proposed cuts and direct the WCB to increase the Workers' Health and Safety Centre's funding to at least 50% of the WCB's legislated prevention funding; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the WCB to significantly increase its legislated prevention funding in order to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

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

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I won't read all the "whereases" because they have been read many times by other members. However, we will read one:

"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 present this petition against all the backfall of other commentary around here.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my privilege to present a petition on behalf of the member for Scarborough Centre, Mr Newman. The House should know that Mr Newman presented Bill 21 to the House in private members' hour, but for the sake of the record:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas all schools in Ontario should be safe learning and working environments; and

"Whereas all Ontarians should be assured that safe school programs are in place in all Ontario schools; and

"Whereas Dan Newman, MPP for Scarborough Centre, has drafted a private member's bill entitled An Act to Promote Safety in Ontario Schools and Create Positive Learning Environments for Ontario Students, 1998; and

"Whereas Mr Newman's bill was presented to the House today" -

I'm pleased to sign this petition.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario have experienced 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;

I'm very pleased that Jesse is here to accept this petition.

1530

ABORTION

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I have a petition brought in by Mr Leo Boucher in my riding. It represents hundreds of signatures from people throughout the riding of Scarborough East. Again, pursuant to standing order 38(b), this is a petition calling upon the Legislative Assembly to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions.

I affix my signature to make this an official record of the Legislature.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I'd like to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas communities strongly disagree with allowing women to go topless in public;

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

"To enact legislation to require women to wear tops in public places for the protection of our children, for public safety in general."

I'll sign it so it becomes an official record of the House.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): With regard to my previous petition, I forgot to introduce Mr and Mrs Newman in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Durham East, take your seat for a minute. I appreciate that. It was out of order. You have to just present your petition.

Mr O'Toole: I apologize. After I've had my second term here I'll know those rules.

"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" -

I'm pleased to sign my name to this petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I have another petition to the Legislature of Ontario. Again, pursuant to standing order 38(b), it's a petition signed by hundreds, in fact I think close to 500 residents, in my riding and elsewhere in Ontario, calling upon the government of Ontario to immediately enact legislation to prohibit women from being topless in public.

I'll affix my signature to make this part of the official record of the Legislature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RED TAPE REDUCTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À RÉDUIRE LES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 25, An Act to reduce red tape by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts / Projet de loi 25, Loi visant à réduire les formalités administratives en modifiant ou abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant deux nouvelles lois.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): It's my pleasure to continue the debate, the fact being that we closed it at 9:30 the other night. I'm pleased to be able to speak to the red tape bill, Bill 25, An Act to reduce red tape. It is an initiative that the government had in the Common Sense Revolution, it is an initiative that the Red Tape Commission is very pleased to continue on, and it is a perfect example of the promises made by this government and the promises that are being kept by this government.

One of the big things with the process that we're going through on red tape is the red tape consultation that's going on with people from all around Ontario. There have been hundreds and hundreds of hours spent to try and resolve the issues and impose solutions that will make it easier to create jobs and to better the economy in this province.

There's not a person in this House who has either been in business or indeed been in some level of politics, be they municipal, who has not got involved with red tape over the last many years, red tape that has slowed down the economy, has slowed down development and has -

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Could you check to see whether there is a quorum present?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Could you check and see if there is a quorum, please.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Peterborough.

Mr Stewart: As I mentioned, many hours have been spent on consultation and listening to the people of the province to identify problems and to identify solutions. That is one of the keys to find and implement solutions and to design a process to make sure that new red tape is not being created. There is no sense cutting red tape if indeed the bureaucracy and the government of the day continue to create more, a perfect example being the previous government, where in the last year they sat some 10, 15 or 18 days and did everything by regulation, which creates more red tape.

What we have done in the Red Tape Commission, and this bill proves it, is develop, coordinate and implement the regulatory impact and competitive test. That is the key to it. As I mentioned, there is no sense cutting if you are going to create more. Every time a bill or an act comes into effect, one must make sure that it is not creating new barriers to job creation and that what it does do is make for better government.

Also, we have to make sure that outdated regulations are gone. There are references to this act that are showing - one I can think of is from the Ministry of Agriculture, where they are looking at the Sheep and Wool Marketing Act. This act is being repealed. It has been redundant since the establishment of the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency in 1985. There is a regulation or a red tape issue, which has been on the books since 1985, that was not needed and not required whatsoever.

We also have to make sure that the delays in the process and the procedures that we have to do to conduct the business of government, and I emphasize the words "business of government," and more importantly to improve customer service not only by government officials but by government itself - we must make sure we continue to consult the public and indeed the business sector. We must challenge all members of government, the business community and the public to participate in this process. That is most important. Those folks who are involved in knowing what red tape is doing to the economy, what red tape is doing to business, must be able to assist us and help us to design a process that is workable and, again, does not impede the creation of jobs in the economy.

If you look at this bill, there is a recurring theme throughout the whole bill. I want to read just a couple sections of it. That recurring theme is the commitment, through this bill, of this government to make sure that customer service is in the forefront.

I read, under the Ministry of the Attorney General section of this act, that the general purpose of the amendments is to improve customer service, improve administrative efficiency, improve access to the justice system and reduce costs for the public and the government. That, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the keys to reducing costs to the public and indeed to the government, because the government's costs are indeed the costs of the people.

Under the agriculture section, as I mentioned, the Sheep and Wool Marketing Act will be gone. Under the Tile Drainage Act, for many of you who are not from rural communities, the bylaws will no longer need to be registered in the local registry office. Why would they, when the municipalities are approving them?

Under the Ministry of Natural Resources, changes are designed to improve delivery of MNR's mandate to its clients, and that affects many things: water management, land management, surveys etc. Another one they have suggested is to clarify the powers of park wardens and conservation officers, to make sure the people know exactly what they're doing without getting bogged down in red tape, without having roadblocks put in front of them that they can't get over to continue to do business. Under the Ministry of Energy, it's suggesting such methods may prove incentives for utilities to operate more efficiently.

The bottom line of this bill is reducing red tape to create jobs, to improve this economy and to make this province a better place to live, work and to continue to do business in a reasonable fashion.

1540

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to comment on my colleague's remarks. I was really struck by his comment that a cost to the government is a cost to the people, or words to that effect. I received an interesting piece of literature at my door from the government, which really is purely political, partisan literature going to the doors, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario. We have the Progressive Conservative government, the Mike Harris government, using those same taxpayer dollars that my very good friend has concerns about in the way they're spent, sending out a message of this nature. This is not the first time this government has done this.

It sets up this boondoggle, this Ontario Jobs and Investment Board, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to taxpayers, and puts David Lindsay, the Premier's principal secretary, his adviser and a key strategist in the Conservative government, at its head, and then uses that as the vehicle to send out other kinds of political, partisan advertising propaganda, all at taxpayers' expense. I know my very good friend and colleague from Peterborough will want to stand up and say that he thinks the Progressive Conservative Party should reimburse the taxpayers of Ontario for this cheap political propaganda that is arriving at the doors of all Ontario taxpayers.

I know that all the government members are ashamed and embarrassed at the utter waste of taxpayer dollars. I know they too feel how inappropriate these kinds of expenditures are in the way taxpayer dollars are being used. They share my sentiments, and I know they will do the right thing and reimburse Ontario taxpayers.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): It isn't often, by virtue of the agenda, by virtue of the assault, that I can commend one of my colleagues opposite, but the member for Peterborough not only really believes but is very well versed in and articulated the attempt of the government to change just about anything. He did a commendable job under the circumstances. It's not easy.

I would be remiss if I did not mention, for I saw the pain in their faces, the civil service, the people who the Common Sense Revolution has commandeered to deliver over 40 changes. They call it a red tape bill. When we hear "red tape," we think of excesses, of the marketplace being impacted by virtue of being slowed down or bogged down. But this government, this revolution, has ulterior motives. The devil is in the details; it's done in the regulations. What they have done is give power to a few people, not always elected. They could become mandarins in the deciding factor. No more consultations, or less consultation. Those people will rule by decree, because they've been given the right to do so by a government, a revolution, which is in a hurry.

Let's look at it. The Crown Forest Sustainability Act is amended, the Forest Fires Prevention Act, the Forestry Act - over 40 acts are amended. And beware: When the regulations hit the road, they will give life to these enormous changes. I wish the people of Ontario quite well, because it's a difficult situation.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's absolutely bizarre to hear the member for Oriole commenting on the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board information that was sent out. It was a previous government, of which the predecessor who occupied the seat for Oriole was a member, that certainly engaged, in the Peterson years, in some rather fanciful information, if we could use that phrase, projecting the virtues of the Peterson government. It would be nice to hear the present member for Oriole stand and make some comments about how that was any different from what we have been doing in terms of dealing with jobs and investment. It would also be very interesting to know how the practices of his federal brethren in Ottawa differ fundamentally in this area. To put the spin on it from that particular viewpoint is rather minor and rather irrelevant.

I would hope he would stand up and deal with the substance of Bill 25, and tell us what he doesn't like about, for example, the Consumer Protection Act or the Consumer Reporting Act or any of the other specific items in Bill 25, particularly the Limited Partnerships Act, which specifically does away with the regulation-making powers in the act with respect to fees and allows the minister to approve fees, which is a pretty conventional approach in a democratic government today.

It would be interesting to hear what the opposition has in terms of alternatives, if they don't like the idea of a red tape reduction bill. Would they go the other way and keep the status quo, which they seem to be very good and very adept at defending over the years? That's what led us to the particular problem that the member for Peterborough cited, with the sheep act as an example.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I don't mind them getting rid of the sheep act, because I understand it was baa-a-d legislation anyway.

I've heard the words "spinning" and "waste of money" from two of the government members. I'm inclined to agree with you; I don't agree with spinning and waste of money. Yet we were given, a couple of days ago, a several-hundred-page Report to the Ontario Casino Corp on Certain Allegations Respecting Coopers and Lybrand and the Selection Process for the Niagara Falls Casino/Gateway Project. Talk about a waste of money. I can't imagine, frankly, since I'm not a lawyer, what this report must have cost. Had the process been level in the first place, it wouldn't even have been necessary. Had the third-place finisher in the process not been declared the winner, this report wouldn't even be necessary.

The strange thing when they talk about spinning is that this spin tops it all. It's a letter from the solicitors, referring to a June 1 letter from Michele Noble requesting legal counsel to the Ontario Casino Corp to investigate the report on certain allegations contained and articles published in the Toronto Star respecting an adviser to the Ontario Casino Corp.

My colleague from Welland pointed out today how even according to this letter, where it says, "Privileged and Confidential," when you're a lawyer for someone, you're there to protect them. This certainly is an example of red tape and wasted money.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Peterborough has two minutes to respond.

1550

Mr Stewart: I thank the members for some of their comments. I want to clarify one thing. The cost to the people is a concern I have and the cost to this government is a concern I have, and I would suggest that every member of this House should have the same concern. I appreciate that under the government of the gentleman from Oriole - certainly they talk about waste of money. They must have wasted a ton of it, because they had to raise taxes 35 times. The previous government had to do the same thing. What we are trying to do is suggest that we get a way to be a little bit more responsive and efficient and accountable.

