Journal des débats 1998-oct-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES À L'ÉGARD DES SOINS DE SANTÉ ET SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

Mrs Boyd moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 50, An Act to promote patients' rights and to increase accountability in Ontario's health care system / Projet de loi 50, Loi visant à promouvoir les droits des patients et à accroître l'obligation de rendre des comptes dans le système de soins de santé de l'Ontario.

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

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I must say how pleased I am to finally be at a point where we're doing second reading of this bill. It's high time the people of Ontario understood what their rights as patients are and had a clear picture of how the government of the day will be held accountable for Ontario's health care system.

Before I continue, I want to acknowledge the support and help of a number of organizations in developing the bill. The Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, the Ontario Nurses' Association, the Ontario Hospital Association, the Service Employees International Union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union have all worked with us in terms of the content of this bill and we are very grateful for the support they have given us.

This is actually a very simple bill. It is not a bill that will be earth-shaking to people out there in their communities because they may believe they already have the kind of rights that are enshrined in here, but in fact they do not. It is important for us to ensure that there is great awareness among people of the need for a codification of the kinds of rights patients have, particularly when, as we know, the health care system is under real stress.

The preamble of the bill simply outlines what the basis of having patients' rights defined is all about. It basically says that the principles enshrined in the Canada Health Act ought to be principles wherever people receive their care, whether it's with hospitals and doctors currently covered by the Canada Health Act, or in their homes, their communities, a long-term-care facility and so on. Many people don't understand that those protections are not there for them in settings other than hospital and physician care.

We're basically saying that access to health care services is a social right that should be enjoyed by all citizens of Ontario.

The second section of the bill is what has been dubbed the Patients' Bill of Rights. I think I can do no better than simply read out what it is we are proposing.

Subsection 2(1) of the bill reads:

"Every resident of Ontario has the following rights:

"1. The right to receive all necessary health care services in a health care system that,

"i. is accessible, universal, comprehensive and publicly administered and funded,

"ii. offers freedom of choice,

"iii. provides timely treatment,

"iv. does not allow personal income to determine access to health care services, and

"v. recognizes that every provider of health care services is a valued member of a multidisciplinary health care team.

"2. The right to give or refuse consent to the provision of health care services.

"3. The right to all information necessary to make fully informed health care choices, including information about who will provide particular services and about the qualifications of those providers.

"4. The right to receive publicly funded health care of high quality in the home and in the community as well as in health care facilities.

"5. The right to receive information, whether in a health care facility or in the community, about choices that promote good health and measures that prevent illness and accident.

"6. The right to be dealt with by health care service providers,

"i. with courtesy and respect,

"ii. in a manner that recognizes individual dignity and privacy and promotes individual autonomy,

"iii. in a manner that recognizes and responds to individual needs and preferences, including those based on ethnic, spiritual, linguistic, familial and cultural factors,

"iv. without mental, physical, sexual or financial abuse.

"7. The right to participate in any assessment of personal care requirements and in the development of plans for care.

"8. The right to make complaints, raise concerns and recommend changes without fear of interference, coercion, discrimination or reprisal.

"9. The right to be informed of,

"i. the laws, rules and policies affecting providers of health care services, and

"ii. the procedures for initiating complaints about providers of health care services.

"10. The right to confidentiality of health care records in accordance with the law."

I dare say there are people in Ontario who imagine they already have these kinds of rights, but the reality is that story after story, experience after experience, research after research shows us that in fact this ideal is far from the practice in many areas.

We believe very strongly that a responsible health care system needs to have both responsible health care providers and responsible patients. There is a tendency these days for health care providers to blame patients for the fact that the system is, and I use quotation marks, "overused," that patients "demand too much." If you don't know what you are entitled to have, it's easy to demand too much.

We are saying that the information that patients ought to have is essential for their making good health care choices, for their being appropriate and responsible citizens in the use of that health care.

How would we ensure that these rights were met? We have a very simple solution, that we have a Health Care Standards Commissioner similar to the Environmental Commissioner, who would oversee the evolution of the standards and would report to this Legislature about the success of various institutions and indeed the system as a whole and, of course, the ministry in meeting those needs.

The commissioner would be an officer of the Legislature, not a creature of the Ministry of Health. The commissioner would not develop the standards because that would be inappropriate. The commissioner would work with the colleges of the registered health professions, would work with the OHA, the Ontario Nursing Home Association, the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors, the Association of Community Care Access Centres and, indeed there may be others like the Community Hospice Association of Ontario, with whom they would work to develop standards for care, clinical best practices and the standards that health care facilities need to meet.

It would be up to the professionals to set those standards. It would be up to them to reach a consensus about what those standards are. Then it would be the job of the commissioner to let us all know what those standards are, so we know whether those standards are being met.

1010

There are many people in this province who think that if they go into an emergency room with a cut finger they should be served within 30 minutes, regardless of whether someone is having a heart attack in the bed next to them or a road traffic accident has been brought in. If people understood the standards of care, if there were consistent standards of care, if we knew what to expect, we wouldn't be in the position of being accused of having inappropriate demands on the system.

The commissioner would let us know what those are. The commissioner would then report yearly to this body, to all of us, as the responsible representatives of the people of Ontario, on the success of meeting those standards, and would simply in that act ensure that whatever government of the day is in power, if the government is shown to be failing to fund facilities appropriately, if the government is showing that it's failing to give the policy directives that meet those standards, then the government of the day would be held responsible. But so would the health care providers, so would health care facilities, so would all those working in the system. It would become a much more accountable system.

The last element is that there needs to be whistle-blower protection for those health care providers who work for an employer and who know that the employer is not meeting standards. There needs to be a way to maintain the confidentiality of patients and of providers who make complaints under this system. Otherwise, the fear of reprisal is very great. We are never more vulnerable than when we are ill or injured. We are quite literally at the mercy of our health care providers. We ought not to be afraid to complain when standards are not being met in that vulnerable position, and neither should providers be who blow the whistle on their employers when their employers are failing to meet the standards that have been set by their professional association.

We believe this is the way to make this system more accountable. We know the minister has promised similar legislation; we have not seen that. She promised it last April to the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario and the Ontario Nurses' Association. We have not seen that legislation. This is an opportunity for the government to support this legislation.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to rise and respond to the bill put forward by the member for London Centre. I do have to commend her for bringing this piece of legislation forward. It's an interesting observation that the third party has brought forward some sensible principles that will form part of its health care platform, I would assume, in the next election. I think they're hitting some important notes. It's good to see a constructive bill brought forward in this House from across the floor, as opposed to something that's more into fearmongering or some resolution that's used for a political trap or something. It's good to see something substantial from across the floor.

From the health care perspective it is agreed that the goal of any kind of health care reform is to ensure that we have the best-quality care provided to patients on a timely basis, at the most appropriate place, from the most appropriate caregiver. At the same time, it's important to make sure patients and health care professionals are involved in improving that system. I would state that we have made great strides in improving the health care system in Ontario in terms of working to coordinate care, making sure that dollars are going into priority services like cardiac care, kidney dialysis, cancer care, and hip and knee replacement surgeries.

At the same time, as I said, the member for London Centre makes a good point: It's important to get the patients involved in that process. One method that she has brought forward is the Patients' Bill of Rights, which would describe to patients what they can expect from our health care system.

We have to realize that the government, in a publicly provided service like health care is in Canada and in Ontario, is a monopoly deliverer of services. As such, it's important to have checks and balances on the system to ensure that those who pay for the system and pay into the system receive the quality care they should expect as Canadians and as Ontarians.

The notion of a patients' safety act is very important. If you look at other jurisdictions across North America, and the United Kingdom as well - their approach has been on a standards basis, to try to reduce waiting times, to indicate to people who pay into the system what would be an appropriate waiting time for cardiac surgery, hip and knee replacements. Interestingly, by and large the standards they set in the UK are actually weaker than we are currently achieving in Ontario, but there is an example of something that's going on in another jurisdiction. In the US House of Representatives, a bill was brought forward similar to this, in this vein. The goal there was ensuring there would be appropriate standards in the HMOs, what patients could expect as a minimal level of service.

The member for London Centre had said, correctly, that the Minister of Health, Minister Witmer, in her discussions with nurses and other health care providers across the province has said she is very interested in this type of legislation, whether it's a patient safety act, a Patients' Bill of Rights - some way of ensuring there are standards across the system so patients will receive the quality of care they deserve and that there are checks and balances in case they aren't. Or you could approach it, as I said, as in other jurisdictions, where you would set standards of care to make sure health care providers would either achieve those standards or report on them, to make the system as transparent as possible.

I think the minister would be wise to evaluate the merits of this bill, to look at what's going on in other jurisdictions, to confer with stakeholders like the hospital association, the nurses' association, the different colleges, to see how the complaints system is currently working, how we can improve it. Bill 25 you could even say is part of that process. We're trying to reduce the red tape so complaints through the colleges can be solved in the quickest time frame possible.

Generally, I commend the member for London Centre for bringing forward a positive principle, a very important suggestion for a policy plank. This government has shown interest in these principles. That is also typical of the member for London Centre, who tends to bring forward weighty matters that she is interested in providing advice on, improving the health care system, unlike her counterpart in the official opposition, who tends to be more like the Jerry Springer of health care, trying to bring forward whatever horror stories, his flyers on windshields. I don't find the approach of the member for York South to be nearly as responsible or as productive as the evidence they're bringing forward from London Centre on the Patients' Bill of Rights.

I might say one thing, somewhat facetiously, but I need to say it at the same time: One important part that I would suggest adding to the Patients' Bill of Rights is a right for patients in Ontario to have a fair share of health care dollars from the federal government in Ottawa. Certainly, after $2 billion in cuts to health care to the province of Ontario and the federal share of health care dollars slipping to about eight cents on the dollar, one could say that Ontario patients have a right, from all the taxes they've put forward to Ottawa, to expect a fair share back from the coffers in the capital city.

The last time we were here in this chamber we had asked the member for York South, when he had Allan Rock at his fundraiser and they were dancing cheek to cheek, to whisper in his ear and say, "Listen, Minister Rock, could you please increase the transfer payments to the province of Ontario, put back some of that $2 billion that you took from the system." I haven't heard if, when they were dancing cheek to cheek at the fundraiser, the member for York South brought this forward. Hopefully he did. I certainly hope the federal government will reconsider its move to slash $2 billion in health care funds to the province of Ontario and reinvest that.

To sum up - I have a couple of colleagues who want to add to this bill; I'm getting the time-out signal - I commend the member for London Centre. I support the principles of this bill. There are some issues in the bill that my colleagues may address, but again I commend her for bringing forward a very positive policy plank. We thank her for bringing it to the floor for debate today.

1020

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I look forward to being able to speak to this bill. First of all, I want to commend the member for London Centre for bringing forth, again, such an act to protect the people of Ontario. It wasn't too long ago, approximately two years ago, that the then member for Oriole, Elinor Caplan, brought forth Bill 41, An Act to protect the Rights of Persons receiving Health Services in Ontario. We know it received first and second readings and then was referred to the committee of the whole by this government, knowing full well that it would never ever receive debate.

We have an opportunity now to look at the bill in depth. This is an extension of Bill 41, but Bill 50 spells out initially in some of its proposals exactly what the then member for Oriole, Elinor Caplan, had said was going to happen and what we needed protections from. Indeed, the member for London Centre paints an even worse scenario, and she's absolutely right. The critical need for this legislation has grown over the course of the last two years, so I commend her for bringing forth this legislation.

There are certainly many aspects of this legislation that must be debated more fully, but the underlying principle is that everyone - everyone - in Ontario should have a health care system that is accountable, a health care system that is accessible and a Patients' Bill of Rights that is truly meaningful and appropriate for each specific case brought forth to our health care system. That is certainly a part of our health care system.

The government sometimes forgets, and the member for London Centre will remind us with her bill, that the health care system is owned by Ontarians. It is not a government health care system. The health care system of Ontario is the people's health care system, and our people, Ontarians, must understand, must be assured, must know that it is equal, accessible and affordable, and that built within that system there are rights they have. That's why this legislation, Bill 50, is an excellent stepping stone to what was begun with Bill 41 by our former health critic Elinor Caplan.

I commend the member, because she outlines very specifically what must be done to ensure those safeguards. I look forward to - at least I hope that the people of Ontario can have confidence that this government will support this bill on second reading, that it will send this bill to committee so that the front-line workers, the people who use the system, will have an opportunity to reinforce the message that this is critical to the people of Ontario. People in Ontario want to have confidence that indeed their health care system is the best health care system in Canada or in the world.

They clearly don't have that confidence right now. We've heard, over the course of the last two and a half or three years, the horror stories. The member for Niagara South says there are horror stories out there and that we bring them up in the House. These are real stories, and if he chooses to use the adjective "horror," then that is a condemnation of his government's performance in the health care system today.