I would suggest that the members read this bill, because if you're so badly against it, are you then against the ability for us to make some changes to put funds to renew crown forests? Are you against that? Are you against the ability to respond quickly in case of a forest fire? Are you against that?

I suggest to the members that instead of bringing in things about the proposed new Election Act and the charity casinos or the casino in Niagara Falls, they talk about this act. That's part of the red tape we go through. We can't talk about the things we should be paying attention to, and that is why I am extremely supportive of this bill. I am very supportive of jobs. I am very supportive of the economy. I am very supportive of looking and making sure the funds in this province are spent well and the costs to the people of this province are not out of line.

That's what I am involved with, that's what this bill is involved with, and I suggest that the rest of the members in this House should consider the same thing.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is a pleasure to rise and speak to some of the dilatory action of this government in bringing forward their urgent red tape bills, the red tape bills that found their origin back in I believe June 1996 when the government said it would address aggressively cutting red tape. Of course the government itself has become enmeshed in red tape and hasn't been able to pass these bills for lo, that long period of time.

We recognize that this is a government that has a hard time doing things properly. It certainly has shown that in a lot of different areas. We've seen now in education, in health care, where they've worked hard to create a crisis and then got caught up in it themselves. We see, for example, the recent municipal bill where the government is now I think in its fourth version and something like three or four times the length of the original bill in the first place to try to fix the morass it created in property tax for small business owners and for others. In fact, when it comes to health care there is certainly no distinction and no difference in what they're trying to accomplish in the sense that it's really not consequential, it's not germane to the real business of the province at hand.

It gives us some clues about this bumbling government. It gives us some idea about what they'd rather have us concentrate on, this slow boat to Panama they took with their red tape express, bringing us these bills some two or three years later, saying they're going to improve the quality of life in this province. I think there are people out there who wonder if any bill this government passes could have those qualities. But certainly, if this is the one to do it, it has taken its sweet time getting here.

When we talk about the health elements of it, we see that the government is identifying to us some of the places they've really omitted in terms of dealing with their consequential responsibility, the whole idea they should have had, in taking government in the first place, to do a good job in government rather than finding themselves in public relations manoeuvres which this largely is, having to do with bills that in some cases confer advantages where they shouldn't be and in some cases tidy up things that don't really deal with the matters at hand.

For example, we have some regulations to help regulatory colleges that look after health professions, to help them do some of their work. These urgent requirements have been sitting around since June 1996. Those urgent requirements are supposed to let them deal with nuisance complaints and do some of their things. Yet the really consequential business, the thing you'd want the Harris government to really be looking after when it comes to the colleges that look after health professions, is elsewhere.

The government declined to deal with, for example, what the Ombudsman had to tell us last week, that if you have a problem as a consumer, as a patient, with doctors, with nurses, with nurse practitioners, with chiropractors, with any of the people who make up the health professions, with those few cases where you're going to have service that doesn't help you or in some cases harms you, who is looking after you?

It is supposed to be something called the health professions appeal board, only we learned from the Ombudsman that it is such a slow process as to be completely unacceptable. So instead of finding a responsiveness on the part of the regulatory bodies that this government is responsible for, we find a complete lack of responsibility taking. It certainly is very consistent that we have an appeal board that takes years for average people to get into.

We heard last week that there are problems in some of our regulatory colleges that at least need addressing. It wasn't words from the opposition, but rather a young woman and her husband, Georgina and James Hunter, who wanted to call on this government to look after them, to do the job that should have been done in terms of dealing with regulatory colleges. They lost their young daughter Madeleine some two years ago because they weren't able to get responsiveness from the health system. In those small number of cases where it happens, it's extremely important that we have a system, and a government that oversees that system, that can be responsive. Unfortunately, Madeleine Hunter, at least the memory of Madeleine, and her parents have been failed by that system. They feel very strongly that they've been let down.

This government has been called upon to investigate how the college operates in terms of that part of its duty, the part dealing with complaints, which, if you look at the records of the college, in many cases take one to two to three years to be dealt with. That's simply not acceptable. It simply reflects a lack of will on someone's part. It could be the cuts this government has made to the college, and it ultimately becomes the responsibility of this government to see that the college is able to do its job, not just in a timely fashion but ultimately in a fair fashion.

What we have in front of us today are some niggling rules. The government is proposing to change the powers of the colleges but not going to the heart of the matter, as to whether we have the correct level of responsiveness to protect patients.

Again, we just have to refer to what the Ombudsman told us last week, that we have no means in this province, under Mike Harris, of protecting patients in hospitals. There isn't somebody in place to deal with hospitals and, more important, to deal with patients, their complaints, their concerns and the injuries that could be done. They have no place to go in Mike Harris's Ontario.

What the Ombudsman, who's an independent person, told the government and told us in this House - and it's an extremely important voice for us to listen to because it's there to remind us when there is a falling down on the part of the operation of government -is that, because of the cutbacks and the changes that have been made in hospitals, we need now to have some form of protection for patients, either a separate Ombudsman or some other office created; otherwise, a great risk exists for patients not to be dealt with.

Certainly that is what we have been presenting through the House. We've been forced to take cases of people who have not been able to get their concerns and their needs dealt with to this House, to this Legislature, because there isn't something more human, more personal, more local and more effective in place right in those hospitals and right in those locations where the services are rendered.

Unfortunately, that isn't a preoccupation or even a mild concern of this government. This government has done everything to create bigger and bigger institutions and hasn't focused on listening to people in their local community, being able to provide a reasonable level of quality.

Today we took a close look at the substantive issues that this government should have been dealing with in one of the health professions; in this case, nursing. We learned, to the shock of many, that in this province, the wealthiest one in the country, we have fewer registered nurses per person than any other province or territory. When Ontario has fewer registered nurses caring for its sick than the Northwest Territories, then we know the wrong government is in charge, because it's a government obviously unconcerned, not bothered, not even troubled with what should happen to patients when it drives nurses out of this province.

We talked briefly about a young woman named Kim West who graduated with a lot of hope from nursing college in 1991. She is a registered nurse with training in the emergency room, which is sought after, or should be sought after, in this province with the amount of bungling that we've had in that area. She also has critical care background. For seven years she's been trying to find work. She had at least full-time hours in the last few years. Those were taken away at the South Muskoka hospital as the government cut $787,000, or 7%, of that hospital's budget.

Sometimes this government will try - in fact its main method of operation is to shrug these things away and say, "It wasn't our government." It was this government that cut $787,000 and caused hospitals to fire nurses in record numbers in this province.

That is the kind of attention that should be paid to the regulated professions in this province. Instead, we have this government taking up the time of this House with these urgent three-year-old rules that they say will somehow improve the quality of life. In fact, in Bracebridge I'm pretty sure that the people would rather have had Kim West working full-time in their emergency room, providing better service than this government is prepared to provide. Instead, she had to move to British Columbia. She did that two weeks ago. She did that paid for by the hospital that's employing her. She's now getting training.

1600

Earlier today, we tried to gauge the interest of this government and say: "What is your ability, what is your capacity to listen to people who are having this kind of difficulty? We want to tell you their real world situations." The minister declined to call Kim West and explain to her why in Mike Harris's Ontario there's no room for an adequate number of nurses. Instead this government aspires, and is proud of in some respects, because it proves that through its actions, to have the worst record for the availability of nurses to patients in the whole country. It has driven us there.

You see that the number of people who are re-registering with the college has gone down. We've had over a 138% increase in the number of people choosing not to register as nurses because they're discouraged. They've seen what Mike Harris has done to their workplace. Some of them have been fired. Many of them simply look at the kind of conditions, the kind of factory mentality, this 20-year-old business principle that this government tries to run on, that they're going to move our hospitals into being factories. In that factory we'll have just-in-time nursing. Someone will have them hanging up in a closet somewhere and they'll come running in just when they're needed. What that means is that for the first time we almost have a majority of nurses working part-time and casual, and not full-time. That's Mike Harris's Ontario.

Those are the issues Mike Harris refuses to deal with because they aren't the kind of things he's concerned with. We've not heard from the member representing Bracebridge, from any of the members in this House, any concern expressed on the plight of nurses, and through nurses, the plight of their patients. We've yet to hear that.

We raised situations as long as two years ago, dealing with people in Peterborough and how Ed Whitehill died in the emergency room, discovered by his daughter, not through the fault of the nurses, but rather the fault of the system that would cut the amount of money available to the Peterborough Civic Hospital.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Can you ask the member to get back on the subject, please.

The Deputy Speaker: I think he does have a point there. We're debating the red tape bill.

Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Perhaps the member would be encouraged to get back on the subject quicker if the Conservatives would be kind enough to supply us with a quorum. Quorum call, please.

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm sorry to learn that some of the message before was disturbing to the members opposite. It's actually interesting to see any expression of concern.

It is germane. We're talking about changes to the power of the colleges that look after the state of nursing in this province. They're meant to protect the public. The corollary of that is that the government is also meant to protect the public. We're talking about essentially the same subject here: what the government should have included in this bill if it was concerned around the ability of the colleges and fundamentally the safety of the public.

Having a low number of nurses in this province, and I'm not sure if you caught it before, but it's actually the lowest number of nurses anywhere in the country, including the Northwest Territories. We actually have fewer nurses per population than the Northwest Territories, courtesy of Mike Harris and his government.

We actually have an incredible lack on the part of this government of even acknowledgement of their responsibilities, so when it comes time to judge their legislation that might purport to make improvements, we have to measure it against that standard of whether patients really are protected in this province or whether this is a government that has once again abdicated some of the most fundamental expectations that people have out there, that a government will at all costs provide for their wellbeing, will provide for some basic level of health care.

You can't do that in hospitals or in home care or in any of those places without registered nurses who are adequately trained to provide the services. Unfortunately, what we know now is that this government doesn't agree. It certainly didn't provide any additional powers to the colleges, which it should and could have done, to be able to make sure the public was protected. That needs to be done.

The Ombudsman has told us we have to have some means of protecting the patients. Sick people need protection in Mike Harris's Ontario. That's what the Ombudsman told us. We need an Ombudsman for hospitals simply because there have been so many random cuts, thoughtless, reckless things happen in this province that the colleges or an Ombudsman or some other independent means have to do that.

We've seen earlier today and earlier in the week the kind of abdication that is a current running through this government. When it comes to the lottery corporation and there's conflict of interest they have to contend with, they ask the lottery corporation to investigate itself. Obviously the public interest can't be protected when we have a government so afraid of scrutiny that it can't even look into those kinds of matters.

When we wonder about the kinds of things the colleges are going to be asked to do here, we really have to refer back to the fact that the primary responsibility for patient safety - not just because the government didn't change the rules but because that's where it belongs in the first place - is with this government.

Each time people encounter those waiting lists for their surgeries, that wait in the emergency room - hopefully not one of those many patients now numbering in the hundreds and maybe even in the thousands each day who are determined as sick and find themselves staring up at the lights in emergency room hallways simply because this government doesn't really care about giving them the care that they want. They have an opportunity to do that, of course. They could make adjustments to this bill. They could put funding into nursing but they've decided not to do that. For whatever fundamental reason, the government has decided not to do that.