I suggest to the government that it's time you listened to what the people of Ontario are saying. It's time you listened to what the opposition has been telling you. It's time you listened to the realities out there in Ontario. Our health care system is not at the level it should be. Our health care system is lacking in both resources and in response times. Our health care system needs fixing. It's your responsibility to ensure that happens, and I suggest that Bill 50 is a very good step in that direction.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): When it comes to health care in the province today, the question I hear asked most often by my own constituents, and as I've crossed the province I gather it's a universal sentiment, is, where's the caring? Where is the healing that used to go on in the health care system? Where's the comfort? Even in a very sort of hokey way, the people I speak to about health care, those who have experienced health care in the last three years and those who have been in support of those who have been in our health care system, is, where is the love? Where is that compassion that used to be in the system, that little extra that people used to do and have come to expect, that made all the difference re the question of actual and real healing?

This bill we're talking about here this morning will go a long way to determining just what the level of health care should be and is necessary to be in this province, something that we together as a collective determine is what we all deserve when we get sick and go to a health care facility to get cured, to get healed and, at the end of the day, hopefully to get better.

In my community, the feeling these days is that going to a health care facility is akin to going to Canadian Tire to get your muffler fixed or to get your carburetor replaced. It's not about healing any more. It's about efficiency, it's about the bottom line and it's about cost. This bill today will go a long way to determining what health care really means and to bring back into the system those things that are so valuable in health care.

Another term you hear when you speak to hospital officials today, as they try to explain why some of these things are missing when people go into the hospital, is that we no longer give what they call hotel care to people, the stuff that speaks to the question of healing, speaks to the question of caring and comfort. The love in the health care system - things like a glass of water or perhaps a back rub - may seem to some superfluous or out of the ordinary or extra, but for the person in the hospital who's trying to recover, who's trying to heal from a very serious and disruptive procedure of some sort, it's absolutely essential that those kinds of things be there. There's the question of who feeds somebody who can't feed themselves, not to speak of the issue of universality of access to care.

We have an issue in Sault Ste Marie that started with the question of the kind of care we provide to the people who live in the outlying district around us, Algoma, Thessalon and St Joe's Island. The member for Algoma will relate to this. What is the level of care that those people should expect and what are the timelines? What access should they have to facilities when they are sick or in crisis? We're moving more and more of what used to be taken for granted and necessary in that part of Algoma and we're moving it into the Soo. Now we're finding that that which we took for granted would be available in Sault Ste Marie is being moved to places like Sudbury and Toronto. Sudbury is 180 miles away. When you need care immediately, 180 miles is a long distance, particularly in the wintertime and particularly over the kinds of roads that we sometimes experience up in that part of this province, not to speak of the cost to the person and their family as they try to be there with that person as they get fixed and get well.

This bill today will, in my mind, in my view, go a long way to answering those very important questions for those people out there across this province. I congratulate the member from London for bringing it forward and certainly I'll be supporting it here this morning.

1030

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I find this bill typical of the member from London Centre, if I might say, and typical generally of the members of her party in that it is quite clear in its intent, its direction and its motivation; there's no doubt as to just what is intended by this bill and where this bill intends to take us. I congratulate her on that and I commend her for that and I commend the members of her party for that general approach. When it comes to the members of the third party, it is absolutely clear where they stand on the issues they bring forward. There is no equivocation and there is no doubt as to what their position is.

I contrast that with what we've come to expect from the opposition, the Liberal Party. In the case of health care policy, for example, the entire policy of the opposition party could be expressed within the confines of the average bumper sticker.

This bill is very clear in expressing certain principles and various methods of delivering on those principles, and I commend the member for that.

I certainly commend the principles of public accountability in health care policy: that where the public dollar is being put towards a policy, the public is entitled to know just what the goals of the system are and just what the expectations of the system are, and that there be mechanisms for accountability as far as those goals and expectations are concerned. Those are important principles and those are clearly at the heart of this bill, and I support the bill for that reason. The public is entitled to know what sort of quality to expect from its health care system, to have certain service standards and to have certain access standards. To the extent that the bill stands for that, this bill is something to be supported.

The concept behind this bill is not a novel one. It's a concept that has been adopted elsewhere in the world. Certain principles are in legislation in the United Kingdom concerning standards for waiting time and standards for service to be expected. That is already in place in the UK. New Zealand similarly has certain investigative procedures. There are procedures in this bill as well. New Zealand has procedures that are part of its law, and there's no reason that can't be implemented elsewhere. So a number of recommendations in this bill are not new ideas, and they are certainly worthy of thorough consideration before this House.

I am encouraged to know that the Minister of Health is reviewing this very issue and is examining the legislation that is in place elsewhere in the world and is meeting with the various professional bodies involved in health care and is going to be taking all of those thoughts into account in the ultimate introduction of legislation on the government side here.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Meetings and announcements.

Mr Parker: I hear from the opposite side that there's some criticism that the health minister hasn't done this already. The third party had five years in which to bring forward legislation like this. They didn't do it when they were in government. During the fifth year of their government, they hardly sat at all in this Legislature. They had the chance to bring this forward when they were in government. It's nice that they're bringing it forward now.

There is very much in this bill to support. There is a great deal in this bill that requires further debate and discussion, and I look forward to the whole issue being discussed more fully at another time, more time than we have available to us this morning.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm very pleased to speak in support of the bill today being brought forward by the third party. I can tell you that it is long overdue. We should have had a bill like this in place for the last 20 years. There has been significant change in health care over the course of the last decade, certainly over the last 15 years.

When you come from a community like mine, Windsor, that has seen such dramatic change, only to hear the Minister of Health constantly talk about having done more for the health system than any other government, the people in Windsor say, no, you've done more to the health system, not for the health system. Windsor is a very good example, where something like a bill of rights for patients would actually be very useful.

The difficulty I see is that unfortunately people have to have the bad experience in the health system so that the bill then becomes enacted for them. There has to be a complaint. That's the difficulty. What we're trying to do is advocate for patients before they get in a position where they're the individual who's lying on a stretcher looking up at the ceiling in the emergency room, wondering, "Why am I still here?" after the second day. The point is that we are to advocate for patients before they get in that dire position. We are amazed in Windsor to see that finally, today in the Toronto area, hospitals are rerouting patients who are arriving in ambulances to emergency rooms. Windsor has been dealing with this for three years.

In this past summer alone, Windsor has seen 230 code 7s, just in the months of July and August and the first week of September. That means that 230 times patients could not be removed from the ambulance into the emergency room because there was no room in emergency. What's worse is that it was entirely preventable and completely predictable. The worst part about sounding like a broken record is that it has been going on and on and we've been saying it and saying it.

These individuals, as difficult as it is to be in a very vulnerable position, are finally speaking out. They're saying, "This is not the kind of treatment I deserve," not after having been in business, like Lyall Browning, all his life, a 35-year businessman, retired, who entered the hospital system and left sicker than when he went in. He said: "This is not why I paid taxes all my life. I deserve better than this." If there is a bill of rights for patients, the unfortunate thing is that in this system, with this government, it still would have happened to him.

That's what we have to do: We have to look at why this is happening to patients and prevent it, and not just focus on what we do when it's happening. We're saying don't let it happen. Windsor was a perfect case that all of you should have learned from. I expect all those organizations out there that are supposed to be promoting good health to look very specifically at the Windsor scenario and say, "Don't let this happen in any other place in Ontario."

We travelled to Sudbury and the same thing is now happening in Sudbury. It's no surprise to us in Windsor, because we could see this coming. You took money out of the hospital budgets before you allowed proper restructuring, expected savings from the same organizations you cut, so any savings that were going to be found through restructuring you've already taken out of their hospital budgets. It is an untenable position for them. They are not dealing well with this change. The result is they are making choices: either cutting service or going in deficit. As the OHA reported last Friday, 50% of all Ontario hospitals are now in debt. No surprise to us, who have been following this issue closely; no surprise because we told you it was happening when they were going into debt.

We go back to my place in Windsor and see a highway sign that the Premier put up that says, "Our tax dollars at work." We're trying to tell people, "We want our tax dollars back." When we suggested to people that we want to hear what they think about wasting taxpayers' money on propagandizing highway signs when our hospital system is in such desperate need of funding, this is what people in Windsor had to say:

Paolo Gattoni says, "It's a shame to have one MRI in a city with a population of our size." Mrs Renaud says, "Get your priorities straight." Roy Bertelli says, "Our hospitals need help, not signs." Mary Lovell says: "My father was treated badly, without proper care or compassion, because of overworked medical people. Then he passed away." These are the people you need to listen to. These are the people who would have to then enact a Patients' Bill of Rights. When you know this is coming to your own neighbourhood, don't let this kind of health care system put people in a position where they are going to need a bill of rights.

1040

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm very pleased today to stand in support of Bill 50, at second reading today, from my colleague the member for London Centre. I haven't heard all the Tory members who are going to speak today, but I'm disturbed so far by what I hear. I'm getting the impression that although they speak very kindly in support of the principle of this bill, they seem to be saying they're waiting for the Minister of Health to come forward with her version of such a bill.

My understanding is that the Minister of Health promised she'd look at ideas from the nurses' association last April. We haven't heard a thing since. I'm also disturbed to hear the member for Niagara South talk about US legislation, for instance, which as you know is a private system. We fear that's where this government's legislation and policy are taking us. The difference there is that patients there have a right to sue after the fact. They have a right to sue a private health care system if the standards aren't met. That is not what we're talking about here.

I'm further disturbed to hear him say that Bill 25, the red tape bill - I believe he said it was making health care more accountable. In fact, I'd like to point out to him and members of the House, it's the opposite. The red tape bill means that the health care board of appeal will no longer be required to report to the Legislature, so some protections and some accountability that are already in the system because of the red tape bill are being taken away.

I say to the members today that we have no time to wait for the Minister of Health to come forward with her ideas on a Patients' Bill of Rights, or whatever she's calling it. We have emergencies now. The minister is not flowing money, which she continues to announce and announce, to nurse practitioners, which are badly needed up north. Look at the problems we're having, the crises we're having, in our emergency wards right now. This government, although they don't like to admit it, have taken up to $1 billion out of hospitals.

They're quite correct when they say the federal Liberals have withdrawn funding from the health care system in Ontario, but at one point the leader of this government, the Premier now, said it was a good thing that the federal government was cutting money in transfer payments to Ontario. It's this government that took $1 billion out to pay for a tax cut that's mainly benefiting the rich. We all know that. So you cannot crawl out from under that responsibility. You have put our health care system in Ontario in a crisis.

You have an opportunity today to take some steps and say to your own government, "The member for London Centre came forward today with a step that will move us forward." If members here today truly believe that we should be bringing forward some kind of accountability system for patients in Ontario, they should vote for this bill today, let it go to committee, and if you want more discussion, that's the place to have it. A whole bunch of people in the health care sector who know where the problems are have consulted; they have talked about this. This is where the ideas came from. It is time now to take it out to committee and have that discussion. We have no time to waste. The crisis is on us now.

I want to speak for a moment about nurses. I have talked to nurses in hospitals, as some of you may have. It will break your hearts. If you haven't done it, do it. They are sick at heart. They're overworked, they feel that patients aren't safe any more and they're worried about the level of health care they can deliver. That is directly because of the cuts. The nurses need our support today. They need to get this bill out there; they need the discussion happening. They need our help. I have seen nurses close to tears because they're doing their best, in hospitals that are understaffed, to take care of badly injured or ill patients. They feel they don't have the ability to take as good care as they know they should be. It is not their fault, but they're often taking the blame because they're the front-line people that patients see.

I would urge everybody in this House today to let this bill go forward. Platitudes are not enough today. Let it pass and we will debate it and discuss it in committee hearings as soon as possible, I hope.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise in the short time I have to express my support for this bill. I commend the member for London Centre for bringing it forward.

I would say to you that this government certainly has no apologies to make to the people of Ontario in terms of its management of the health care portfolio over the last three and a half years. The first responsibility we had was to restore fiscal responsibility to this province and restore accountability to the health care system. I believe we've done that.

But I must also agree with the member, and therefore commend her for bringing this forward, that our focus must shift from the bottom line to the patient, and I believe it's time to do that. I think there are specific items in this bill that will allow us in this province to do exactly that. I have been at meetings with CEOs of hospitals where I've heard presentations about their fiscal accountability, their fiscal responsibility and, quite frankly, I've been disappointed that I've seen very much about accountability to the bottom line but there wasn't very much said about patient service and patient satisfaction. I think it is time that we address those issues.

When the minister made her announcement in April that she was going to bring forward a Patients' Bill of Rights, she also indicated that that bill would contain such things as accountability and reports that would be required as to the number of nurses, the patient-nurse ratio in a hospital and death-and-disease rates. It would call for accountability on how long patients stay in the hospital and, equally as important, how often patients are readmitted into hospital. So it's not enough to simply talk about the fact that perhaps patient stay in a hospital has been reduced significantly; we have to begin to focus in this province on results, on service to patients.