We look at another part of this bill that says they're going to streamline the acquisition process for CAT scanners and MRIs, magnetic resonance imaging machines. In that part of the red tape bill it allows the minister to designate hospitals. What really matters here is not just that the government be able to designate hospitals; there should be a requirement in the bill that if the government is going to take that kind of power, if it's going to be able to tell hospitals they have to have machines, then the government should be required to fund them. This is the sad story in Ontario today for those of you who live in communities and think you're getting additional diagnostic capacity. What you're actually getting is at least in part a headache.

The Deputy Speaker: Point of order, member for Peterborough.

Mr Stewart: He should speak to the bill. There is nothing in that about MRIs whatsoever. If he doesn't know anything about the bill, then he should sit down.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Take your seat, please.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Pay attention. It is in the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, member for St Catharines. In fact, I was listening carefully to the member and he was talking to the bill. Continue.

Mr Kennedy: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As always, we can depend on your authority when sometimes there are members whose attention perhaps is remiss and didn't realize this is schedule G, dealing with the changes in regulatory powers. The member for Peterborough should be very concerned because that's exactly the kind of omission that has been conspicuous in this House. We can't have members who aren't looking after the facts for their local communities.

For example, MRIs are supposed to be put in place in various parts of this province. There is a requirement for MRIs. This bill says give the power to the government to designate that, but what it doesn't do is require the government to pay for the MRIs in the first place.

Once again we find that we rank on the bottom of all the provinces in terms of providing funding for MRIs. Even New Brunswick gives hospitals more money to run their MRIs; $160,000 per year, not even the cost of lights and power, the hospitals tell us, is what the Ontario government of Mike Harris will give to run this very important diagnostic equipment. Even in New Brunswick they provide $680,000.

I put to you, it should be in the bill. If the government wants to take the political credit for MRIs, which are paid for by community dollars and then they have to be operated by the hospital, which has to find savings elsewhere, probably by firing nurses or laying them off or putting them on casual and part-time and not having them there in the wards, if that's this government's policy, then we should be changing it because they really should be required to pay for the MRIs that they want to take political credit for.

1610

Two and three years ago this government, in a related measure, said there would be more MRIs in this province. They haven't been built, and it's mainly because the government won't provide the operating funds. They talk big in this bill. They say that there's going to be some way of them designating. Designating doesn't mean anything unless it's paid for. So we understand the disturbance from the members opposite, because it really is problematic - and that they look at the kinds of powers the minister is using and understand that to the people in their communities, this is actually hurting them - to be able to pretend that somehow the MRI is going to be there to help them.

We look at some of the other things here. Giving the minister the power to establish a list of hospitals and their classifications is something we need to look at. Under the Public Hospitals Act, people may not be aware, but the current rules of the Public Hospitals Act allow the Minister of Health to make decisions in any hospital. So if there are people in any community wondering: "Why is my hospital closing; why is my hospital being shut down; why are they losing services; why are they taking things away from us?" it's the Minister of Health who has that power under the Public Hospitals Act. So when in the bill they're asking for other acts to be updated, to be able to update the classifications, it's very important that it not be done in the dilatory fashion we've seen here. Somebody needs to take responsibility. The government tries from time to time to pretend that there's a commission out there that's closing hospitals. In fact, it's the minister, the cabinet and this government that retain all the regulatory responsibility.

We're reminded with this. We're reminded, when the government goes again to enhance its powers, that it's the government which is responsible, which could change overnight - the condition and the status of any of the hospitals in Ontario could be rectified by a Minister of Health and by the Premier. But the condition for that would be a government that doesn't concern itself with some of the administrivia that it has waited three years to bring before this House. Instead, it would take a government concerned with some of the things that these resolutions, that these kinds of changes remind us of and are directly connected to, which is the primary responsibility of this government, to provide good health care.

For a variety of reasons the members of this House are unprepared, on the government side, to stand up and speak for one-tier health care. There doesn't seem to be a single person on the opposite side of the House who is prepared to say to their communities, "We will stand up and make sure you have high-quality, publicly funded, publicly administered, publicly managed health care and we'll make sure that you'll get it." So seniors across the province have every right to be concerned that this government ultimately doesn't care enough for their health, for the health of the providers and the wellbeing of the people who provide for them.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Pouliot: It's always a pleasure to listen to the member for York South. It's most unfortunate, however, that whenever the Liberal or Conservative members of this House stand up to debate an issue, it seems to invite the worst in terms of decorum. I hear many interruptions, I hear people interjecting, and this is most unfortunate. It's almost like a family quarrel. There are people watching this and they're paying, they're footing the bill for this kind of disorder. I find it at times appalling and offensive indeed.

We, with the New Democrats, stick with the very issues confronting us, that we're presented with, that of Bill 25. Bill 25 unfortunately gives the ministers the power to establish user fees. Consequently, when you're impacting on 40 different acts, one could expect as a consumer that every small service the bill amends you'll be paying for at the municipal level, at the consumer level. The minister will not be able to resist. Yet we remember only too well, only too vividly that Premier Harris, during the last election campaign when he was selling the Common Sense Revolution, said to Ontarians, "Mike Harris the Taxfighter will not impose any new taxes." Then he referred to user fees as being an additional tax. So it's not a promise kept, it's a promise broken. There's a litany of them. It's a lament. There are many opportunities under Bill 25, so instead of interjecting, instead of fighting like cats and dogs, people should refer to the bill.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): One of the really interesting aspects of having the privilege to stand in this House is to particularly follow my friend from Lake Nipigon, since he and I have the same longevity in this place. But because he's much older than I am, he's not going to run again, he's not seeking re-election.

Mr Pouliot: Resign, Margaret.

Hon Mrs Marland: Member for Lake Nipigon, I'm actually addressing you. I want you to appreciate what I am about to say because the history that you and I share in this place is, if I may say on a personal basis, something that I've particularly always enjoyed. Since you have now proclaimed publicly that you're not running again, I just said it's probably because you're much older than I am. You are one person in this place I am going to personally miss a great deal, and in fact there have been a number of us who have made the same comment, that we regret you're not running again, because we're going to miss your debate, your contribution, immensely.

Having said that, when you talk about decorum in this place, we actually saw a display of decorum earlier this week in this place where these 105-year-old desks, which most of us cherish tremendously, were pounded by fists and the desk lids were jumping up and down. I don't mind people disagreeing with us - when people disagree with us, that's their option - but don't destroy our furniture. I did notice that the member for Lake Nipigon was not pounding his desk that day. I took great pride in the fact that you were not and I appreciate that very much.

The Deputy Speaker: Before we move on - I was very lenient with the member for Mississauga South - I want to remind members that they're supposed to be using these two minutes to respond to the previous speaker.

Mr Bradley: If the truth be known, the member for Lake Nipigon had a sprained hand and was unable to use it that day. That's not really true. He was not.

I want to comment on the excellent address by the member for York South, who zeroed in on one aspect of the bill, specifically schedule 26, that apparently some of the government members don't know is in the bill - I'll have to tell Guy Giorno to put a note in talking about schedule 26 - because it reminded me, and the member was talking about this in his speech, that Mike Harris had made a promise during the 1995 election campaign during the leaders' debate. When he was asked by Robert Fisher of Global TV, one of the panellists, "Will your health care policy result in the closing of any hospitals?" Mike Harris - most people in the province wanted to believe the person speaking at that time - said, "Certainly I can guarantee you, Robert, it is not my plan to close hospitals." We now have 35 hospitals closed or forced to merge in this province despite the promise of the Premier.

I know the member wanted to make reference to that. He also made reference, I think most appropriately, to the operating costs of specialized equipment and how it's important that when hospitals are assigned the responsibility and privilege of having an MRI or a CAT scan machine they should have the funds to operate it, because very often they're operating that equipment not only for that hospital itself but for surrounding -

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Exactly - for everybody in the surrounding area. So it seems to me a good idea, as the member for York South, Mr Kennedy, has suggested, that appropriate funding be provided for the operation of that. I must say at the end that I now have counted 324 tax increases by the Conservative government, because "A user fee is a tax," said Mike Harris.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm pleased to respond to the member's presentation on this bill. I found it interesting, as he was speaking at great length with respect to schedule G and a couple of other sections of the bill, that many of the government members were interrupting on points of order and saying, "Madam Speaker, make him speak to the bill." It really made me wonder at the depth of understanding and knowledge among some members with respect to what is actually in the bill. This is a very large bill. Take a look at it here. The sections that are attached cover many areas and, quite frankly, they're not all red tape. I find the name of the bill quite offensive. There are some things in here that you would want to ask questions on.

1620

I'd be interested in knowing from government members why, for example, in a number of sections the bill seeks to amend other pieces of legislation that refer to hospitals as set out under the Public Hospitals Act. It deletes that reference and says instead they'll be referred to as hospitals set out by the Ministry of Health. That could be very positive.

It could be that for certain provisions of the bill, like pay equity, and that's one of the sections that addresses this, it means the government intends to set out a list and designate other institutions, in addition to those that are normally recognized under the Public Hospitals Act, as hospitals for the purpose of application of pay equity laws in Ontario. That would be very good. It might, however, mean the exact opposite, that the list that is set out by the Ministry of Health for the provision of pay equity in institutions normally thought of as hospitals would be fewer than what is set out under the Public Hospitals Act. I don't attribute that motive to the government; it's not clear from the legislation.

Again, here is a bill that they want to just move through quickly. The oddity of short bills going out for public hearings and bills like this not is passing strange.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: I'd just like to continue some of the good points that were made by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I'd also like to thank the members for Lake Nipigon and Mississauga South and of course the estimable member for St Catharines for commenting on the bill and the process. Part of that is disturbing. We talk about a very large bill that has been around for three years. This has been churned up in Mike Harris's mucked-up government, as we've seen a lot of other things happen that way, for three years. It comes to the House and we have not one but several members of the government object to things being discussed that are actually in the bill, that are actually in schedule G of the bill, making reasonably important changes to the regulation of professions in this province, to which they are meant to be responsible parties as members of the government overseeing the operation of those colleges. Instead we have, worse than a shrug, as the member opposite indicates, the objection to full discussion of the implications of these things. Of course, it does give pause. We do wonder, whether it is slow-as-molasses red tape responses that are tied up in their own red tape or, whatever the heading is, whether the government may be up to something that isn't in the public interest.

I noticed from the members' reactions that they adequately received the point of the earlier intervention I made, which is that there are many more fundamental things in health care which could have been addressed in this bill: more access to MRIs, a better means of protecting the public. But for reasons known alone to this government, and maybe only to a few people in this government, because we understand that many people aren't really part of the decision-making, aren't able to look after their own community's interests - that they would have done so.

I think the thrust of the red tape bill is to tell us that there's a whole bunch of housekeeping this government is doing in a whole lot of areas that we need to pay attention to. We need to be able to compel this government to look after the real business of the Legislature.

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Would you ascertain whether or not there is a quorum present.

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there's a quorum, please.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Pouliot: Madam Speaker, if you will allow me perhaps a small departure from form, I want to thank the member from Mississauga for her kind remarks. I too have enjoyed working with the member over the more than 13 years, and I will certainly miss her contribution, certainly her friendship, good counsel and advice from time to time - although I must admit, of course, readily so, obviously so, that she is a sage of many, many years younger than the member for Lake Nipigon.