I am concerned about some of the details of the bill. One of the things we will have to do is take into consideration the recommendations that were made by the member here. It will be very helpful in the discussions we're having with our minister to ensure that some of these very important issues are incorporated in the government legislation that will propose some of these issues.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma, you don't have the floor.

Mr Klees: I hopefully join with all members of this Legislature in supporting this bill in principle. There's no doubt that what gets measured gets done. If we're simply measuring financial results, then we will get financial results. I believe we have to also measure patient care, the results that we're getting on the front lines, the kind of care that's being delivered by the medical professionals. I believe this kind of bill will also restore the responsibility of the patient, himself or herself, to become an active part of the health care team in this province. That will be very important.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'll be supporting this bill. I'd love to see it go through three readings today. With all the support I'm hearing on the other side of the House, I presume someone will move that it go through all three readings during this very day.

It's interesting to see the strategy of the Conservatives. It's not hard to determine what it is. They've been told by the Premier's office, "What you're supposed to do is you're supposed to praise the NDP for any of their initiatives and say how good the NDP is and those Liberals are the awful people." If the polls were different, if the NDP were at about 40% in the polls and we were about 12% in the polls, they would be doing exactly the opposite.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: Exactly the opposite, as my friends know.

As Rosemary Spiers said in her article, she warned the NDP about getting into bed with the Conservatives and Reform and so on, so they're not going to. This kind of faint praise you're giving to them is not going to fool the NDP. The way you could actually show your good faith is to support this bill and all three readings today, because I think a lot of members - maybe all the Tory members - will vote for it and then they'll kill it somewhere in committee. They'll send it off to a committee and never really deal with it. They will be currying favour with the NDP and then they'll dash their hopes behind closed doors. You won't fool the NDP. I know because they can't be easily fooled by that kind of trickery.

1050

I'm always amused, and I'm glad the member for Riverdale raised this issue, because she knows that when they get the federal transfer payments they simply take those payments and give them away in a tax cut to somebody, largely the richest people in the province, including Conrad Black, the constituent of the chief government whip.

I can tell you what's going to happen. There are five hospitals in Niagara which are very vulnerable now to closing or severe alteration. Fortunately we're just before the election and now the commission, which was so non-political, it said for so long, is going to be very political. That's the hope we have in Niagara: that those of us who have fought against the closing of the Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie, the Port Colbourne hospital, West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby, Hotel Dieu in St Catharines and the Niagara-on-the-Lake hospital will prevail, but only because there's an election coming up. If they got past an election, you can be darn sure they would be doing in many of those hospitals.

I want to indicate what some of the members have said about this bill. We've seen a significant cut in the operating funds for hospitals and you're seeing it in the degree of care that can be delivered. Quite rightly, the member for Riverdale mentions nurses in this province near tears, exasperated at the fact that they're working extremely hard, many on 12-hour shifts, to try to provide service to patients but there are far fewer nurses around to provide that; that the hospitals are having a heck of a time keeping their places clean; that all of the services that are ancillary to the delivery of medical care are cut back severely.

I know people will remember that. Dr Beiko in St Catharines has had his patients writing to the MPPs locally saying they can't go to him any more because they've reached a cap, even though they have some severe problems that need the care of an ophthalmologist.

I note as well that they're kicking patients out of the hospitals now quicker and sicker. That's putting tremendous pressure on the home care system, and I note today that there are going to be some cuts overall in Ontario in the funding for that home care system.

Of course the seniors out there are still angry that they are being charged a user fee every time they get some needed medication from this government.

I'm going to support the bill, I'm sure the government will, but I would like to see this bill pass all three readings today.

Mr Christopherson: I would just say to the member for St Catharines that while we all recognize that politics makes for strange bedfellows, they snuck into our room and for the last while we've been asking for our bathrobe because we want out.

Let me first of all compliment my colleague from London Centre, who I think, without question, across the entire Legislature is one of the most highly regarded and respected members to walk these halls. I think anything she brings forward where she has done the kind of research and background she has here deserves to receive the kind of respect and attention that someone of her stature has.

When we talk about the Patients' Bill of Rights, we're talking about a fundamental cornerstone of what ought to be still the best health care system in the world. Unfortunately, I don't think it any longer is. The fact of the matter is that you cannot take $1 billion out of hospital budgets across Ontario and expect that somehow you've got better service. It's no different from your argument that taking $1 billion out of the education system somehow makes for a better education system. It's nonsensical.

Listening to the government members, they all talk about their Minister of Health, Elizabeth Witmer. I can remember saying to people at the time she moved from labour to health, "If you like what Elizabeth Witmer did for workers' rights, wait till you see what she does for patients' rights."

That's why at the end of the day this government that's in place now doesn't have the courage to send this to a committee and then put it on an agenda and let public discussion take place around the content of this bill. They won't do it. These backbenchers have learned from their ministers during question period to stand up and say the words and don't worry about any action afterwards because there won't be any. Words are cheap.

I look at what's happening in my own community of Hamilton-Wentworth with the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp, the second-largest hospital corporation in the entire country, and see that we're $38 million in debt, and they just announced the other day that they're looking at borrowing to make up that difference. This is the government that talks about the problem of borrowing and debt ad nauseam, and here we have local hospitals, for the first time that I'm aware of in the history of this province, that are taking out bank loans to pay their current bills to keep some semblance of a health care system alive in our communities. Why aren't you talking about that when you're standing up talking about how wonderful your Minister of Health is and how wonderful your government agenda is?

I think two of the most important things that are contained in this bill - first of all is the recognition that publicly funded health care is a social right. We ought to be making that statement. We all like to talk about our health care system and the universality. Certainly as New Democrats, which was the successor to the CCF, which brought in the first universal health care system in the entire continent in Saskatchewan with Premier Tommy Douglas, we're always very proud. But this is the time to move forward and one of the ways to do that is to make the simple legislative statement that publicly funded health care is a social right. Put that in law.

The second thing that I find most important here is the establishment of a Health Care Standards Commissioner. Based on what we've seen as a result of the Environmental Commissioner, which we brought in - you probably couldn't hear it on the mike but at least one of the members of the government backbench went, "Huh." They don't like commissioners who are arm's length from their control who report on what is happening in key areas of government like the environment. It's not a wonder they're upset, because that Environmental Commissioner has belled the cat on a number of key environmental issues. That's exactly what a Health Care Standards Commissioner would do and all governments of all political stripes ought to be held to that standard. That's the way we can actually give the public control and accountability of a health care system that's theirs. You don't have the right to destroy it, and that's what you're all about at the end of the day: destroying our health care system.

The Acting Speaker: Two minutes to reply.

Mrs Boyd: I want to thank all who spoke to the bill and hope that the kind words of the government party translate into this bill actually passing second reading today and going to the social development committee, where it belongs. That is their opportunity to look at the content and the detail of the bill, to do the further consultation in public that the minister says she's doing, in public with all of the players of the system where all of the concerns can come forward in an appropriate way.

I have no reason to assume that when the Minister of Health says she's going to bring something forward she's not speaking in good faith. I assume she is. But she said that in April. She has said it again and again. We haven't seen any action on it. We haven't seen any draft bill come forward. We haven't seen any public consultation - all behind closed doors.

We know that this Minister of Health is very good at allaying the fears of the people of Ontario by making announcements, by reassuring them, by holding meetings, by holding consultations, by saying she's consulting - and doing nothing. If the government members do not pass this bill today and get it into committee for hearings, we will know that this is simply another empty promise, another way of trying to soothe the very real fears that health care providers and health care recipients have in this province.

This is not a problem just for patients. This is becoming a serious problem for providers, who find themselves constantly in danger of violating their own standards, set by their own professions, because they do not have the resources to maintain those standards. It is time that the government, whoever the government is, takes accountability for the health care system.

1100

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move that, in the opinion of this House, since hospice palliative care is care which aims to relieve suffering and improve the quality of life of people who are living with or dying from advanced illness, or those who are bereaved, the government of Ontario should appoint a task force, representative of the public, recognized hospice palliative care experts, palliative care supporters and providers, both paid and volunteer, from throughout Ontario, to recommend the elements necessary to fully implement an effective hospice palliative care bill of rights. These rights would ensure the best possible comfort, protection and support will be available and accessible to all Ontarians and their families in time of need. The task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public, and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations.

This task force should consider but not be limited to the following issues:

(1) The provision of hospice palliative care that recognizes the need of all people for personal respect, control and dignity. A modern, fully developed hospice palliative care system enables most people to live in their own homes;

(2) The effective provision of the best medical treatments for pain control and the best symptom management practices for other physical suffering, using drug, and non-drug therapies;

(3) Ensuring the development of proper medical treatments for all patients of all backgrounds, social, cultural, or religious, and of any age or illness. The special problems of children and of individuals suffering illnesses of the nervous system, who face much shorter life expectancies, should be considered. Cancer Care Ontario's phased-in supportive care model should be examined for potential applications to the development of hospice palliative care;

(4) The interdisciplinary team care of hospice palliative care must be adapted to work with primary care providers. Standards for hospice home care, dedicated hospices, nursing homes, supportive housing and hospitals, should be integrated with a compensation structure for hospice palliative care that recognizes its interdisciplinary character;

(5) Medical specialties in hospice palliative care should be recognized in all medical fields. The need to provide a high standard of basic and specialized instruction in palliative care, pain management, symptom control, emotional and spiritual needs and team methods in every profession. An effective information system must update our medical teams with the very latest developments in hospice palliative care, pain control and symptom management;

(6) Research programs to explore new knowledge, in the areas of greatest value to Canadians receiving hospice palliative care, should be a continuing feature of Ontario's medical care system;

(7) The best possible programs to support, train and encourage volunteer care providers and their organizations should be identified and made an integral part of the hospice palliative care system. Volunteers providing hospice palliative care are the ultimate guarantee of community involvement, as well as comfort and concern for the needs of individual people and their families and their bereavement. Existing programs, standards, organizations and proposals ready for pilot projects or expansion should be encouraged. Programs that are individual and innovative, in their own way, can co-operate, providing patient-centred care for Ontarians;

(8) Revising, as required, medical, administrative and legal procedures to ensure effective safeguards for the rights of all those under care, but especially those who cannot, or can no longer, decide issues of medical care for themselves;

(9) How to meet the needs of most Ontarians, in these care programs, by finding the very best methods to gain the full confidence, and participation in patient care, of leaders from all religious, cultural and spiritual communities;

(10) The need for emotional, psychological, social and spiritual support appropriate to the needs of the patient and their family. The right to be treated as a person, and receive proper medical, emotional and spiritual treatment for times of depression and suffering. The need for family members to be consulted, treated with respect and kept informed;

(11) Setting reasonable limits on charges for care, to a patient's life savings, so loved ones need not be left destitute;

(12) Most care in Ontario is provided by spouses or family, to loved ones. A priority must be to consult with these care providers to find ways to encourage and support them, as they meet family responsibilities, with love and loyalty.

Hospice palliative care is care aimed at relieving suffering and improving the quality of life for those people who are suffering from life-threatening or terminal illness. This resolution urges the government of Ontario to appoint a task force representative of the public to recommend the elements necessary to fully implement an effective hospice palliative care bill of rights. It would ensure that the best possible comfort, protection and support would be available and accessible to all Ontarians. The task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations.

Hospice palliative care has made great strides over the last 30 years, and now is the time to start to make state-of-the-art care available to all Ontarians. On a personal note, my grandmother died some 38 years ago from cancer and my aunt died some three years ago from cancer. The difference in their care over the 38 years is quite astonishing.

In London, Toronto, Ottawa and Kingston, we have integrated palliative care now, in various forms. I might say that further information on this can be obtained through our Ontario legislative library. There are areas of the province where our service is state of the art today; there are other areas where it is very much at an early stage of development.

This resolution sets out in detail what the task force should consider. It has been developed as a result of consultations with experts, volunteers and persons who are receiving or have received care. I'd like to take a moment to thank all of them for the many hours of time they have put in to develop their expertise and to help us in developing this resolution.

The plan in this resolution would help to make life more comfortable and ease the suffering of individuals in care and their families. The best medicine available today that our professionals can offer is made available to help. The bill of rights would enable people to stay in their homes longer and be connected to their family and the small daily joys of life.

What can be accomplished is perhaps well set out by a true story that happened in the London area a couple of years ago. Loree Moores was diagnosed with cancer in 1996. Her health deteriorated. She had to go and live with a son. At the start of her last summer, she noted that she had a 33-year tradition of going to the cottage each summer, and that summer she and her family assumed she couldn't go. The caregivers got together with the family and with her, overcame the obstacles and she was able to go to her cottage. Her cottage became a small hospital. When she arrived, even though she was ill, she noticed the loons and their calls, the smell of the air and trees, the clarity of the water. Three of her four children and six of her grandchildren came up to stay for parts of the summer, and many friends stayed or visited. Loree passed away a couple of weeks after she came back from the cottage, but she had not missed a year at the cottage in the last 34 years of her life.

That really demonstrates what I think we all should be working towards, that everyone can live every day of life to its full potential. I suggest to the House that this is an idea that's time is coming rapidly. I think it will ultimately help almost every person in Ontario.

This resolution, as you would note from a couple minutes ago, is not just the endorsation of a good idea but a very specific plan for action. It's a plan for action that we can start now. It's a very ambitious goal, but I think it's also an attainable goal.

When we talk about ambitious goals, I like to think of something the late US Senator Robert Kennedy often said. He said, "Some people see things as they are and ask why; others dream of things that never were and ask why not."

Perhaps as we contemplate this today and contemplate what can be done, we might want to consider that we owe ourselves, our children and our grandchildren no less.

1110

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate?

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am delighted to speak on the resolution of the member for London South. I compliment him for bringing this resolution to the House today. Having said that, I think it does deserve support; however, I wonder why we need another task force to look after this most important aspect of our health care system, especially where we have to look after the most needy, the older person, the very sick, the ones who have incurable diseases, the ones whose family members really care to have proper, good health care being provided by the government.

It's most unfortunate that we have to resort to this type of resolution or for the government to have to deal with something like this, because this is nothing less than an admission that the government of this province is not providing the care that it should be providing for those people affected with those types of illnesses.

There is a litany of cases that we have brought to the attention of this particular government, and they are not listening. What worries me is not the good intention of the member introducing this resolution; it is that this government won't do anything. We have the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health who do nothing else but hash and rehash, announce and re-announce hundreds of millions of dollars to come on to the scene to help those in need, but we have seen nothing. Hospitals haven't seen a dime. They cannot provide the care that we are supposed to provide those people.

I don't think the government - it's immune to what's going on out there, we don't have to tell you, on a daily basis. We shouldn't be telling the government on a daily basis what goes out there with emergency rooms, hospital care. If you were a family member with a member who is in need of such care and they hear this daily news that hospitals are closing emergency rooms, you cannot go here, you cannot go there - 17 out of 19. How do they feel? How does a person feel when their government is letting them down?

I brought to the attention of the Minister of Health a particular case: six hours, a young man who was not even old and ready to go. But the situation is that we don't know when and how; we've got to be ready. When we are in need of such attention, we should be giving it to whoever needs it, whenever they need it. They couldn't find a room in Metropolitan Toronto after six hours, and another three hours later, they whisked the poor patient to Hamilton general hospital. In the meantime, the young man died on the way there. It was such a pathetic case, such an account from the family members, the family members who got to the hospital before the ambulance.

Every facet of the health care system is being affected, and it's being affected solely because this government wants to reduce the health care system to who can afford it, and if they can't afford it, forget it; you're on your own. It's not a case for the minister or the Premier to come into the House and say: "We have to make changes. We have to make reforms. If you don't get attention in one hour, you're going to get it in three or four hours." I'm sorry. I don't think the people of Ontario are expecting this kind of response or service from their government.

It is a very important issue. Unfortunately, my time is running out, but I would tell the member to listen to what the members of the opposition have to say because we do visit caregiver places in our community and we see the decline in the provision of health care. I would say, don't go into another task force unless you are sure to provide the health care that indeed our people deserve and want.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution. I'm surprised that the member for Yorkview questions the need for a task force to look at this very important issue. Clearly we then don't share the importance of the need to ensure that our health care system meets the needs of individuals in our province, particularly in the most difficult hours of their lives.

I've had some experience with the hospice system in our province, and I'm pleased to share with you the fact that we have literally an army of volunteers who very few people in our community know are active in this area of hospice work. They do their work quietly. They do it out of commitment and out of concern and care for individuals in their communities, many times not knowing these individuals personally, but very quickly entering into their lives in a very meaningful way.

I believe the resolution before us and the recommendation for this task force are very much consistent with our government's commitment to ensuring that home care, long-term care, care for the elderly particularly in our province, is enhanced. Previous governments have discussed doing something about long-term care, discussed doing something about matters such as those proposed in this resolution, but we have seen inaction, and another reason and purpose for such a resolution before the House today is that previous governments have not acted. Had they done so when they had the opportunity, we wouldn't need the task force today.

The member for London South is taking the initiative today, and I believe it's a natural extension of the community care access centre initiative that our government has taken. I have had some discussion with three of the hospice organizations in my riding that quite frankly do face difficulty in terms of their ability to deliver their services. Again, it comes back to financial resources. Having the volunteers there is important. Clearly this kind of work can't be done without the men and women on the front lines providing the care, providing the support, providing the counselling. But nevertheless the infrastructure has to be there, the referral system has to be there, and that takes money. So there is an obligation, I believe, on the part of government, on the part of our Ministry of Health, on the part of our Ministry of Community and Social Services, to look at how this resolution and the work of this task force could be integrated in the overall health care system in our province.

It makes no great sense to me that we should be spending literally billions of dollars treating individuals for their health care needs and spending literally billions on surgical processes and not continuing that same level of service into the most difficult hours of patients in this province, when they need that help the most. I believe there is nothing better that we can do for patients than, as the member so rightfully puts it, to give them the option to spend their final days with family in their homes if that's what their choice is and if that is a practical way of allowing individuals to have their final hours. That is truly an indication of a civil society, and it is civility that I believe brings us to the point of debating this resolution.

I believe there are men and women throughout this province who are willing to give of their time if they knew that the structure was available. I recently had the privilege of joining in the official opening of the Hill House Hospice in Richmond Hill. This is a project that was given leadership by Anne Gold of Richmond Hill, someone who has been involved in home care service for many years. In fact, she has dedicated her career to providing patient care and home care. It was quite an experience, because here we have truly an indication of partnership. The house itself was gifted by an individual in the community. Fundraising took place. The municipality became involved. Through that creative partnership this home was dedicated to the hospice service.

It had its first patient not many weeks ago. The opportunity now was for this patient to live the last few days in a setting where family was able to come along and provide comfort, but at the same time have the professional care and service there. The professional counselling service and the nursing services were there, but it wasn't in an institutional setting. It was a setting where truly, as the previous speaker indicated, the comfort of home was there and the emotional support was able to be provided.

I will support this resolution and the work of the task force, and certainly would be pleased to become involved in the work of that task force as well in the months and years ahead to ensure that this final stage of patient care is in fact fully integrated into the health care system in our province.

I commend my colleague for bringing this bill forward and look forward to all members of the House supporting this resolution today.

1120

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I wish to say that I believe the issue of palliative care is one that should be before this Legislature and I believe that many of the items contained within this resolution are certainly supportable. There is considerable discussion of this issue, but the ultimate is a task force. I think the government should instead be implementing many of the recommendations that have already been out there from people in the palliative care field, rather than setting up yet another task force to deal with this issue.

Palliative care, we must know, requires a substantial investment of public funds, something that many members on the government side aren't going to want to hear. Palliative care does not come cheaply, nor should it, because people are at a very vulnerable state in their lives when they are in their last days, and their families are also in difficulty at that time.

It reminded me of the taxpayers coalition meeting that was held in St Catharines a number of years ago, where people were up at the front with veins sticking out in their necks, chanting, "No new taxes," and, "Cut taxes." The result of that is that you have far inferior medical care as a result of money not being available for the hospital system and the hospice system, and as a result we face difficulty, particularly for our senior citizens.

Senior citizens, by nature of their age, are often going to be those who are going to require palliative care. Senior citizens and their families often fear what the last days will be like. When they see a system which now has far fewer nurses in it, far fewer other hospital workers available and restraints being placed on doctors, they are very concerned as they meet this difficult time in their lives.

They remember the promise of Premier Harris during the last election campaign when he said: "Certainly, I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." They find now that there are 35 hospitals in this province that have either been closed or forced to merge, and other facilities which have been forced to curtail their services.

This is going to require a considerable investment. This is going to require a lot of hospitals and hospices that are going to be available to people if it is to be successful. I suggest the government could use the money that it is squandering on advertising - self-serving, partisan political advertising - in the health care services. When they open up the newspaper and see the full-page, self-congratulatory ads, when they turn on the television set and hear the jingles and commercials extolling the virtues of the government, when they listen to the radio and hear those commercials, when they go their mailbox and see the glossy pamphlets that are provided by the government, again self-congratulatory, each time they can think that money could be spent on palliative care in this province where it would be most directly beneficial to people, not to the Progressive Conservative Party.

They would know that if you didn't have those road signs with the Premier's name on them, saying, "Your Ontario tax dollars at work - Premier Mike Harris," like some American Governor having these signs all over the province, they would know that money could be spent on palliative care.

They would know that the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board, established by this government, is simply a pre-election publicity boondoggle for the Premier, trying to get re-election on the back of this particular organization. Its first action was to send out a glossy pamphlet to every person in Ontario with government propaganda on it, and to issue newsletters, glossy and glittering, again extolling the virtues of the policies of this government. If only that money were available to palliative care in this province, I would be heartened.

I note as well that people will want to ensure there is publicly funded health care available to them. Dr Duncan Sinclair, chairman of the Ontario Health Services Restructuring Commission, learned first-hand what a difference private insurance makes when his back started to hurt. The treatment his doctor recommended was physiotherapy. His choice was to wait two or three months for the hospital to get around to it, or go the very next day for electric acupuncture, something covered only by private insurance.

He chose acupuncture. His back felt better the same day, but his moral sense felt worse. I quote him, "I worry very substantially about the growing inequity in Canada between people who are able to pay for private health insurance and those who can't," he said yesterday in Ottawa. Indeed, this is the man responsible, who has been given the chore and task of closing hospitals in this province.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): As members in this place know and certainly as people at home in London know, it's very seldom that the member for London South, Mr Wood, and I, as the member for London Centre, agree on anything, so I am really pleased to be able to stand today and speak to his motion.

While I understand the reluctance of the Liberals and indeed some of my own party to endorse a task force to look at palliative care, because I am a member of a country-wide committee that has been set up to look at this issue, I am also aware that the lack of public awareness and the lack of examination by government policy-makers, by those in the general community, about care for the dying is a very big problem.

I think the mechanism the member has suggested, the task force mechanism, may help us to raise public awareness. That's important because we are a death-denying society. We are a society that tends to focus on those kinds of services which can cure us of illness or resolve an injury issue, and we tend to bury, in our very modern way, the fact that all of us at some point or other will die.

The objective of palliative care, hospice care, is to ensure that our quality of life is maintained to death, that even though we may face short hours, days or months of life, there is some mechanism to make whatever time we have left a time when we can appreciate fully our own humanness and have the kind of dignity and respect and care we deserve.

It's interesting that most of us who have stood to speak have some personal experience with offering palliative care. That certainly is so in my case. Not only did my family work with my father for almost 19 years after he had been told he had less than a year to live and manage to maintain him at home almost to the point of his death, but similarly with my mother, who was diagnosed with cancer in 1989 and went through treatments and already had a serious problem with emphysema, for whom no more treatment was recommended in 1990. She lived until 1995 and during those five years I, as the primary caregiver who lived with her during that time, and my brother and sisters and the rest of our extended family committed ourselves to providing the kind of end-stage experience that we would want for ourselves.

1130

I think that's the important thing about palliative hospice care: It is very respectful of the desires and wishes of the individual who is experiencing their own mortality. People often make different choices than you or I think we might make under the circumstances. The purpose of palliative hospice care is to be very mindful that when we have very few choices left, the exercise of each of those choices is important.

Our party is very clear that we need to be providing health care services to everybody at each stage of life and wherever those services are offered. So the principles that are outlined in the member for London South's resolution are principles to which we can subscribe.

I spoke at the beginning about being part of a nationwide group looking at the issue of palliative hospice care and I'd like to tell people a little bit about it. This is a group that was brought together under the auspices of the employee foundation, a charitable foundation founded by employees of Glaxo Wellcome, a company that has a very large establishment out in Mississauga. The employees chose - they had freedom of choice - to look at palliative care largely because they themselves, as family members, had experienced the issue of palliative hospice care and felt that there needed to be some nationwide concentrated effort on informing people about what palliative care was all about, outlining what issues are facing us and encouraging government and private funders to understand the importance of supporting appropriate palliative care.

One of the first things the employee foundation at Glaxo Wellcome did was to commission a study by Angus Reid, adding questions to an Angus Reid poll about hospice palliative care. That poll was undertaken in August 1997. A random representative cross-section of 1,500 Canadian adults was polled to see what their level of knowledge was on the issue of palliative hospice care. It's very interesting that in this poll only 53% of Canadians knew about hospice care. They recognized that term only in 53% of cases, and only three in 10, 33%, identified hospice care with that end stage of life, with care of the dying. It was interesting to note that awareness was greatest where there had been leadership by governments, because of specific health care problems, in raising that awareness.