The member for Algoma, our House leader, and also our Chair of committee, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, will also be participating in the debate and will add some insight about why we have some serious concerns about what is viewed as a red tape bill. But first, we are not in disagreement with every aspect, every amendment, every presentation in this bill, even if it means that some dead issues that go back to the previous session have been brought forth, have been resurrected, have been added to the bill.

We, as New Democrats, are the first to advocate that if you can make things simpler, if you can least interfere with the marketplace, if you can encourage an action directe kind of attitude, if you can get from point A to point B without jeopardizing the integrity or the heart of an issue, as a legislator you must be compelled, you must do all within your power to do so. So we readily acquiesce and we don't have any quarrel with some parts of the bill.

Most unfortunately, when you fill the legislative envelope with so many - in this case over 40 - you're not going to come up rolling 7 or 11 every roll of the dice; you will miss sometimes. In this case, when you look at the don't-pass line, the number exceeds the successful rolls. For instance, it repeals the policy and priorities board of cabinet. In parliamentary jargon or parlance, it's the P and P. You have members of Parliament, you have a government, you have a cabinet and then you have supposedly the confidantes, the most powerful cabinet ministers. It's a tug of war between them and the Premier's office to see who controls things, and there's not always reciprocity, but I think it's overweighted in the Premier's office and the whiz kids in that office in this case. By repealing the policy and priorities board of cabinet, it gives more power to the whiz kids, this ensemble of young grey eminences who are to decide and rule on the policies of the government.

I could name some names, but I could not match a face to the name, because you don't see them; they're in the back room. They go back to the Premier and the Premier goes to cabinet, and then you have the majority members, the backbenchers, the spear carriers, members of the brigade. They come here and, on cue, they vote on all these things. That's our system. It's a constitutional monarchy.

Then you have the opposition. The structure is such that it invites confrontation, except that traditionally New Democrats are not very good at confrontation. They're better at consultation and getting along and scrutinizing a bill and seeing if there is anything we can agree with, not whether there is anything, as opposition members, that we must disagree with. Ours is not one to unseat the government; ours is one for the benefit of all Ontarians, not only because they're paying for all this but because all Ontarians have to live with the legislation.

The government is consistent. There is no deviation in terms of a mass of documents and legislation. They're truly revolutionaries. More than 40 bills are being amended. Wouldn't it be simpler to go piecemeal? Some of them can wait; I mean, they've been there dormant, if not extinct. But the government likes to stir things up, so they throw everything into that bag: the good, the nebulous, the nuanced. Everything goes into it.

1630

Perhaps if you throw so much at the opposition you will confuse them. They will be hesitant and they won't understand what the bill is. It's just not our style to let things go. We pride ourselves on being avid readers. We're prolific when it comes to reading what the government puts in front of us. We must admit that with a limited number of members, and therefore resources, it is difficult to scrutinize so much.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I hate to interrupt my friend from Lake Nipigon, but after the eloquent congratulatory remarks from the member for Mississauga South, I thought it was only appropriate there be enough members in the House to hear my friend. Is there a quorum present?

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, is there a quorum?

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Pouliot: While we were awaiting the arrival of government members to fulfil the standing order, I perused, and I have with me, the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I need your help to refresh my memory, Mr Speaker. The standing orders refer to the tradition, the responsibility - to quote verbatim from the page referring to quorum: "It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that 20 members are present when the House is in session."

The Acting Speaker: Could you bring it to me so I could read it for myself? That would be fine.

Mr Pouliot: You will indeed, sir. It's standing order 23(b), among others; there are others that follow suit and give it the credence.

More important, I find it quite difficult to believe that on this Thursday afternoon - I mean, the markets are closed; they close at 4:30 - we would not have, out of 82 members, a quorum present at all times. But that's another issue indeed.

The policy and priorities board: in the ditch, eliminated. It's gone some place, replaced by more power to the whiz kids one more time, those ill-fated decision-makers professing to know the needs of the province of Ontario and to associate legislation and regulations to recognize those needs.

This will not happen. That's not the way the world works. People are not opposed to change. We want changes; we're ready to help the government in drafting and implementing changes and monitoring changes. But there again, you have so many changes, so many pieces of legislation that are drafted in error because they're in a hurry. When you're in a revolution, you are in a hurry; you must act quickly. And then they get tired and they make mistakes, so they come back with even more legislation. So people in Ontario are saying: "I'm not opposed to changes, but give me a chance to look at it. I want to be able to digest, to assimilate the change and to see how it works. Then let's move on in an orderly fashion to another change. But my plate is saturated. It's full."

I'll give you an example. Where I live in the small, proud community of Manitouwadge in northwestern Ontario - you know where Manitouwadge is in the riding of Lake Nipigon. It's 100 kilometres from Marathon, and then as you follow the highway you get on to Terrace Bay, Schreiber and then the smaller communities of course. Then you get on to Nipigon -

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Geraldton.

Mr Pouliot: That's on Highway 17. Dorion, Hurkett, Red Rock; very scenic, beautiful, right on the shores of Lake Superior. Okay, you choose to go the other way: From Manitouwadge, you get to Caramat, to Longlac, Geraldton. It's a vast and magnificent riding.

Each of those communities usually has its final tax levy - first of all, 50% at the beginning of the year, the interim tax levy. Then they add all their costs and they send you one final bill. Half of it is for general purpose, the other half, approximately, for school purpose. By this time you have the final tax levy, but not this year, because one more time the government has enacted too many changes. Their fiscal year is in six months. So we're a little frightened. Anxiety has led to fear. We stand by the fax machine and we're waiting for all those changes and we say: "Okay, we got it now. This is what it means." Well, within a week we get another change which contradicts or seriously amends the first change we got, so we have to wait again and again and again. Simply put, it makes things a lot more difficult.

The frustrating part of it is that if you take your time, if you balance, if you look for equilibrium, a lot of the confusion, a lot of the repeat work can easily be avoided. It's not redefining the atom. It's not all that complex. It's plain and simple, but you must listen well, you must be prepared and you must study it and do it well and do it one piece at a time. Then you see how it goes and then you come up with more legislation, because we're in an evolving, changing world. We're certainly not opposed to change. We welcome change; we believe it makes things better.

But when you're in a hurry one more time - 40 acts. I just thought of this - unless you have ulterior motives, unless you want to confuse and put in so much legislation that you can slip some of the bad stuff into the haystack. You throw the kitchen sink in there, changing over 40 acts, and then you come up with gems such as, "Conservation authorities will be allowed to enter into agreements allowing for oil and gas exploration and extraction in areas adjacent to conservation authority land." Oops, we found it, the not-so-proverbial needle in the haystack.

I'll give you some examples. You'll see when you dim the lights that the snakes start coming out of the bag. So you could have some exploration; conservation authorities can make a deal for gas exploration. This was always possible, but only if it was compatible with the goals of the conservation authority. If it did not interfere, if it did not jeopardize, if it did not attack the sanctity of conservation authorities, you could do it. But, no.

And in that bag there are many snakes. Here's another one coming out: "Activities that are approved under the Aggregate Resources Act do not require approval under conservation authority development regulations."

1640

The Aggregate Resources Act: It sounds professional. Why should I worry, as a citizen? Would you like to have a gravel pit right in the back or to the side of your residence? A nice sight, ain't it? Love it? How about the resale value once you have an aggregate resource being extracted? Not a good sight, is it? There might be one coming to your neighbourhood in the near future. I don't wish that. This kills the value of property. They say they're cutting through red tape. They're going to make it simpler. The dump truck operators will be happy with this one, but the neighbourhood might suffer.

Under the Liquor Licence Act it has "The schedule amends the definition of `Ontario wine' in the act to include wine produced in Ontario from agricultural products containing sugar or starch." That's what my notes say. We're talking about valuable Ontario wine. But it does include it now; they can still have the Ontario wine logo while including sugar or starch. But they're the ones who wish to do this, so in this case the government has listened quite well.

You know that the reputation of Ontario wines has grown by leaps and bounds. At one time it was a limited product of a quality which begged to improve, but over the many years - commendable: a better range, internationally tested and approved, recipients of many medals of honour. It has become some of the best wine around, bar none. Very good indeed. They need some encouragement. So when it comes to this kind of peccadillo, bagatelle, small change, as long as it helps the people involved, we of the New Democrats are saying: "Do it right away. Case over. We won't even debate it." We're of good conscience. We're honest, and honestly going forward to improve the legislation.

What we cannot understand, what we find difficult, is to use a mass of legislation. They must put those papers on a scale, and they say, "In there we'll slip a couple of pages which are really our agenda." When you do this, you lose respect. Your integrity begins to be questioned. Your sense of purpose is deterred from reaching its real goal.

Inevitably, the New Democrats, vigilant at our post, will catch you, and we'll remind you that you need not do this. You need not sneak legislation in. All you have to do is ask, and we will be your friends. We'll close ranks; we'll be your partners. Sometimes we might close our eyes, like we do so often, and let some legislation go through because we're still debating the issue and it's not catastrophic, it's not a make or break for the people we represent. But any attempt at playing a little shell game, at playing conjurors of illusion, at throwing snake oil, will be found, and you will be denounced and you will pay the political price.

What is more important is the general welfare of the populace. It could have been reflected. The government has a majority muscle, it has the tools, but it does not have the willingness to act nearly as quickly when it comes to the welfare of the indigent, of the marginalized, of the working poor, the minimum wage earners and now the middle class. It's very slow when it's time to benefit, to share and share alike, to pass some of the dollars. But when it's time to use every legislative authority to either collect money or to help their agenda, it matters little, for the means justify the end. I see too much of it in these regulations. We like some of it and we think it's high time for those changes; not a problem. Unfortunately, it is overweighed on the other side, where the government is acting with some malice.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): It is a pleasure today to talk to you about the positive effect on the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation of the government's efforts to reduce red tape. There are a number of significant ways that my ministry has benefited from government efforts to save taxpayers' dollars and improve government service at the same time. The work of the Red Tape Commission has freed up the machinery of government so that it runs better with less cost and with greater efficiency.

For example, Bill 63, the Government Process Simplification Act, which was passed last December, amended the governance and administration of the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, Science North and the Ontario Heritage Foundation, three key cultural agencies in this province. These amendments all made the process of governing these agencies more direct, allowing the agencies to carry out their businesses more competitively, efficiently and cost-effectively and with a greater sense of control.

For example, the McMichael is now responsible for the appointment of its chief executive officer. Science North's board of directors can now determine the remuneration of its own chief executive officer, director and staff, and, Mr Speaker, something I know you're familiar with, the Ontario Heritage Foundation is able to streamline its board.

Upon reflection, surely all Ontarians would welcome these commonsense changes and wonder why governments of the past didn't take these commonsense steps sooner. These are not insignificant changes, although they may not be headlined in the evening news. All of these changes speed up the work of boards and staff and allow them to get on with the task of running their agencies. There's no doubt that unnecessary government regulations can hinder economic growth, but they can also weigh down the creativity and self-reliance of organizations. We must never lose sight of that.

Citizenship, culture and recreation are vital forces in this province. They enrich our lives, enhance civility and caring, give voice to our diverse backgrounds, promote volunteerism and provide us with many hours of entertainment and pleasure. More than that, Mr Speaker, as you have pointed out on a number of occasions, they bring tourism and revenue to the province and a substantial number of jobs to the economy. Furthermore, our government is committed to encouraging self-reliance and partnership in all sectors of the province. The least we can do is to untangle the red tape that has accumulated over the years. We want to see increasingly self-reliant agencies that are actively pursuing partnerships with the private sector. In the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, this is indeed already happening. I'm very pleased to report that.

The bill before us now, the red tape reduction bill, would repeal an act that was used last in 1990, and remove a section of another act which has never been used and is not needed. My ministry's part in red tape reduction under Bill 25 applies to the Parks Assistance Act and section 12 of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act, which I know all members of this House are intimately familiar with. In both cases we would be removing non-functional pieces of legislation. All except one section of the Parks Assistance Act has been made redundant by newer programs and changes to the Planning Act that provide for the creation of parks. Section 10 of the act would be continued in order to preserve the bylaw-making powers of native bands and school boards, to enable them to continue to manage the parks they established under the act.

Section 12 of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act, which deals with the conditions governing a financial assistance program that was never activated, should be removed because it is simply not needed.

1650

Not all of the positive effects I mentioned at the beginning of my speech deal with legislation. Let me be very clear about that. Probably the best effect of our attention to red tape is the way the ministry has reduced our paper burden, improved our customer service and shortened some turnaround times.

New electronic communications have allowed the ministry to reduce its paper burden. Our voluntary equal opportunity plan supports employers' equal opportunity initiatives, not through thousands of reports filed with government each year but through an award-winning Web site that is quick, efficient, up-to-date and has a very fast turnaround time for inquiries.

A very favourite of mine, the Archives of Ontario - one of the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation's core businesses, I point out - also has a Web site that provides clients with instant access to frequently requested information. This information once had to be published, reprinted, labelled, enveloped and mailed. It's now directly and immediately accessible, as you yourself know, sir.

If I were to name the single best effect of paying attention to the way government produces too much paper and too many forms in triplicate, I would say that e-mail takes the prize. The ability of employers to speak immediately to the equal opportunity plan or for a researcher to receive archival information is an enormous advance in the new information environment.

Thus I heartily support the red tape reduction bill and I join my colleagues in this House in thanking the member for Lincoln and the members of his committee for a very fine job. We look forward to more suggestions that committee will bring forward as we vigorously pursue better, less costly and more efficient government.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Caplan: I am pleased to follow the member for High Park-Swansea. It's interesting to note the scope of this legislation. It makes about 100 amendments to 30 different ministries, many of which I think have been outlined and are of a technical nature, but most of the amendments, 23 of the acts that are amended, allow the minister to set new fees. That's interesting. Mike Harris, when he was in opposition, talked about fees as just some other form of tax, that a user fee equalled a tax. I think my colleague from St Catharines has done a cumulative total of all the different user fees which have been levied since 1995. I think they total some 327 new taxes on the citizens of Ontario.

I find that rather ironic when I hear my friends opposite talk in such glowing terms about reducing taxes and the raised taxes by other parties. It's 327 times, and I know my friend from Etobicoke over there is absolutely astounded to learn the extent to which the government has imposed new taxes on the residents of Ontario, and through this kind of a measure is very sneakily, surreptitiously trying to give ministers of the government the ability to implement these taxes on the people of Ontario.

You would think, although it's not surprising -

Hon Mrs Marland: As the champion of 33 tax increases.

Mr Caplan: I've obviously touched a nerve. The minister responsible for children's issues is obviously reflecting on the poor record of her government when it comes to the taxpayers of this province and particularly the children.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I am pleased to respond to the member for High Park-Swansea's remarks. He made some excellent comments with respect to what's happening in his ministry, Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, with respect to reduction in red tape.

This whole bill is all about reducing red tape. It's all about trying to make it easier for the people of Ontario to access government services, trying to get rid of a lot of paperwork, trying to keep up with technology. He cited several instances in his ministry where technology has provided much easier access, much faster access and better service to the people of Ontario. A lot of what's in this red tape bill is exactly that, providing better service, quicker, faster, easier, using technology that's available.

Some of what's in this looks at what's happening across the province with respect to restructuring in some areas. For example, where you have hospitals merging, you have boards merging, it changes it to address the new board name, which makes absolute common sense.

Some of it looks at acts which are redundant and should no longer be there; we've never used them for years and years and years. That's in here as well.

Some of them are looking at things that will make it easier for municipalities; for example, under agriculture, food and rural affairs, to allow the municipality, under the Drainage Act, to appoint more members to their boards.

Again, under health services, it looks at what's under the Regulated Health Professions Act and looks at the procedures to make it a lot easier for those committees and boards to address some of those things.

All of this is all about reducing red tape, paperwork, making it faster, easier, quicker for the people of Ontario to access government services.

Mr Crozier: I too want to very briefly comment on the words of the member for High Park-Swansea. I agree with him that we certainly want to reduce red tape. I'm sure, since we have now reduced speaking time, that he's disappointed that his government, in an effort to reduce and stifle debate in this place, has changed the rules so that after seven hours of debate we move from 20 minutes per member to 10 minutes, because I'm sure he had a lot more to say about reducing red tape in Ontario. I'm sorry that he doesn't have the opportunity to do that.

Speaker, as you well know, because it's a difficult job for you, you try to keep heckling comments from other members in this House to a minimum, but the minister was commenting kind of off the record about tax increases. I'm sure the minister, when we're talking about tax increases, would have wanted, had she had the opportunity, to comment on the $1.823-billion increases in tax that Mike Harris supported when the Tories were in power in the early 1980s. I know he purports to be a Taxfighter, but certainly his record at that time, through the budgets of 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, shows where Mike Harris voted for tax increases on everything from personal income tax to OHIP premiums to fuel tax to beverage taxes. Literally nothing went untouched by Mike Harris's effort to support his government's efforts to increase taxes.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Hastings: I think I'll pick up on the member for Essex South's review of budgets 1981 through 1985.

Ms Lankin: No, you can't.

Mr Hastings: We can talk about anything in this place, so we'll talk about budgets 1985 through 1989.

The Acting Speaker: You address the comments by the member who has just debated.

Mr Hastings: Actually, Speaker, if you look at the culture and recreation budget of 1985 through 1989 under the previous regime, I think we had growth rates in this province of about 4%, but the actual expenditure by the previous speaker's government - I think the name was Peterson - was 16.5%. Imagine, a four-time increase. That was the type of budgets we had, and then they had a little surplus in 1989.

They're now attacking red tape as one of the fundamental things that they're opposed to. You hardly hear them talk about any of the virtues of this particular bill. It would be interesting to hear their comments regarding changes to the Mining Act, which would bring about greater potential for job creation in this province. It clearly sets out what those changes are.

1700

The Mining Act is being amended to remove references to boring permits. These are covered under the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act. The Mining Act currently restricts the issuing of oil and gas exploration licences and production leases to specific geographic areas. The recast version redefines the area. This will clearly help the mining industry, but the member for Oriole dismisses it as a mere technical improvement. I think it's a major improvement, but they don't want to talk about those things in the bill.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for High Park-Swansea has two minutes to respond.

Mr Shea: I thank my colleagues for their interventions. The humorous asides from my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine are always welcome at all times in this House. The member for Oriole, of course, completely misses the point as usual, and I'll pass by those comments. Certainly I welcome back into the House my colleague from Essex South; always grand to see him here and to hear his interventions. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and obviously my colleague from Hamilton West understand the issue and understand the importance of what would be summarized as, "A penny saved is a penny earned."

Everybody watching this House proceeding today understands that in their household. They understand that if you can find a way to have efficiencies, there is in fact more money for disposal. It's that simple. This government is trying to find the same way by trying to find savings so we can do more with less, and that can be done. Everybody watching this program tonight understands that. They're doing it in their homes day by day. They understand, as soliciting comes into their homes for telephone rates, AT&T or Bell or Sprint, that you can make choices. You can save money and still do the same thing. They understand that. They understand that they can either buy the Cadillac kind of car or the other kind of car, and you make those kinds of choices.

That's what this government is doing: how to serve the people of this province more effectively, more efficiently, more openly, more caringly, without spending a whole pot full of money. You don't have to hire Hertz Rent A Car to take the bags of money around the province; you can do it in better ways.

That is what this bill is all about. It's trying to find ways to run this household called Ontario in a more efficient fashion, like the taxpayers do every day and like we should be doing every day as well.

Applause.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Crozier: I appreciate that applause. Thank you very much. I didn't know that you were ready to greet me in such a kind and friendly way.

Just so the folks at home can understand, this Bill 25 is a red tape bill. It's been mentioned that we are dealing with some 40 statutes. Surely almost anything we do speak about today must be somewhere in 40 statutes, so I hope the Speaker will give me some latitude, but I really do want to speak to red tape issues.

Speaker, we're at second reading, and as you know, second reading is that part of the debate where not only may we speak about what's in the bill, but we could speak about suggestions for the bill, because we have yet to go to committee and the bill then could be opened for amendment.

I want to talk about a couple of issues that involve red tape, not the least of which is that every piece of legislation that's introduced in this House I believe should have a sunset clause in it so that after a length of time the bill would be reviewed and we would see whether it's doing what it's supposed to do. If it weren't, then either amend it - we could use the three Rs. We could repeal it, repair it or, I think the third one was, put it in the rubbish. But have a sunset clause so that we don't have to get to the point where we're dealing with hundreds of bills at one time.

Ms Lankin: Repeal, repair, re-enact.

Mr Crozier: Say that again.

Ms Lankin: Repeal, repair, re-enact.

Mr Crozier: Thank you. Those are the three Rs that I'd like to see, and I hope when this bill goes to committee that somehow or other we could either make that suggestion or that future legislation could contain one of these sunset clauses.

Another red tape issue that I would like to refer to is one that was brought up by a member of the government some months ago, if not a year or so ago, and that was the member for Grey-Owen Sound, Mr Murdoch. To me, the telephone system that we have to contend with in government today - when I say "we," I'm talking about we in our constituencies - is in itself red tape. If you will recall, the member for Grey-Owen Sound said that he was tired of calling a government office and getting a machine. Red tape is that which delays us, red tape is that which makes things take longer to get done, and so in the latitude that you're giving me, I'm suggesting that these telephone-answering machines that Mr Murdoch said, and in fact I think the resolution of the House at the time agreed with him, were something that should be gotten rid of. It hasn't happened. That certainly isn't the fault of the member for Grey-Owen Sound. In fact, I called the other day to find out whose fault it was and all I got was an answering machine.

So there's another example of red tape, that perhaps we could make our government offices and agencies more accessible.

Mr Hastings: Should we go back to the old dial system?

Mr Crozier: The member across the way asks, "Should we go back to the old dial system?" I sometimes don't think that would be all bad. I can remember my grandmother's telephone number in Leamington was 99, and all you did was pick up this tall phone and there was somebody on the other end. They knew you to begin with, so they could certainly help you more quickly, and we didn't get these telephone answering machines that we have. But that's only a suggestion that we support, that we bring back that resolution of the member for Grey-Owen Sound and perhaps these telephone-answering systems could somehow be modified to help us with what I consider to be some red tape.