It's very important that a task force, if one is set up by this government, would use the work that has already been done. The Glaxo Wellcome employee foundation work is very important. Last November, we were all brought together. There were representatives from right across this whole country, people who worked in community hospices, people who worked in hospital-based palliative care, physicians, nurses, volunteers, family members, people who were themselves undergoing the experience of living through the end stage of their own lives. We were brought together for an intensive think-tank about how to get palliative care to the top of the agenda in the health care system.

The urgency, of course, is because so many of us are going to be moving into our senior years. The urgency of the numbers of us who will be entering into the end stage of our lives predictably over the next 25 years means that we have to find a better way of dealing with the reality that each of us is mortal and that each of us has a right to enjoy life to the very last second. We can't do that if we are not sure that we will be cared for appropriately.

One of the other studies that Glaxo Wellcome financed was a summary of qualitative research. That was quantitative research in terms of people's awareness of hospice care, but this was qualitative research that was undertaken to try and determine what the issues were.

This study, which was written by a woman named Melinda Head and was, as I say, submitted to Glaxo Wellcome in August 1997, this research clearly showed some of the issues and it's very important. It would be the kind of base research the task force would need to look at. Let me read you a couple of things observed by people who participated in that qualitative research. It's very important because these are people engaged in hospice palliative care.

The first quote is:

"Unfortunately the dead don't vote and the dying don't have enough energy to affect policy change.

"There has to be a commitment (by government) to care in the home. If they are (committed), they should put in the adequate support to allow people to do that. We try to do the best we can" - this is a hospice worker speaking - "but we are really only gap-fillers. People often need professional help more than the government is funding. If we can't put in through-the-night nursing, this makes the difference between allowing a patient to stay at home or not. If we can't provide that support, the only other alternative we have is in-patient beds and they are sorely lacking."

Another quote:

"There is no money. We are told the country is broke, so they take it out of health care. Palliative care is all about providing dignity to people. It's sometimes difficult to ensure someone's dignity when there are no beds and they have to sit in emergency rooms, when males and females are mixed in four-bed units. Sometimes we can't provide medication due to cost factors."

Another quote:

"If you choose to die at home, you are confronted with big bills for very expensive pain medications because they are not covered by your provincial health plan. While in hospital, everything is paid for. Once you're home, certain things, but especially medications, may not be covered and will become a financial drain.

"Continuous pump control" - the medication that is pumped by the person as they need it - "in the home is very expensive and so are the drugs. If they can't afford it, they will stay in the hospital. Some people need one nursing visit a day and the rest of the family can pick up the slack, but once you are out of the hospital, nothing is covered by the government. There is not affordable respite care, nowhere for someone to go if the family can't take it any more.

"Medications and drugs are funded within the palliative care unit. Once a patient moves back home, it is their responsibility to fund it. This places a tremendous burden on families."

This one is from a person working in hospice care in Ontario:

"Top of the list is not having enough money to provide overnight care. In Ontario the number of hours is not enough. Someone gets 56 hours of care per week; that is eight hours a day. Either they can shift that support to overnight care, but then they have no one there during the day unless they have a spouse who doesn't work, or friends, or a partner or whatever that will be with them. At best, we can't get more than seven volunteers in who will do a shift of four to five hours. There's still more hours in the day that are left over. There's still a huge gap."

I've experienced that gap. It wasn't until January 1995, when my mother was confined to bed, that I finally realized I couldn't do all-night care and maintain my responsibilities here. That was when I became really aware of how little support is available in the community.

The member for London South said that we should look at making sure that families aren't bankrupted by looking after palliative care patients, and he's right. In our family, our only alternative was to hire additional help to make sure the care was provided. In the last months of my mother's life we were paying anywhere from $6,000 to $8,000 a month to ensure that that kind of care was there, and that was in addition to the entitlement we had through the palliative care provision of home care. Most families are not fortunate enough to have those kinds of dollars, yet those dollars are very small compared to the cost of keeping people in hospital.

1140

The member is also saying we need to have care both in the hospital, when that's necessary, and the best place for care, at home. I couldn't agree with him more. Very often the desire is to keep someone at home, but there are different circumstances that make it necessary for the person to be in a hospital. They shouldn't be going into hospital through emergency departments, where their entire care plan comes under question by an emergency doctor whose focus is dealing with the immediate symptoms and with trying to cure or save someone who may in fact be in a situation where they know they are in the process of dying, where they have made decisions about not wanting heroic efforts taken. We need to be very clear that there are ways to do that. The member for London South and I know that the palliative care unit at Parkwood Hospital, for example, has an ongoing relationship with families going through this kind of situation. In the ideal circumstance a person would go directly to that unit and have the appropriate care based on their care plan rather than going through an emergency department, where the focus obviously is different than it is in palliative care.

At every single instance where I've attended an MPP briefing by the hospital restructuring commission, I have questioned the commission about the issue of palliative care. It is missing from most of the reports; in fact, we are losing palliative care beds in this province as a result of their recommendations. That is a very foolish move, not only in terms of the human needs of people, which I would say are paramount, but financially foolish. If we are providing appropriate palliative care, we are not doing expensive interventions that will not affect the length of the person's life and may actually affect negatively the quality of their life.

For those of us who have been engaged in this, we have a commitment and a sense that it is important that people become educated about the importance of this service. I have great faith that the people of Ontario believe this is a service that needs to happen. I think we need to take leadership in ensuring that it does.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my privilege to speak this morning in support of the resolution by the member for London South on the very important issue of hospice and palliative care. I listened attentively to the member for London Centre, who has just spoken. Respectfully, I know her commitment to this and I'm very pleased to remark that she is in support of the member for London South's resolution, which clearly illustrates that there are issues that this House listens to and responds to.

How do I respond to this? In my role as a backbencher and a person who tries to listen to constituents, I know just how important this issue is not only to me but to every member in this House. It really starts with how you see your own world. On a personal note - I hate to digress, Mr Speaker - I will share with you a story very similar to the member for London Centre's story. Some years ago my mother passed away, fortunately in the care of her family. Also very fortunately - and not all families are as fortunate - I have two sisters who are trained nurses. One, in fact, works in respite services as I speak, more or less. Both of them took time off to make sure that my mother's final days were marked with support and love and tenderness and trained caring.

It's extremely important that we recognize that the role of the family is instrumental in this. We can't allow government to take over all the responsibilities for people's lives. I think that's the intent of this resolution, to first recognize the importance of the hospice and palliative care role and the dignity of those who are in need of that service.

That's at the personal level. But I would like to also recognize what's actually happening in the region of Durham, in my riding. In my research, I was very impressed: On September 12 of this past month, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor, Hilary Weston, attended an important recognition of volunteers working for Hospice Durham. She was there to hand out recognition to this very important group, primarily made up of volunteers. Out of respect for those volunteers, I did some research and found out that the Hospice Durham story is indeed a story of people wanting to make a difference, starting, as many initiatives do in this province, with the volunteers themselves.

Respectfully, I have to say that is an important initiative of this government as well. Marilyn Mushinski from Scarborough-Ellesmere is leading an important initiative to recognize the role of volunteers.

Hospice Durham's story started in June 1988 with its first steering committee meeting, made up of people with a sense of caring about the community. They did a needs assessment through the Durham district health council at the time, in 1989. So you can see that many governments of the day have had a role in this. I'm sure there were supportive dollars to get this initiative started. The inaugural board meeting was in 1990. Just to bring us more up to date, in 1995 they had a total number of 63 active volunteers, in 1996 it grew to 83, in 1997 it grew to 91, and I'm pleased to tell you that as of September, it's my understanding, it has grown to over 100 volunteers, many of whom do it with quiet dignity, very much in the climate of the whole palliative care environment. It's people helping people, not essentially looking for recognition.

What I hear from volunteers today in Ontario is that just recognition, just a thank you - and I say today to all the volunteers, thank you for giving your time to people whose lives are coming to an end, and bringing dignity. Their homes are the appropriate surroundings; they're comfortable surroundings, with their friends, their family. They need support from the community.

I looked also at the current board that was just taken in. For the record I want to mention a number of people, many of whom I know: Reverend Richard Hamilton, who is a Free Methodist minister, is the president of Hospice Durham; the vice-president is Reverend David Smith - you can see the important role of the clergy and the church; the treasurer is Brent Farr; the secretary is a well-known constituent of mine, Jenny Walhout; and the past president is John Fowles, a very well respected member of the community in that area. The volunteer board members, many of whom are known to me personally, are Neale and Shirley McLean, who live in Bowmanville, Cathy Plue, John Skinner, Diane Bennett, Peggy Dickerson and Guy May. This is just the immediate list of volunteers who serve in many capacities, some of which aren't board of directors or administrator duties but providing hands-on care to real people.

I always have to drive that down. I go back to the vision of my mother, my sisters, my family, and having the right skills in the right place at the right time. Clearly, all of us have to work together as a community in this area.

There was a very touching story related that day about a person who was a close friend of our family. He was a high school teacher at the time. In fact, his involvement in my life involved his son, who's a friend of mine, and he was also a teacher of my son at one time. He was a volunteer sports coach and participated in lots of activities. Mel Putnam passed away just over a year ago of cancer. His dying days were supported by his wife and the Hospice Durham organization. When the Lieutenant Governor was in Durham on September 12, Mrs Putnam made a very respectful comment and gave a testimonial.

It would be remiss of me not to recognize that there are more people, far beyond the names I've mentioned. I apologize if I've in any way perhaps embarrassed people by mentioning those names. But recognition and thank you is what I'm trying to say. For that reason, I expect every member of this House to respond to Mr Wood's resolution today. Think of your own family, if you want to be selfish, but think of your community. We each have a responsibility and a role to make the last days of those in the later stages of life respectful, graceful and supportive.

1150

With regard to what the government has done, I have to recognize that the Honourable Cam Jackson is really trying to extend the whole initiative of long-term care. Many members would know that our initiatives are far-reaching. As we move people into the home, the home care component has to be there. Indeed, I'm familiar with his most recent announcement in July of some $550.8 million that has been allocated to this very important home care support system. But the money is only one piece; the rest, respectfully, is volunteers. I'm saying thank you, and the best way for the members here to say thank you is to support Mr Wood's very important, very thoughtful and very compassionate resolution today. Thank you for your time.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I stand in support and would like to commend the member for London South for bringing this resolution forward. It certainly is a timely one in light of the situation that's taking place in Sudbury now, where the Sudbury Regional Palliative Care Association is saying they're going to have to close their doors on December 31 if the government doesn't fund them adequately.

I want to tell the member for London South, if in fact this task force is created, you would do well to learn from the Sudbury experience. We are very proud of our palliative care association and our palliative care service. It began in 1989 under the tutelage of Gerry Lougheed Jr, and might I suggest that both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Long-Term Care would be well advised to include and involve him in any process when we're talking about hospice palliative care initiatives. He definitely has the momentum, the opportunity to share knowledge and the expertise.

I would suggest to you as well that it is important that any palliative care association ensures that it reflects the needs of the community. We started our first team of volunteers in 1989. We implemented our francophone training in 1992, because we wanted to assure ourselves that the 35% of the population which is francophone within the regional municipality of Sudbury was well served by these services as well. All our volunteers are trained and educated through and with the use of qualified trainers who donate their time. As of October 13 of this year, we have trained 461 volunteers in Sudbury.

We have supported over 1,330 families, because we believe the last stages of life are extremely important, and we believe it is essential and imperative that those people are reassured that their enthusiasm for life, although it may be shortened, is still appreciated and is still respected. These volunteers go out in the community and we service the people. In fact, over the course of the last little while there have been in excess of 12,000 volunteer hours during 1997 alone. Those aren't paid hours; this is volunteer service.

I suggest to you that the initiative of the member in bringing forth this resolution is well intentioned, but the good intentions of the member for London South must be accompanied by the commitment from the government to fully and adequately subsidize the funding of this type of service. It is imperative that the government commit additional resources, because in some cases the government is already donating. For example, in Sudbury they donate approximately $27,000. That's woefully underfunded when in fact there has been the estimate that $150,000 is necessary to continue the program.

It's essential that the service is provided in every community in Ontario. It's essential that you look at the Sudbury model, because they are well advanced from where this resolution is. It's an opportunity for the task force to shorten its mandate, provide the services and get the services into every community in Ontario.

At this time, the only caveat I would say to the government is that you have to make a commitment to your member for London South that you're going to put the appropriate dollars into palliative care services. Otherwise the exercise today, the exercise of the task force, will be fruitless and the reality will be that people in Ontario will consider this government, on an ongoing basis, as not caring about people.

The Acting Speaker: The member for London South, you have two minutes.

Mr Bob Wood: I'd like to express my thanks to all those who participated in the debate. I'd like to respond to a few of the concerns that have been raised.

The question has been raised as to why have a task force to deal with this. The answer to that I think is that it's a very complex issue and we need input and expertise to get it right. I might say that I share the concern that I know others have, that task forces sometimes sweep problems under the rug. That's they reason the resolution is so specific. If the resolution is adopted, we're going to see some action from what's there.