A third thing that we could do that would reduce red tape happens to relate to a bill that we just passed last night. It was the fifth bill on property tax. I can't imagine how much red tape there is in those five property tax bills, because in my view what happened is that it got bungled, all along the way it was being bungled, and the clerks and treasurers of Ontario tell us it's not right yet.

In order to assist in the elimination of red tape, in most businesses if you were given a project and it took you at least five times to get it right -

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): You'd be fired.

Mr Crozier: - I suggest, as the member for Parkdale advises, you'd be fired. Again, I don't know whose fault it is, but in those five bills there must be a tremendous amount of red tape. That in itself would be a way to reduce red tape, to take your time, get it right and only have to do it once in all likelihood, and we'd only have one bill to deal with rather than five as we have now.

Some of the things the government has done, notwithstanding this bill - in all of the bills I have read - I can't see anything that is not a good move. We're getting rid of old legislation, we're combining some legislation into easier, more manageable bills, and that's good. I think for the most part Bill 25 is doing what all of us want to do. But some of the things the government is doing are simply causing more red tape at the municipal level.

I look here where I'm reminded that the costs of services such as welfare, long-term health care, ambulance service, road maintenance and public housing are being downloaded on to municipalities. There is reason to believe that this downloading is going to result in about a $650-million shortfall to the province. The finance minister says: "Don't worry about it. We're going to help you. We may have cheated you a bit. We may have shortchanged you a bit" - I don't want to say "cheat"; I withdraw that - "but we're going to help you." But the problem is they're only going to help for a couple of years. What happens after that? We all know. When that rainy day fund runs out, then it's going to be most definitely the responsibility of the municipalities.

1710

I think of red tape in my own constituency. Most recently, the social services in the county of Essex were told that they were going to have to get together with the city of Windsor and work out some method of sharing the costs and administrative duties of handling the delivery of social services in the county of Essex and the city of Windsor. The minister's kind of rule said that where there was a separated municipality, you have to combine the two. The city of Windsor and the county of Essex got together and, through a mediator even, they worked out a deal that was going to be beneficial to both, notwithstanding that the minister had said these separated municipalities should get together on it.

They were able to point out that the two separate delivery vehicles would still be the 13th and 14th largest in Ontario. There are lots of other areas where they haven't combined these delivery agencies and yet are still smaller, so an example, I think, of red tape.

The minister wasn't flexible. When somebody's not flexible, when you can't get something done the parties have agreed on and can show the benefits of, that in itself is red tape. There's a case where I truly wish that the Minister of Community and Social Services would have listened to the county of Essex and the city of Windsor when they said: "We have a plan. We have a plan that's workable. We have a plan that will serve both areas, both rural and the city, and it's one that will serve the constituents in the county and the city even better." But we ran into some red tape and the minister wouldn't allow it. I feel that's unfortunate. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mrs Ross: I listened very carefully to the member for Essex South. He makes some good comments, and I was particularly interested in his comment with respect to a sunset clause and perhaps putting a clause in all new legislation that it should be reviewed at a certain point in time down the road. I think that makes some sense and perhaps it's something we should look at.

I want to talk about a couple of things. I wonder sometimes how long we can keep talking about this red tape bill because everything in it is in there to make it easier for -

Mr Crozier: It's good. It's all good.

Mrs Ross: It is all good. It's to make it easier for the people of Ontario to access government service. I'll just give you an example under schedule H. Under the Regulated Health Professions Act there's the merger of the Health Professions Board and the Hospital Appeal Board into the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. So two boards are amalgamated into one. When I read this I thought, wow, I never knew there were that many boards under this particular ministry. The Health Services Appeal Board, the Health Protection Appeal Board, the Health Facilities Appeal Board, the Nursing Homes Review Board and the Laboratory Review Board into one appeal board with a consolidated mandate: the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.

That makes total sense because these are tribunals that have similar families of interest. Merging them into one board, first of all, you don't have to have as many committee members, which makes sense to me, and it's a much more streamlined process. Those are the kinds of initiatives that are in this red tape bill.

I very much support it and thank the member for Essex South for his comments.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Ruprecht: Of course, the comments from the member for Essex South make sense. They're better than the Common Sense Revolution, that's for sure.

Interjections.

Mr Ruprecht: When your own member says that the member for Essex South makes sense and I say he makes more sense than the Common Sense Revolution, you don't have to be offended by this. Your own member just agreed.

Let's look at the facts. I'm glad the member for Essex South specifically mentioned that the Progressive Conservative government tried five times to get it right, five times to get one lousy bill right, and that's the bill we're talking about - taxes in Toronto. The first bill was no good. The second bill left big loopholes. The third bill straightened out some problems with the first bill. The fourth time they tried it, it failed. This is the fifth time they're trying to rectify it. What's the answer here? I have it in my hand. It's in a letter from the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasures of Ontario. I could quote from their five long pages of what's wrong even with the fifth try. But we're talking today specifically about cutting red tape.

I'm on the regulations committee. You think changes have been brought after three years of Conservative rule? Sure, everyone says: "Let's cut red tape. Let's do it now." After three years, what have we found on that committee? The same people have to come from Ottawa, from Peterborough, from Windsor, from all over Ontario to come before the committee and say, "Let's look at it again."

Mr Sheehan: I'd like to compliment the member for Essex South. He's right on the money. He had some excellent ideas, and a lot of them have been taken up.

In our report that we published on red tape in January 1997, we included a test that all deputies and ministers must sign off on before they bring forward proposed legislation. We call that the regulatory impact and competitiveness test. Basically, it is a cost-benefit analysis: What's being done? What would we do if we did nothing? Who's doing it? Is somebody else doing it? What does it cost to implement? What does it cost to comply? Finally, does it have a sunset clause?

You reminded me to check some of the bills we've brought back since we've been in business, and we'll find out if they have these tests in them.

This current bill does not have a sunset clause because the bill is designed to be housekeeping, and hopefully we won't have revisit the items that are mentioned in this bill again. That's where the process is going.

I suggest to you that all of this is about customer service. People will not invest and people will not create jobs if we do not provide them with an efficient way to access recognizable standards which are readily understood and complied with.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm pleased to comment on the remarks made by the member for Essex South. As you have just witnessed, his remarks are right on the dot, as mentioned by other members, because he always brings the best out of any argument dealt with in this House.

I want to compliment as well the member from High Park-Swansea for saying something very true. But unfortunately, his government does not listen. If they really wanted to attack the problem of red tape - they have done the worst thing in the last couple of years, bringing in the amalgamation of the city of Toronto, costing us on a daily basis millions of dollars. Can you believe it?

We went from a Metro council of 34 members to 57 members. That legislation came out of the blue. It caught even the Conservative members by surprise.

1720

The Premier must still be shocked by Mr Leach introducing that particular legislation that saw the amalgamation of the six municipalities, or seven, into one, and almost doubled the number of members that we used to have before. Can you imagine going from 34 members to 57 members - the red tape, the doubling up in each area?

Take my area. I have to deal with two particular councillors. Every time I have to send them a note, I have to send it to both of them. Can you believe it? This is costing taxpayers money. So when we want to attack red tape, let's really do it. Let's not just talk about it.

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

Mr Crozier: I hardly know what to say. But then since I have two minutes to say it in, I might as well. In the short 10 minutes I had, there was one more thing that I didn't have the opportunity to comment on.

Just today, legislation was cleared through the justice committee, a budget bill, Bill 15, and in the discussion on that, it involved comments about red tape, that now, or soon to be, the provincial sales tax will be taken off the 25¢ telephone calls that are made at pay phones. It was suggested that this was a reduction of red tape for Ma Bell, and probably it was, except that I would think that Bell Canada is one of those companies that is so very sophisticated that their recording, collection and remittance of provincial sales tax would happen simply at the push of a button. I don't know whether it's quite the issue of red tape to Ma Bell that some of the comments in the committee would have led us to believe.

But my point is, and the point was made in the committee today, that in reducing the red tape for Ma Bell, what we were doing was taking a consumer tax that I no longer have to pay, but giving it to Ma Bell and not giving it to me. There was a case where reducing red tape reduced revenue to the government, but the consumer didn't benefit by it. Obviously they can't charge 23½ cents for a telephone call, so I think there are minds working feverishly now to figure that problem out.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Lankin: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this bill. One things concerns me as I've been listening to the debate, in particular in the participation of some of the government members who have stood up and in their two-minute responses have read from prepared briefing notes. I see some of the folks that were probably involved in developing the briefing notes - I'm not sure about that. But they read these notes about how wonderful this bill is. It's all about reducing red tape and it's going to bring efficiencies and bring costs down, and they give an example here and there.

Quite frankly, I don't mean at all to be insulting, but I do truly believe -

Interjection.

Ms Lankin: I say to the member for Etobicoke opposite - in fact I'm not going to say what I was just going to say. I don't mean to be insulting to members, but I believe truly that the members I've heard participating have very little understanding of what's actually in the bill. I do not believe they have taken the time to read at great length. I think they've accepted the briefing notes and the explanation. Legislation is dry stuff, particularly when you're dealing with some of these kinds of statutes, but they stand up and they rhyme off from the briefing notes all of the wonders that it's going to do.

When members have tried to raise concerns, I think legitimate concerns, whether you'd agree in the end or not with resolutions that the members would propose with respect to those sections, members opposite have been saying: "Speak to the bill. Speak to the bill." It's because they only think the bill is related to the title, An Act to reduce red tape. Well, my friends, it's only a title, and the title doesn't relate very well to a fair amount of what's in the bill.

There are certainly sections in the bill that are about red tape. If you look through a number of the schedules in the bill - schedule A is amendments and appeals proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs dealing with the Drainage Act, the Sheep and Wool Marketing Act - those are the sorts of amendments that I would agree are red tape.

If you look at schedule B, dealing with many pieces of legislation under the purview of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, there are a number of them in there that go far beyond being red tape - although they do have some red tape bills as well.

If you talk about schedule G or schedule H, which I want to talk about at some length, dealing with Ministry of Health and various agencies under the purview of the Ministry of Health, let me tell you there's very little here that is actually about red tape.

The member from Hamilton just a moment ago talked about the amalgamation of two boards and said what a wonderful example that was. That is one clause in two schedules of the bill which take up almost half of this very thick bill. Members should understand more specifically what's in there.

Why would you support and call it removing red tape, for example, if you were to do away with regulating the use of containers and which drugs are dispensed? Would that be red tape, to do away with that kind of regulation, regulation setting out what the dispensing vehicle should be, what the container should be; or with respect to who tests them or who certifies them, is that red tape?

Mr Hastings: Yes.

Ms Lankin: You're saying it is, you're shaking your head? I'm glad you're shaking your head. Now let me read you what the act says. The act gives the minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council the ability to regulate with respect to those sections. It doesn't do away with the ability to regulate.

I'm sorry. Was that entrapment, the fact you don't know what's in the act? I ask you, "Is that red tape?" and you nod your head like a little dog on the back of one of those cars, you know, that just sits there and nods. You don't know what's in the act, and I resent that kind of participation in this Legislature. Government members should be able to understand and defend the piece of legislation that is before the House in the kind of detail with which we could have intelligent debate.

When I challenge you that something is red tape and defend it and you shake your head and say, "Yeah, that's red tape; it should be gone," and then I show you that in fact the legislation allows for the regulation of it, that you're completely wrong, it shows you what an inadequate understanding you have of the piece of legislation.

There are sections of this bill with respect to health which cause me concern and which I would like government members, as they're speaking, to explain. With respect to a health disciplines process in various colleges, regulated health professions, I remember spending a very long time as Minister of Health dealing with the regulated health professions. I had only a small piece overall in the history of it, because there were something like seven ministers of health over 10 years who were involved in updating the regulated health professions legislation.

One of the things that was very important was to ensure that the right of complaint through regulated health professions was maintained, that right of access was maintained. In schedule G of this legislation there's a provision that allows the panel itself, if it "considers a complaint to be frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith or otherwise an abuse of process," to decide that, and it gets to say, back of the hand: "We don't want to have anything to do with this. We don't want to listen to the complaint." If there were mechanisms for appeal for that, you could say, "Okay, maybe that's all right, because at the next step this will be handled." But the next step is for the complainant to write a letter to the same panel, and if the panel, after reviewing it in writing, still says that this is frivolous, then it need not proceed.

This is worrisome to me. I spent time trying to work on changing the legislation with respect to disciplinary procedures on doctors and bringing in as an offence, as a professional misconduct, the issue of sexual abuse of patients. There was great resistance within the profession for a long time. In the end, the profession did do great service to itself. It came to terms with this and it worked in a very cooperative way to revise the legislation.

This kind of power given to a panel really worries me in terms of the right of access to appeal and to fair hearing. That's not red tape, my friends. That is not red tape and yet that is contained in this bill.

I also note that in this bill we give the power to make regulations that set out standards and qualifications for issue of certificates of registration with respect to health professions. There was long, hard work to set out within legislation scopes of practice for professions. Those are matters of public confidence and public safety and quality assurance and they should be in legislation. Those are matters that we should debate in this House and with full public input if they are to be changed. They should not be left to a matter of regulation. That's not red tape, my friends, that is patient safety, that is assurance of quality in our health care system. Yet this bill purports, just as a matter of cleaning up red tape, to move some of these things to regulatory powers.

1730

The minister may designate a hospital or facility or a class of hospitals or facilities within which it is permitted to install or authorize computerized axial tomography scanners. That's the CAT scan that we often hear referred to. It also allows government, the minister, to determine the number of CAT scans in hospitals or facilities. It actually says no person can install or operate one without these approvals, and it goes on that they have to be designated by the ministry.

There are four detailed sections there with which I agree in their entirety, but you know what? That's more regulation. That's not doing away with red tape; that's setting in place what this government in other circumstances within this bill is removing and is calling red tape. In fact, these are ministries that have legislation that needs updating or to which they want to make some changes. It's like a stew pot. They've dumped it all in here. That has nothing to do with removing red tape. That is putting in place further regulation, regulation that I agree with, but please don't stand up with these two-minute speeches and no understanding of the bill and say it's about reducing red tape.

I only have a minute left and there's so much I want to talk about in this bill, but I want to refer to schedule I. I'm on page 161 of the bill. It is the Conservation Authorities Act. Within the conservation act, two pages over on page 163, there is a section 28 which, subject to the approval of the minister, allows regulation-making with respect to a whole range of sensitive environmental issues. I think it's good that regulation-making power is there, but I want to tell you, this section repeals section 28 of the current act. That is the section which made the approval of such regulations subject to approval by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That is the cabinet of the government of Ontario. That power has been deregulated, has been handed off, has been downloaded in the name of getting rid of red tape. Sensitive environmental considerations should remain the purview and the concern of the government of Ontario. I will not support this bill in the way in which it is drafted here.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mrs Ross: With respect to Bill 25, the red tape reduction review bill of 1998, the member makes some comments with respect to the right to an appeal. Certainly, there's always the right to appeal to a judicial review. There's always the ability to do that, so that is not lost in this red tape bill.

When she talks about the CAT scanners and the MRI machines, they have always had to be approved or go through the LG's office for that type of equipment. Now it's up to the minister, which means you eliminate going through the LG's office; it's the minister's discretion. What that means is that hospitals and institutions can get approval for those types of equipment a lot quicker than they ever could before. So that helps eliminate some red tape as well.

The whole purpose of looking at what's in this bill and the red tape review - Frank Sheehan, the member for Lincoln, has stated that they looked at everything they do and asked: Is it needed? Is it required? Is it done by anybody else? Is there a way of doing it better, or does it in fact need to be done? That's what the red tape review is all about: looking at how they can provide better, faster, more efficient service through eliminating paperwork and red tape and getting rid of things that are obsolete, addressing the new technological age and all those types of things. I believe that's what's in this bill, Bill 25.

Mr Ruprecht: I listened very carefully to the member for Beaches-Woodbine. She raises, to my mind, two very important points. The first one she raises most of us found really astonishing. I looked over to your side and some of you had your ears open and you were all trying to understand exactly what she said, and that was about the regulated health professions and the right to complain.

I thought it was interesting that if someone within that field should try to complain, they would then be subject to some accusation of being frivolous, of being vexatious. That kind of complaint mechanism is obviously necessary and essential if we want to have some sense of fairness and justice. I am very glad she pointed that out very specifically.

I'd like to see what the answer will be, whether the streamlining through the saving of red tape is going to destroy that aspect of it, or whether indeed the mechanisms for complaints will be professionally done. I hope that will not be done away with and she is raising a very good point.

The second point she is raising, which is also of utmost importance to all Ontarians, is that she says most of this Bill 25 - if I understand this correctly, member - is really part of a bit of window dressing. Some schedules that the bill addresses remove obsolete legislation. We know that. But here is the point: Downsizing and ministerial control over fees surely have little to do with eliminating red tape and everything to do with cutting services and raising revenue.

Mr Caplan mentioned earlier - I guess my time is up, Mr Speaker. I will have another chance to speak.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I recognize I am responding to the member for Beaches-Woodbine with respect to Bill 25, but I thought it was in order to stand and recognize the member for Lincoln, Mr Frank Sheehan.

I am one of a number of members on the commission. This commission works very hard at consulting with the people of Ontario from various sectors, from the small business sector. I can tell you, in my riding I was very pleased to have the member for Lincoln come to a very early morning breakfast in Port Perry, Ontario, around 7 o'clock in the morning. There were 75 people there. There wasn't enough room for everyone to sit down.

They were so impressed with Mr Sheehan's presentation and his accessibility, which really underlies the whole aspect of Mr Sheehan's credibility with small business. They knew he was indeed a fighter for small business.

Quite honestly, I know that Mr Tsubouchi introduced this bill, which is correct. The minister obviously has to introduce a bill. But behind those titles of ministers there are a lot of very hardworking members in this Legislature. I encourage members of the opposition and indeed the third party to work with their small businesses, not just the big chambers of commerce but the small businesses employing four and five people, and find out from them precisely what regulations are unnecessary burdens for them.

The government's point of view: We're sympathetic to listen and it's certainly the member for Lincoln's responsibility to bring that up, not only to Minister Tsubouchi but to Minister Flaherty, Minister Eves and indeed the Premier. I know the member for Lincoln has very solid access to the Premier of this province. The Premier listens and it's obvious - this bill comes forward. We need your support, because you're supporting not only Mr Sheehan but small business in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: I just want, for my own edification, to reiterate that the comments and questions you have asked me to allow are supposed to be directed towards the debate at hand, most particularly the person who has completed their speech. I'd just like to remind you of that. It will save us all a little bit of consternation a little later on. I'd like to direct all members' attention towards that.

1740

Mr Caplan: Thank you, Speaker. I will address my comments to those made by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. She pointed out in her comments that this bill, which purports to reduce red tape and make a smoother efficiency of government, in fact has an impact on very sensitive environmental legislation. I'll point out to members of the government, because I know they haven't read this legislation, that they really need to know what it purports to do.

The Conservation Authorities Act is amended and it removes the need for provincial approval of enlargement, amalgamation or reduction in the size of conservation areas, in the size of conservation authorities. That doesn't sound like red tape to me; it sounds like a really serious assault on environmental protection in this province.

In fact, an amendment to the Conservation Authorities Act will identify flood control as a provincial interest in conservation authority matters, and the Ministry of Natural Resources will now have to approve conservation authority plans, regulations, amendments, impacting floodplain, shoreline areas, unstable slopes and wetlands. The Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario believes this amendment will result in more overlap, more duplication, and confusion between the roles of conservation authorities and the roles of the province in protecting these areas. In fact, the conservation authorities association wasn't even consulted about the provisions in this bill. Isn't that interesting?

Once again, the Mike Harris government is not listening to the people of this province and to the experts in these areas. A bill which purports to remove red tape in fact is doing a bunch of silly things, and I thank the member for Beaches-Woodbine for bringing these out in her comments.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine has two minutes to respond.

Ms Lankin: I understand why the member for Durham East wouldn't want to respond to what I had said. I actually raised some concerns about the content of the bill, and what do we do? We get into high-level rhetoric, thanking members of backbench commissions who did work on stuff. I'm glad they're working hard and I thank them for their work on behalf of the people of the province. I may not agree with all of what they come out with. I suggest, however, that the purpose in this House -

Applause.

Ms Lankin: Well, the trained seals can do what they want. The purpose in this House is to speak to the basic content of the bill so that perhaps there might be an opportunity to improve it. But when you do this mindless kind of approach of the government members of standing up and reading these briefing notes and not knowing the content of what is in the legislation, I feel offended on behalf of the people of Ontario.

I appreciate the comments from the member for Oriole. In fact, the section that I raised on the conservation authorities is of concern. The conservation authorities themselves are concerned with respect to this in terms of what it means for greater duplication in who is making determinations.

I raised the concern in terms of downloading and deregulation of decision-making powers from the cabinet of Ontario, with overall responsibility for the safekeeping and conservation of environmentally sensitive lands, to a ministerial discretion to download to authorities when we have had examples of authorities which have moved into widespread development of arenas and other recreational activities and have had more of their concentration on that than on the conservation of sensitive environmental lands. I'm not slamming all. Most conservation authorities have been very responsible, but we have had those examples. Those responsibilities rest with the government of Ontario and should remain under the control of the cabinet of Ontario.

That is not red tape, my friends. Please read the act. Please look at all of the aspects. This bill needs to be amended.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Sheehan: My speech will be more or less along the context of the bill and the process that we've evolved so that people might get a better understanding of what we're trying to accomplish.

Cutting red tape was a commitment of the government in its determination to make Ontario more accessible and more interesting and to encourage people who make investments, who will create jobs. It seems to be working. Red tape is right up behind taxes and availability of adequately trained staff for people thinking about locating in Ontario.

The subject of red tape has to deal with whether the regulations are clear, readily understood, whether they set high standards, and then, do they provide us with some measurable outcomes? Unfortunately, a lot of the bills that we're talking about here are not clear. They are confused and they are all bound up on the subject of process.

Governments in Canada in a 10-year period ending in 1994 passed over 100,000 new regulations. A Fraser Institute study in 1993-94 estimated it cost $85.7 billion to comply with regulations. If you want to put that in context, that's about $12,000 for every family of four.