The issue has been raised that palliative care is going to cost money, and that of course is true. I suggest to you, it might not cost as much as some might think because such a large component is that of volunteers. I'd also point out to you that the program can be phased in over time, and in particular when the budget is balanced, I think there are going to be monies available. I suggest that after the budget is balanced, one of the top priorities for use of the surplus should be hospice palliative care.

The question of raising profile came forward and I think that is absolutely correct. Every member of this House can help in bringing this issue to the forefront of the public agenda.

What palliative care hospices are really about is letting people achieve the kind of end they want. It can be a very positive experience and very much a part of life. It was not a positive experience for my grandmother some 38 years ago, but it was for my aunt three years ago. She was able to die in her own home and she said to me a few days before she died, "I hate to go because everyone's being so nice to me." The fact of the matter is, that was the right way to end a life well lived.

What we do today can be an important step forward and I do hope all members of the House will support this resolution.

HEALTH CARE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE RENDRE DES COMPTES À L'ÉGARD DES SOINS DE SANTÉ ET SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with the first ballot item, number 25, standing in the name of Mrs Boyd.

Mrs Boyd has moved second reading of Bill 50, An Act to promote patients' rights and to increase accountability in Ontario's health care system.

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

Pursuant to standing order 95(j), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We ask for it to be referred to the social development committee.

The Acting Speaker: Majority in favour?

All those in favour, please stand.

All those opposed, please stand.

The majority is not in favour; therefore the bill is sent to the committee of the whole.

PALLIATIVE CARE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 26, standing in the name of Mr Wood.

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

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

The House recessed from 1200 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Two years ago, the former Minister of Transportation, Mr Palladini, agreed to install an advanced warning light at Balsam Street on the Thunder Bay Expressway. This came about as a result of strong lobbying from a variety of concerned groups, including the OPP and Thunder Bay city council, who were concerned about the number of vehicles that were running the red light at this particular intersection, sadly resulting in some tragic accidents and countless near misses.

Since its installation, there has been a major improvement at that intersection. However, it has become increasingly clear that these lights need to be in place throughout the expressway. This past summer, more accidents took place further down the system that were a direct result of vehicles not stopping at a red light. So for the sake of improved safety, I hope that Minister Clement will now listen and indeed act.

We all recognize that an advanced warning light is not the perfect solution to the problem. However, if we look at the experience of provinces such as Manitoba and British Columbia, where advanced warning lights are common, there already are some jurisdictions that believe they improve safety on the highways.

Minister, let me make a direct plea to you today. I recognize that your ministry installed the Balsam Street light as a three-year pilot project in order to gauge its effectiveness. Today I'm asking you to listen to the concerns of so many of my constituents and end the pilot project now. Surely two years is enough time to confirm that the advanced warning light has made a positive difference. Minister, surely you would agree that if this relatively inexpensive system can save one life, it will have been worth it. Show some flexibility. Do it now.

ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Je veux attirer l'attention du ministre de l'Éducation de la province à une situation que je suis sûr qu'il connaît lui-même. Patrimoine Canada du gouvernement fédéral, comme on le sait, a pris la décision de ne plus verser de l'argent vers nos collèges communautaires francophones ici en Ontario. C'est une situation très sérieuse.

On sait qu'en 1993, le gouvernement de Bob Rae a négocié avec le gouvernement conservateur de la journée, de verser 173 $ millions sur une période de cinq ans pour s'assurer qu'on a de l'argent en place pour être capable de financer nos collèges francophones ici dans la province de l'Ontario. Cet argent est utilisé pour développer des programmes dans le Collège Boréal, le Collège des Grands Lacs et autres. Et là on apprend que le gouvernement fédéral nous dit qu'ils ne vont plus verser de dollars du gouvernement fédéral de M. Jean Chrétien au gouvernement provincial de l'Ontario, ni aux autres provinces à travers le Canada.

C'est sérieux parce que ceci veut dire que le gouvernement fédéral est en train de s'ôter de ses obligations quand ça vient à l'éducation postsecondaire en français de nos jeunes dans la province de l'Ontario. Je demande au ministre de l'Éducation de retourner à la table de négociations et de faire son devoir. Nous dans le Nouveau Parti démocratique sommes prêts à travailler avec lui pour nous assurer que le gouvernement libéral fédéral prend sa responsabilité et assure les dollars nécessaires pour financer notre système postsecondaire francophone, qu'on ait l'argent nécessaire pour fonctionner.

DIABETES

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): It gives me great pleasure to introduce some very special guests who are in the members' gallery today.

Ayden Byle of Inverhuron, Ontario, was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes six years ago. He must constantly monitor his blood sugar level and requires up to five shots of insulin per day.

There are more than 1.6 million diabetics living in Canada today. That is close to 6% of our total population. Most of us either have diabetics as members of our family or know someone who does. Most of us pay little attention to this disease. Diabetics appear to lead normal lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. Diabetes is a devastating disease which will eventually take its toll. It is no different from cancer, heart disease or kidney disease. There is no cure.

On June 1 of this year, Ayden left Vancouver to run across Canada to raise money for diabetes research. He has run over 4,500 kilometres to arrive in Toronto today. He has raised nearly $90,000 and intends to reach Halifax by the end of November. Like Terry Fox, Ayden has suffered setbacks and disappointments during his run, but this young man's courage and determination is outstanding. The Canada Challenge slogan is "May We All Be Challenged." In keeping with this slogan, Ayden challenges all Canadians to support this cause.

I invite you to meet this outstanding young Ontarian, his team and his family in room 230 following question period today. I wish Ayden a safe and successful journey to the east coast. Good luck, Ayden. We look forward to your homecoming.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I would like to comment on the Mike Harris plan to put money back into the pockets of Ontarians. When Mike Harris introduced the new value assessment system, he said it would be fair for everyone. Once again, Mike Harris has delivered a serious blow to low-income families in Ontario.

The new assessment system will have a negative effect for the Hawkesbury Housing Corp, which faces a 44% tax increase. The business community in Glengarry, Prescott and Russell is faced with a property tax increase of up to 574%, and this will have a serious effect on employment in Glengarry, Prescott and Russell, all of which is the result of this Mike Harris government downloading.

DIABETES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I would like to welcome and congratulate Ayden Byle, who is here today, I understand, from Inverhuron, Ontario. He is about to run across the country - there he is again; we're very proud of you and welcome you here today - to raise money for diabetes research.

I want to take this opportunity to say that my son has juvenile diabetes. He was diagnosed at about the age of 11. I'm quite familiar now with the problems associated with this kind of disease and how very important it is to raise funds privately for research. That's why I'm so very pleased, as my son is, that you're doing this.

I do have to say, though, that governments too have to take responsibility and make sure that funding is there, particularly in areas of prevention and health promotion. I know that when my son was diagnosed as a boy, and into adulthood, it was very important to him to learn how to take care of himself.

I have to note today that the Tory government has cut funds to public health programs which include these programs for prevention and health promotion. I would implore the government today to put those funds back so we don't lose those really necessary health promotion programs.

HERITAGE FESTIVAL

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I rise in the House today to recognize the Heritage Festival that took place last weekend in Port Hope. Port Hope is well known for its 19th century homes and streetscape, and last spring the downtown was officially designated as a heritage conservation district. One of the most recent heritage projects the town undertook was the restoration of the Capitol Theatre in downtown Port Hope.

This was the first year for the festival, and by all accounts it was a tremendous success, with many people coming from across Ontario, as well as the United States. Some of the events included live entertainment, horse-drawn carriage rides, historical walking tours, harvest food samplings, a native dance and powwow by the Alderville First Nations group, and tents featuring Canadian arts and crafts.

I applaud the founders of the festival, Gary and Judi McWilliams, and the other members of the festival committee who volunteered their time to showcase Port Hope. I'm pleased to say that the marketing of the Heritage Festival was supported by Ontario Tourism through the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism.

I would encourage all members of this House to visit historic Port Hope this fall, because there really is more to discover in Northumberland.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The state of health care in the Niagara region continues to deteriorate under the Mike Harris government. We have the hospital closing commission lurking around St Catharines and the Niagara Peninsula looking at closing hospitals or drastically altering the roles which our hospitals play.

We have hospitals in the area that have to carry huge deficits because of the cut in funding from the provincial government. We have people waiting for hip joint and knee joint operations and other operations of that kind. We have a need for nursing homes and increased funding for homes such as Linhaven so they can meet the needs of seniors in our area. I remind members of the Legislature that the Niagara region has per capita the largest number of senior citizens in the province.

We have emergency care which from time to time is not available because hospitals are on a bypass situation. Prescription drug costs are very onerous on many of the people who live in the Niagara region, and the senior citizens remember well the user fee which was slapped on them by the Mike Harris government.

We have a situation with Dr Beiko, an ophthalmologist, who has to turn away long-term patients simply because there isn't enough money to be able to carry out that particular responsibility.

Hospitals are discharging patients quicker and sicker at this time and what we require is a strong infusion of funds from the Ministry of Health of Ontario.

1340

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Last week I rose in my place and advised the government members of the rally I was attending at Allenby public school, where parents were outraged at the possibility of losing their community school as a result of this government's education agenda.

Last night I attended another such meeting at Central public school, again organized by the parent council. The meeting was chaired by Cathy Gazzola. Joining me at that meeting was our local school board member, trustee Judith Bishop, as well as local aldermen Andrea Horwath and Ron Corsini.

I want to emphasize the fact that at that meeting, the biggest issue at this point was the fact that these parents were not going to get a decent length of time to consider the important issues that ought to be considered. We have a process locally that provides for 18 months to allow parents and the community an opportunity to have input in these kinds of decisions. As a result of this government's agenda, those parents and our community are going to get two weeks to consider up to 25 school closures. That is disgraceful.

It's your responsibility to allow democracy to take place and you're stifling it. This is not just a building game or a numbers game. We've got to be looking at the programs that are available, the child care programs that are there. Is this a community centre? What are the other uses for this place? More and more you're killing education.

APPLE FESTIVAL

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to share with my colleagues on the other side more good news about an event occurring in my riding of Durham East.

This Saturday, October 17, the Bowmanville Business Centre is hosting the annual Bowmanville apple festival and craft sale. This event runs from 9 am to 5 pm in the Victorian downtown of Bowmanville, thanks to the hard work of volunteers like Garth Gilpin and Ron Hooper and a number of other volunteers. I encourage all members to visit Bowmanville this Saturday.

The Applefest has an extensive and exciting schedule of events. There will be a variety of fresh apples available, as well as baked goods, freshly pressed apple cider, a pie eating contest and hot apple fritters. There will also be a huge tent filled with crafts and live entertainment, and even a professional lumberjack competition. What better way to spend an autumn weekend than in downtown Bowmanville?

The annual Applefest provides the opportunity to reflect on the importance of the apple industry in Durham. There are many top-quality apple producers in my riding, for instance, Kirk Kemp; Empire Orchards, owned and operated by Bob and Gail Simpson; and Nature's Bounty, owned by the McKay family. There is also Archibald's Orchards and Estate Winery, with their prize-winning selection of apple wine. Fred and Sandy Archibald have established a very successful new business that will be part of the tour.

Apple production is an important part of the agricultural sector, not only in my riding but indeed across the province, and I would encourage everyone to attend Applefest in Bowmanville this weekend.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to rise to ask for unanimous consent today for the following motion to be forwarded from this Legislative Assembly to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Finance Minister Paul Martin. The motion would read:

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario demands that the federal Liberal government take advantage of this year's federal budget surplus to begin restoring to the provinces the more than $6 billion it has cut from health care and education."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You are seeking unanimous consent to put the motion. Agreed? No.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: With high respect, would you convey the courtesy of a name? Who was it who said no?

The Speaker: I have no idea. I just heard a no.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Did it come from the Liberal caucus? Definitely that's where I heard it come from.

The Speaker: I have no idea where the no came from, none whatsoever. I heard a no.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock. Member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: I anticipate why the government won't like this question. It has to do with their mismanagement of health care and specifically, Minister, your personal mismanagement of hospital emergency rooms in this province.

Minister, on your watch, hospital emergency rooms hit a crisis last February. At first, you said it was the flu. You said it was something that hospitals should deal with themselves. Not until your Premier had to go to an emergency room himself did you agree there was a problem. Then you tacked on a committee that the hospitals had already set up, and when that committee reported to you, you said on April 20 that you were acting immediately. You said, "Every region of the province will benefit from our immediate action on the task force's recommendations." We're sitting here six months later and you haven't done anything - not one of the things you said you would do.

What I want to know is, will you apologize today to the people of Ontario for having mismanaged the situation in the emergency rooms of the province?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'm not sure if you were the one who just said no, that you were unwilling to support the NDP motion to get additional health funding from the federal government or not, but we did hear a no from the Liberal benches.

What I have always said is that our government, under the leadership of our Premier, has always indicated that health is a priority. We have said we would maintain health funding at $17.4 billion. Not only have we maintained the funding, we have increased the funding by at least $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion.

Our government made the tough decisions to restructure health care. Our government acknowledged the fact that we needed to deal with the emergency room situation and we set up a task force.

As you and I know, these issues that arise in emergency rooms have been there for a long time. I can look at the list in front of me here -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

1350

Mr Kennedy: Minister, what you're saying verges on absolute neglect. For you not to have read page 1 of the report you've been trying to hide behind - on page 1 of this report, written by doctors and hospital administrators, it says, "The emergency room problems in Toronto began in October 1996," when you were the government. That's what it says. Further, this report says you are to act within 90 days. It gave you 90 days. Today, six months later, you've done nothing.

Donna Kline at Sunnybrook says there are staffing shortages, a high volume of patients, the beds are full and, as a result of those bed shortages, they can't serve people. In North York General, Donna Bloomfield is telling us that because of the lack of funding both for the services in their hospitals and for home care they can't discharge people, because you haven't done what you've promised.

Minister, when are you going to make things safe for patients in Toronto? All of these hospitals understand it is your fault. Will you act?

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the member opposite, if you had had the courage when you were in government to move forward rather than neglecting our health system and not having the courage, we wouldn't have had situations such as you had when it was under your watch, where it says in the Ottawa Citizen, December 26, 1987, "An elderly woman turned away from two area hospitals last weekend died Christmas day," and I could go on and on. These are the situations that we had the courage to correct. We had the courage to set up a committee with the Ontario Hospital Association. The report was issued, we accepted the recommendations and we will be implementing those recommendations to improve health care in this province.

Mr Kennedy: Hiding behind the tiny shreds of credibility you have, you have to answer this question today. On April 20 you promised 1,700 short-term long-term-care beds to alleviate the emergency situation. When are you funding them? Six months later you haven't. That's almost criminal, Minister. You promised temporary beds for flexibility in emergency rooms. You said in your release you would act immediately. You've done nothing about it. You said you would provide capital to emergency rooms. You announced $3.2 million for the emergency room in Windsor and you gave them nothing. You said you'd put extra money into home care and you've done nothing.

Minister, today I want you to stand in the House and tell us exactly why there has been a delay in the money you personally specifically promised us on April 20. Is it politics? Are you waiting to get more benefit in the election? Or is just incompetence?

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the member opposite, I would encourage you to check the facts that you've just presented. As you know, the Minister of Long-Term Care has certainly been making additional money available in the area of home care services. We also have dealt with the situation in Windsor, and I'm very pleased to say that we are making long-term-care beds available. Unfortunately, it's as a result of the lack of planning that was developed under your government that we saw no long-term-care beds awarded for over 10 years, so we're now in a position where we're finally doing what your government should have done, and the government after you.

The Speaker: New question.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I would go back to the other minister, but she talks about courage and she's avoiding the questions. I have to direct my question to the new minister for half of health care, for long-term care.

Minister, I want to refer you to the remarks of your colleague, who says there's lots of home care available. Toronto home care tells us they have a $12-million deficit coming at them this year. That is your specific responsibility. It is one of the reasons your other minister has not been able to provide service. She's not taking care of her end, but you're not taking care of yours.

I specifically want to refer you to Kingston, where they are facing a $1-million deficit. They've had a 15% to 20% increase in patients coming in. They are now cutting services to patients. I want to know, Minister, do you approve of cutting services to patients, why are you permitting it to happen and why won't you provide home care funding to offset the cuts to hospitals that the Minister of Health has made?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): I want to thank the member for his question and I want to set the record straight, because he certainly still hasn't got the proper picture as it relates to home care right here in the city of Toronto. I want to advise the member opposite that before even one hospital has closed in this city, we have flowed, in Toronto alone, $25 million of new dollars in less than two years to the Toronto CCAC. Their budget is now over $60 million.

If you want to ask questions about why there is inequity, you look to your colleague sitting to your immediate right. He represents constituents in Scarborough, and in Scarborough for years, for over a decade, they have been receiving half the levels of care that your constituents were receiving in York. Your government lacked the courage to do anything about it and the subsequent government lacked the courage to do it. This government has the courage to have an equity model so that these dollars are shared equally for all the citizens of Ontario.

Mr Kennedy: The Bobbsey Twins of health care in this government are obviously the twins of no accountability. They are bobbing patients back and forth and nobody will take responsibility. They've already cut $266 million more in Toronto than they've put back in and they've cut millions more in Kingston as well. Minister, I want to see if somehow you will stand up and be accountable, as your colleague will not.

I want to ask you if you would be accountable to Joan Rose. Joan Rose has MS. She has limited use of her hands and no use of her feet. She was getting home care for an hour and a half a week to clean. She's in a wheelchair. She doesn't have the ability to clean her floors or to do her housekeeping. She has been cut back to an hour and a half a week and now she has been cut off entirely in Kingston. As well, there's Joan Paley who is 77 years old. Her husband is 85 years old. He has cancer. He is cooking for her. He is providing the care. They were cut back. They had four hours a week for home care and personal care. Minister, will you restore the cuts you made to both Joan Paley and Joan Rose?

Hon Mr Jackson: It's important that the member opposite realize that these programs are managed by locally elected boards and the decisions made in the Kingston area have been made by the residents of Kingston. Kingston has enjoyed a very fortunate situation in this province in that they are receiving far and above the provincial average of additional home care dollars to spend on the residents of their community.

Your colleague who sits in your caucus has been advised and has raised this question before. But there are other colleagues of yours in this House who are receiving half the levels of care that they are receiving in the city of Kingston. So the community care access centre in Kingston is managing from the increased growth dollars that they will receive over the course of the next eight years, managed care, incremental changes, meeting the growing number of seniors in those communities.

We've had a situation where parts of this province - your colleague from Renfrew, his seniors were receiving four times more service than your colleague from St Catharines. We've put an end to that and we're making sure it doesn't matter what city you live in, you're entitled to the base amount of care in this province and you will receive it.

Mr Kennedy: Sadly, what that means is you're not entitled to health care, you're entitled to Elizabeth Witmer care or Cam Jackson care, which is indifferent care. Joan Paley, 77 years old, seven spinal surgeries, doesn't get home care any more because of you, Minister. The person running home care in Kingston has this to say to you. She says: "We're talking about needed services. We've already sorted out the people who didn't need it. That's the hardship." It's in their power, in practical terms, to provide and meet that need, but not in financial terms.

You've cut $38 million more out of Kingston than you put back in. Your government has done that. You've cut millions more out of Toronto. You've created the crisis in emergency rooms. Will you stand up today and tell us that you're prepared to do one simple thing: that for every bed you've cut, for every nurse you've fired in the hospitals you're going to put the exact same amount of money back into those communities, you're going to make sure that Joan Paley and Joan Rose, two elderly people whom you've taken care away from will get their care back? Minister, I dare you, answer the question.

Hon Mr Jackson: I'm going to clarify what the member opposite has been trying to argue, that there has not been an increase in home care spending in this province. I'm going to argue with this minister until he gets it right.

Interjection: The member.

Hon Mr Jackson: The member. I remember when he actually was a minister. It's just that he shows up with his collar on most days.

My point to the member opposite is simply this: This province has increased the amount of funding for health care and you've denied that at every single turn. This province has increased by 40% the amount of dollars going to community-based care. We're providing two thirds of all the public financing in this great country for one third of Canada's seniors. It's a record we're proud of, and you still don't get it.

1400

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health. Today, as you may know, the member for London South, one of your own government members, had a resolution debated here which met with all-party acceptance on the idea that you establish a task force on palliative care. Of course the implication was that your government somehow believed that you somehow believed that you would support better services for palliative care patients.

The reality is you're overseeing the destruction of quality services for dying patients. There are lots of patients in this province who want to die at home but can't because there isn't enough care available, at least two cases in Renfrew county, for example, where patients died of cancer but couldn't die at home, because the total number of hours of care allocated to them had run out before their deaths occurred.

When will you take responsibility for the health care system in this province, and when will you provide adequate funding to deal with palliative care patients?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'll refer that to the minister responsible, the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): First of all, I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I know of her interest in palliative care services, and I know that when she was in government, her government began one of the first programs. It was about $2 million to begin several of these programs.

I'm pleased to report that today in Ontario we're spending three to four times that amount of money, that we have expanded these programs into virtually every corner of our province. There are now 54 of these programs operating. The challenge we have had is to make the transition from hospital-directed service to community-based care. If there is any message I have clearly articulated to the community care access centres in this province, it's how they bundle these services in a more sensitive fashion to ensure that these respite, homemaking and nursing services can be utilized in a palliative fashion. We have encouraged that. I have announced -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, the whole issue has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Health, and since you were appointed in a division of the services in the health system, to you. The Ontario Nurses' Association has made it very clear to you that those who are delivering care in the home are finding case after case after case where people don't happen to die within the budget, and so they're left without care. It's disgraceful. You say you're trying to make the CCACs more sensitive. How can they be more sensitive when your own guidelines for access to service say it should depend on the acuity of the services? This is absolutely a sleight of hand. It's unconscionable that you are presiding over this and then pretending, through the member for London South, that your government cares about people who are dying in this province. It's nonsense.

When are you going to stop this situation and actually put the dollars you've announced into the CCAC system?

Hon Mr Jackson: First of all, the member is trying to make this into some sort of political bunfight, and I want to advise the member opposite that what has failed here in this province is that we have never had a government with the courage to look at why the hospital sector would say that they and they alone should manage palliative care when in fact we are building a community-based system through the CCACs, some of which in this province don't quite get it, that they are supposed to integrate these palliative care services.

I have a situation today in Sudbury where this level of co-operation isn't going. They want to build their own separate silo instead of dealing with an integrated system. We need to bring the hospital sector, the nurses, to the table. We need to put not-for-profit agencies at the table and provide them with the seed money to allow those programs to go. But we're not going to build separate stand-alone structures the way we built hospitals a century ago, and we're now finally getting a community-based model to provide these services. By every benchmark there has been improvement. We have expanded the number of programs in the province, and we have seeded them with far more money -

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Boyd: This is the height of hypocrisy. You have blamed the problem for the shortfall of services on the people who are receiving services. You were reported to have said some people are receiving too many services. That's what you just said about Renfrew county, that they were receiving too many services, and two people have now died without care because of your position.

This is the epitome of the Americanization of our system. This is what we hear from the United States: HMOs not delivering services because people are no longer insured, insurance companies refusing service because people have outlived their benefits. The minister has said all sorts of things about what he's promising to do, but people are dying without services. Duncan Sinclair, on October 9, said, "A variety of services now are much more readily available to those who can afford to pay for them privately." If a person in Ontario can't afford to die in dignity, whose responsibility is it?

Hon Mr Jackson: This government has expanded the amount of support service that it has provided in community settings on just about every single front. We have expanded palliative care dollars in this province. In your own community of London, we have an outstanding program that we continue to assist, in partnering with paying for that program.

Frankly, I might accept your indignation about your own community, but we have actually transferred over a 13% increase for community-based care in your own community. You weren't shy about showing up for a photo when I presented the cheque to your own community.

Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wasn't present when you delivered the cheque, and that is a personal affront. I want you to call the member to order.

The Speaker: It's not a point of order.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The Sudbury Regional Palliative Care Association is anything but a stand-alone association. The Sudbury Regional Palliative Care Association involves everyone in the community, and for the minister to say it's a stand-alone association is wrong.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, will you come to order, please.

We're now at the second question for the third party. Member for London Centre.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and my apologies, because obviously when the minister makes personal comments about a member of this House and personal comments towards people -

The Speaker: Same minister?

Mrs Boyd: It's a continuation - personal comments about the palliative care association in Sudbury, someone has to defend them.

This minister keeps talking about what has been announced, just like the Minister of Health. Everything gets announced; nothing gets spent. He talks about announcing $82 million this fiscal year, and what assurance do we have that's going to translate into care for patients? There are patients all over this province who are losing services from the community care access centres, services they need to live independently and with dignity to death in their communities, and this minister talks about spreading the dollars around. He talks about bringing everything to the lowest common denominator instead of the highest common denominator. In Kingston 2,000 people have been cut off home care as a result of his changes.

This document about who has prioritization for access only talks about acuity. We're talking about triage here, we're not talking about home care, and you're not putting enough resources into it to make home care a reality.

Minister, when are you going to take your responsibility? When are you going to realize that your policies are -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Jackson: I fail to see how, when in three short years we can go from $700 million to $1.2 billion in funding for the long-term-care envelope in this province, you indicate that is shirking the responsibility, to put that additional money in. Those monies have been spent.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Jackson: If you're not prepared to listen to these increases in health care spending in communities, there's nothing I can do to help you if you don't understand the facts as they are. If you're prepared to deny that the London CCAC has received a 13% increase, which they have, or that Toronto has received a 70% increase in three years, there's nothing I can do about that. But these are the facts.