The Carr-Gordon report that our commission commissioned did a study of Ontario business and found that regulatory burden accounts for 7% of small business operating costs, and in some cases it gets to be as high as 40% of their operating costs.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business reports that 43% of the firms spent more than six hours a week on government regulations or paperwork, and 17% spent more than 10 hours a week.

Jurisdictions that compete with Ontario for business and jobs, such as Michigan, New York and the Carolinas, are working hard at removing regulatory barriers. They recognize the impact they have on competitiveness and on job creation and economic survival.

There's more than a century of legislation and regulations that we're dealing with, because nobody until recently has ever even attempted this process. Times change, technologies change, the world changes, and without government will to address this, to address the regulatory environment, it will still reflect the times when those laws were created, and the problems they address oftentimes no longer exist.

Few governments have taken the time or given it the priority to do this. This government has recognized the cost of waste, not only of unnecessary regulations but also the legislation that strangles our private sector, and the cost and confusion of outdated and redundant legislation.

The first thing our commission did when we were establishing was to establish a thing we called the RIC test, because there's no sense trying to bail out the boat if you haven't figured out where the leak is and plugged it first. I have already explained in my response to the member from Essex what the RIC test does. It is basic, fundamental cost-benefit analysis which required that the minister and the deputy minister had to sign off that those questions had been asked. I suggest to you that these questions are just things that come naturally to anybody who has ever run a business, met a payroll.

Next, the recommendation the Red Tape Commission made to the government was to provide for annual housekeeping bills to remove the red tape and clean up legislation and regulations. That's what this bill is about. It's about cleaning out Fibber McGee's closet, as I call it, because too much regulation ties us up in process. We get locked in the legislation process. It just freezes the thing. It slows down the process. It detracts from customer service and government efficiency.

In our January 1997 report we wrote:

"One of the difficulties in eliminating red tape is effecting statutory changes in a timely manner. In many cases a change to a statute is necessary in order to eliminate a regulatory requirement. The amendments needed to achieve this purpose can be very minor in nature. They often involve deleting a provision (for example, a filing a requirement) or a regulatory power.

"Ministers are reluctant to proceed with minor statutory changes independent of their major legislative reforms. The main reason for this hesitancy is their awareness of the limited legislative time available for consideration of bills. There is a risk that minor amending bills will be held up in the Legislature (and perhaps die on the order paper) because there are so many more important bills under consideration at the same time.

"Some jurisdictions have addressed this problem by introducing legislation that deals with numerous minor amendments. The federal government sponsors a `Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act' for this purpose. Without such a process, Ontario cannot easily remove obsolete or contradictory provisions, amend unclear language, correct obvious errors, eliminate unnecessary administrative requirements, simplify procedures or make other changes that reduce red tape, facilitate service but do not affect major policy issues."

1750

In 1996 we introduced 17 bills to eliminate legislation removing forms, fees from regulation, removing other administrative detail from legislation, regulations, and streamlining regulatory processes to serve Ontario better.

At the end of the last session, 10 of the bills had been passed and seven got hung up in another issue that had nothing to do with the bills. The members of the opposition agreed with the content of the seven bills, so the fight was about something else.

Bill 25 collects those and brings them forward. It's the spring cleaning bill. We're going to clean the corridors of government power and get rid of the detritus of accumulation over the years.

Some of the bills, the Oleomargarine Act - can you guys even remember what that was all about? You couldn't colour the damn stuff. The Abandoned Orchards Act; the Fur Farms Act, whatever that was. It was removing the requirements to amend regulations and gazette changes to office hours in the registry office that take time and resources of the government and often get published weeks after the actual event. For example, in a forest fire situation there's a regulation that requires that notice must be published in the Gazette that they've declared this a danger zone. The fire is on, fellows, and there's nothing you can do about that, but they had to go through the process of putting it in.

I'm delighted the eight ministers have taken the responsibility to develop and refine the content of Bill 25, shared the views of the commission and taken the time and made the effort to search and identify the needed legislative changes.

I applaud Minister Tsubouchi for sponsoring this important bill. I have to say that Minister Tsubouchi, with his legs and regs committee, is an important watchdog for the commission because he spots bills that are being brought forward that have not been subjected to the RIC test, and he puts them on notice and we very quickly respond.

I also acknowledge the efforts of my fellow commissioners. I want to tell you they're probably the hardest-working group in the Legislature. Up until this year we met weekly at 8 o'clock in the morning, with the member from Durham coming in here, about an hour's drive, notwithstanding he may have been here till 8 or 9 o'clock at night. There are others, member Spina. Who else? There were about three or four - Stewart. They all come from long distances and they work hard and diligently and they give us the best.

If you want to get the context of red tape, you might look into the story about the Gulliver's Travels and the Lilliputians and how they were able to subdue the giant with the little bits and pieces of string that he could very easily have broken at any time, but when they put him down with a whole host of these things, there was Gulliver staked out and ready for whatever happened to him. Red tape is like that to our businesses. Each process, each form, each approval is a small strand. As they add up, as they have done over the decades, they soon tie up our businesses and hinder their profitability and their competitiveness.

There's a recent study done that Art Daniels made me aware of. Over 30,000 Canadians were surveyed and red tape and regulations was the number one offensive thing for people. In Bill 25 we're cutting many of those strands. We're making it more attractive to invest in Ontario. We're making it more attractive for entrepreneurs to create jobs. We're going to make the government more service-oriented and we're going to make it more user-friendly and efficient.

The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Ruprecht: I've listened carefully to the member for Lincoln. The intention to remove the regulatory burden from our businesses to make them more competitive ought to be applauded. There's nothing wrong with that. I think the intention is great. There should be no reason whatsoever to have our businesses, if they want to be competitive, spend six to eight hours in terms of filling out regulatory forms. That's more expensive, obviously, and ought not to be accepted.

But my friends, just remember this: When you look at Bill 25, which I have in front of me, you must recognize at the same time that downsizing and ministers' control over departments have little to do with eliminating red tape and they've got everything to do with cutting services and with raising revenue. You have to admit that as well. Let's look at the balanced approach.

I'll give you an example of what happened to me personally. It began three years ago with the administration. You took over this government three years ago and all of us on the regulations committee, which is supposed to watch all this, said - and all parties agreed, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP - "How can we cut the red tape?"

We made recommendations and we said the following: There is no reason why the city of London should come forward and have all their staff come to Queen's Park and all of us sit there and pontificate when the city of Toronto already had the right to cut weeds from public highways. In short, every municipality across Ontario had to come here and make the request and spend more money and spend that time because we did not have the foresight to cut that regulation, meaning we could have saved money. But do you know something? How far has that gotten us? How far have we achieved the cutting of that red tape for the municipalities? I stand here before you today and say you have not succeeded. Do you want to cut red tape? Cut the red tape at the beginning.

Mr Wildman: I understand the sincerity with which the member for Lincoln has addressed this matter and the work that he and his colleagues did in terms of consulting with the public and with members of the bureaucracy on how to try to streamline regulations and get rid of red tape. But I want to say a couple of things. I understand why the government has brought forward this as an omnibus bill, part of Bill 25, and combined a number of bills together so that we have a rather massive piece of legislation here which deals with many, many regulations, but there are problems with omnibus bills in themselves in that very few members of the House, I suspect, have actually read all of this bill, and there are parts of it that really raise concerns.

It's one thing to eliminate red tape. It's another to eliminate regulations that some might consider red tape but in fact to have a good basis in trying to ensure that we properly protect the vulnerable or protect the environment against abuse of bureaucratic power or exploitation in the marketplace, and I think we have to look very carefully at these regulations that are being removed. The other is that in many parts of this bill it allows for fees to be set for services and to be set by a director or a bureaucrat rather than to be prescribed in regulation. If they were prescribed in regulation, it would require regulatory change to change them. Now it can just be done by fiat by a bureaucrat.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I was sitting here before listening to the members for Beaches-Woodbine, Parkdale and Algoma and reading this act, and I was making communication with the member for Beaches-Woodbine when she was talking about CT scanners. I wonder how many people in here have bought a CT scanner for a hospital. I have. There's the difference. I'd like to point out a few things about a CT scanner. At that viable time in history - we're talking about Bill 25, which we were discussing, the part in here about health care.

Interjection.

Mr Ford: You've always got a little giggle, but that doesn't work out too well.

I'll tell you something else. All these professionals are small business people, the radiologists, the people who do it - they have private practices - the doctors and everybody else who's involved in these things.

You were also talking about MRI machines. We were involved in that too, and at that time that government didn't want to supply us with a scanning machine, so we went out and purchased our own. We were talking to the member here who was from York and he was knocking the situation we had at hand. But I'd like to point out that every one of these acts here - this is a very sincere government in operation and we're trying to streamline and help people in this province, which we have been doing, if you look at our record. I'm very proud of that.

Listening to some of the comments being made here, they say, "You haven't read the bill." I suggest they read the bill. Any member here who wants to discuss the bill

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Please take your seat. Your time has run out.

Mr Ford: I will discuss it with them nose to nose in front of a camera or in front of reporters.

Mr Sergio: I wonder if choking the speaking time in the House, choking the time allowed members to speak in this House, is considered part of Bill 25 or the red tape bill. We now are practically going to no time whatsoever, so I wonder. I know it has been done under different circumstances by this particular government, but when they introduced Bill 25 they must have had in mind to include red tape limiting the time of members in this House to speak on behalf of their constituents, and they have succeeded in that as well. I don't call that doing what the people out there are doing on a daily basis, as one of the previous speakers said.

They say we've got to do more with less. My goodness, if this were to be the case, then certainly the government is not doing what it is preaching, because for every piece of legislation they introduce, they retain other powers given to their own ministers so they can do it on an individual basis without coming into this House for legislation, and we don't even know. So for everything they remove, they must add double to it. I don't consider that doing a favour to the general taxpayer, to the general community, and it doesn't do anything for the members of this House when we come to say we want to debate this particular bill. What happens is that they say: "That's it" - choking - "No public hearings. No time." It's all part of the government's dealing with the various pieces of legislation they introduce on a very ad hoc basis.

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

Mr Sheehan: I welcome the input from the opposition, particularly from the member for Parkdale. The commission has operated on a fully open basis. Anybody who wants to come has been welcome. It's a complaints-driven process. That's how we find out how these regulations is affecting people's lives. So if you have complaints or you have members who have complaints, we will look at them and receive them. We have a standard presentation form to facilitate the presentation and cataloguing the complaints.

I would say to the member for Algoma that health and welfare and environmental safety have never been up for debate. We just insist that those are protected. They're enshrined. No way will we contravene anything that does that. I guess it was a U of T professor who said that the best way to protect the environment is to wrap it up in so much red tape that you can't get at it. The problem with that is that people have to live in that environment. We think the environment is better served if there are very clear standards set, very clear outcomes measured. I'll give you an example. There are four bills that deal with the environment. Two of them contain no definition of the word "environment" and two contain contradictory definitions. If you think that's protecting the environment, I suggest to you there's something wrong with the process.

We have been working that way. We want our regulations to be clear, we want them to be understandable and we want them to be easily complied with. We think businesses that are coming in are way ahead of most of the people who want to protect these things because technology is at a gallop, if not on an absolute rocket ride, and technology is taking over and surpassing all the regulations.

The Acting Speaker: It being five past 6, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 tonight.

The House adjourned at 1805.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

11 juin 1998