1410

What I'm trying to get across to you is that the old, traditional means of delivering health service in this province has got to change. We are moving to a more community-based model, and therefore we are putting those resources in the hands of thousands of agencies that receive those dollars to develop their palliative care programs. They're not all hospital-based programs any more in this province.

Mrs Boyd: I did not suggest they were all hospital-based programs. But the community care access centres are being asked to take care of the people who are being released from hospitals because of the $1 billion the Minister of Health has taken out of hospitals. They're all flooding into home care, and the people who are already there requiring care aren't getting it any more. That's the point.

You say you've announced an $82-million increase in home care. With a 25% to 30% increase in the load for all the CCACs, that money should be at least $250 million to just make up the difference.

You can keep on trying to defend what you're doing, but in the meantime, in every single community in this province, people are dying at home without care because of your policies. It's on your head that's happening. This should not be happening in this province.

Minister, make all the excuses you like, do all the wonderful public relations you like - you have a great facility for getting your picture taken; cameras are everywhere you go - go to the bedside of people who are dying as a result of your policies. Minister, what are you going to do?

Hon Mr Jackson: It's unfair when the member opposite is going to continually argue that all this money has left the health care system when in fact we have increased the amount going into health care by over $1.4 billion. She still to this day refuses to acknowledge that.

Secondly, she refuses to acknowledge that we are one of only two provinces in this entire Dominion that provides its home care on a universal basis. In the Liberal and NDP provinces - every Liberal and NDP province in this country - they're charging a user fee, using a means test, an asset test or an income test, but not in Ontario and Manitoba. That's the quality of the system we've built and are continuing to build in this province for our seniors and our disabled.

Mrs Boyd: The minister's answer is balderdash, because the reality is that people in Ontario don't get the services unless they pay for them privately. You say they get the services; we can show you thousands of cases where they don't.

The College of Family Physicians of Canada held a press conference to make this point: that 69% of physicians in Canada - large numbers of them in Ontario - say their patients are adversely affected because of inadequate or delayed access to home care.

We're supposed to believe the gospel according to Cam Jackson; we're not supposed to believe the Ontario Nurses' Association, we're not supposed to believe Duncan Sinclair, the commissioner you put in charge of hospital destruction, and we're not supposed to believe the College of Family Physicians of Canada. In spite of all the facts that are adduced, in spite of all the statistics, in spite of all the personal stories, we're supposed to believe you when you stand up and say, "Hey, we're doing everything just right."

It's absolute nonsense, Minister, and it's time for you to assume your responsibility. Will you protect patients in Ontario and our health care system by moving forward on standards for home care?

Hon Mr Jackson: The member refers to this press conference today by the College of Family Physicians of Canada from across our country. The member should be very much aware of the fact that their concerns were based on the problems that are being experienced in other provinces primarily. You know that, and you should have shared that with this House. In fact, the media's main concern was why the Liberal government in Ottawa, when faced with a $12-billion fiscal dividend, cannot find a single penny for health care services that they've cut across this country and cut in this province by $2.4 billion.

In NDP Saskatchewan, you can't even get most of the services that are provided here in Ontario. In Saskatchewan, you have to open your wallet to get home care; you don't have to do that here in this province.

TUITION FEES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. All members of this House are quite aware of your government's assault on the students of Ontario. We've seen skyrocketing tuition fees; we've seen student debts increase even further with your changes to OSAP. As a rationale for your decision to deregulate fees and to increase tuitions even further, you said that all institutions are required to file a quality improvement plan. That's what I'd like to ask you about specifically here today.

Your ministry's memo of May 6 indicates that all institutions are required to prepare these so-called plans. A letter went out on July 31 telling the universities that these plans had to be submitted to your ministry. My question is very simple: How many plans have you received, how many have you approved and signed off on and how many have you sent back for further work to protect the quality of our students' education?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Oriole for raising this topic, because it is a most important one. A number of the quality assurance plans are coming in. I'm delighted to see them coming in. The ministry is reviewing them. They are very important to the post-secondary students, because the post-secondary students are concerned about the quality of their education, and they want to see the monies invested in ways and means that can improve the quality of their education.

We indicated that if the post-secondary institutions were to raise the tuition fees, 30% of that would have to go to assist students, and indeed there would also have to be a quality assurance plan to indicate how the monies were being reinvested from any tuition increase, if the institution decided to increase tuitions, how they were investing that in quality. Those plans are coming in, and the ministry is reviewing them.

Mr Caplan: It's not surprising that the minister doesn't have a direct answer. They're coming in; he hasn't reviewed them. He has taken a hands-off approach to the students of Ontario.

The memo from Mr Trick, your ADM, says that a penalty in the form of government operating grant reductions will be applied to any university that does not comply with this tuition fee policy. But who would pay the price for that operating grant reduction? It would be the students, obviously, in the form of even higher tuitions, in the form of even greater increased student debt. These students of Ontario have already paid higher tuitions, so when you deduct operating funds, students will have to make up for it with either even higher fees or quality decreases to their programs.

I am very concerned, Minister. You have these plans. You haven't looked at them. Why don't you just admit that this whole exercise is a farce? It's simply your way of turning a blind eye to the crisis you've created for our students.

I'm going to ask you again, Minister: Will you personally commit to reviewing these plans, and will you further commit that if the plans are not met, you will -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson: I can assure the member opposite that I will personally be involved in these plans, because I consider these plans to be most important. This government considers quality in post-secondary education, indeed quality in education at all levels, to be of highest importance in terms of priorities for this government. I want to ensure that the quality is high. I want to ensure that there are assistance programs to help the students, the kinds of programs that we've announced recently, such as the Ontario student opportunity trust fund, some $600 million worth of support to our students, the first time ever any government has instituted such a program; the access to opportunities program, a $150-million investment in the high-tech industry -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon David Johnson: - and $29 million to other universities. I'm proud to say that the quality is improving, and indeed the participation rate at the post-secondary level -

The Speaker: New question, third party.

1420

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, I want to read to you from a memo that was sent last month to the chief caretakers in all Toronto public schools. It was sent by the superintendent of plant and operations and it says:

"Be advised that due to funding concerns, no exterior window cleaning will be carried out by contractors this school year."

Minister, your funding formula is causing dramatic cuts to school maintenance and school cleaning budgets. Do you now believe that clean windows are unnecessary in Ontario schools?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Obviously, I didn't write that letter. The letter was written by an employee, I gather, of the Toronto school board.

This government considers the maintenance, the upkeep of our schools in the province of Ontario to be of highest importance. That's why we've allocated, through the fair funding formula monies, which in total - I will say that the total amount of dollars available is within 2% of the monies available in 1997. We've allocated those monies on a fair and equitable basis across Ontario so each and every school board will have monies to allocate to each and every school for a good level of maintenance, including cleaning of windows, running the schools, cleaning the hallways etc. We consider that to be of highest importance.

Mr Hampton: I heard the real answer from the Minister of Community and Social Services. She said kids will have to choose between clean windows and new textbooks. I would suggest to the government that people are going to choose between your income tax scheme and adequately funding education, and it's education they want.

Minister, the reality that's happening out there is that your school funding formula not only drives the closure of schools, it also drives schools to have to cut their budgets for cleaning and for school safety. For example, the Keewatin-Patricia District School Board in Kenora has had to lay off maintenance workers, janitors and custodial staff. The Halton and Peel boards, which have literally hundreds of mouldy portables to deal with, appealed to you and said, "Help us clean up these portables." You said, "No, use your cleaning budget." If they're going to clean up the mouldy portables, the school classrooms otherwise don't get cleaned.

Minister, the question is this: Will you change your funding formula so that school boards can adequately clean the space that they have and so that students -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite may be interested to know that the amount of money, $5.20 per square foot, which has been allocated for operations and maintenance, is actually more than half the boards in the province required in 1997. So for about half of the boards in Ontario there is actually an increase in terms of the basic operations and maintenance budget.

What we're asking the remainder of the boards is, if half of the boards can operation within the $5.20, and indeed are operating at a lower amount than that, why can't the other half? Why can't they have the same kind of practices that result in the same clean, safe schools that half the boards in the province of Ontario have already pursued?

We've allocated this money on a fair and equal basis. It's almost the same amount of money as last year. I believe that the boards can operate their schools very well within those parameters.

ONTARIO HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. I've received numerous calls and letters from constituents concerning a piece of property in Aurora which is under the trust of the Ontario Heritage Foundation. This property was gifted as an unconditional gift to the Ontario Heritage Foundation by the late Mrs Anne Bartley Smith. Mrs Smith was a devoted environmentalist who spent considerable years reforesting this property. There are now issues around this property over concerns that the Ontario Heritage Foundation is proposing to dispose of a portion of this property to a developer.

Minister, can you explain to this House and to the people of Ontario what the role of the Ontario Heritage Foundation is relative to gifts such as this, and particularly what responsibility the foundation has to ensure that the public interest is served in these matters?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I want to thank the member for York-Mackenzie for his question and for bringing this important issue to my attention. As you know, I can't speak specifically about this property because the Ontario Heritage Foundation is an arm's-length agency of the government, but I do understand that discussions have been ongoing between the executors of the estate and the Ontario Heritage Foundation since 1992.

The Ontario Heritage Foundation's mandate is to identify, protect and preserve Ontario's natural and cultural heritage, and it's for the benefit of future and present-day Ontarians, so when a property such as this is bequeathed to the Ontario Heritage Foundation, the board and staff work with the estate representatives to ensure that all and any action the Ontario Heritage Foundation takes involving the property is consistent with the spirit and intent of the benefactor's wishes.

Mr Klees: That's our concern particularly, that the Ontario Heritage Foundation takes no action with regard to disposition of any portion of this property until all parties are assured that the intent, the spirit in which that property was bequeathed is recognized and honoured. Can you give me an assurance that that in fact will take place?

Hon Ms Bassett: Again, I'm grateful that the member is so concerned about this issue. I have to say that I can't comment on this specific issue, but you understand that the Ontario Heritage Foundation has a board and a chair and a staff in whom I hold utmost confidence. It is an arm's-length agency and it will dispose of the matter as it sees fit.

I ask the member for York-Mackenzie to keep me apprised of what's occurring so that the people of Aurora and all Ontarians will benefit from his concern and from what the OHF is going to continue to do.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. You will recall last week I asked you questions about the situation in Ottawa concerning the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic school board and their enormous pupil space problems. Your colleagues John Baird from Nepean and Norm Sterling from Carleton, along with myself and a few other members, attended a meeting of parents from that board - 500 to be exact - and I'm sure they communicated to you how angry these parents were.

They were angry with the formula that they don't understand. I don't know who does. They were angry with the school closures that are recommended. They were angry with the portables that they have to put up with for 25% of their population. They were angry with the time frame. I'm sure you're hearing from many of your colleagues about the unfairness of this particular formula. Will you review the formula and will you consider the time frames as well?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): We have simply indicated to boards that if they wish to adjust their inventory by the end of the year in terms of having access to new pupil places, then we will certainly accept, at the end of the year, any adjustments they're prepared to make. If they don't wish to submit any further information by the end of the year, they're under no compulsion to do so.

Here in Toronto, for example, the Toronto board may decide not to do that and may decide to sell empty schools. They have some 80 schools here in Toronto they no longer use for public school purposes. They may decide to sell those schools, use the revenue and build new schools or new additions from that revenue. Perhaps the same might happen in Ottawa.

The whole formula is designed to create new accommodation in areas where there is the greatest need. In Durham, for example, the Durham board has announced 12 new schools and 11 major additions through the region of Durham. Here in Toronto, the Toronto Catholic board has suggested it will have six new schools as a result of the formula. We estimate about 200 new schools over the next three years through this formula.

Mr Patten: You talk about Durham, you talk about Toronto, you talk about everywhere else.

Last Friday, I went to a school and I asked the principal if I could see his floor plan and we went through each floor of that particular school. The ministry says there are 559 spaces for this particular school. We looked at every conceivable space that could be utilized or converted into classrooms. We could only arrive at 530, still short of what the ministry's formula says.

1430

If we did that, here's what this school would lose. It's an inner-city school; 70% of its children are immigrant children. They would lose special education assessment space, language development assessment space, breakfast and lunchroom with food preparation for 70 children, a clothing exchange for low-income children, a computer lab, ESL space for recently immigrated children, the staff room and a resource room with a computer for children with special learning difficulties.

Minister, come with me or ask some person from your ministry to come with me into my community and look at the application of this particular formula, because it is causing chaos and hurting and not achieving your objective.

Hon David Johnson: If there has been a mistake made in any particular board or any particular school in Ottawa or anywhere else in Ontario with regard to the number of spaces to a particular board or to a particular school, the ministry would be more than happy to be involved in correcting that situation. These spaces were developed in conjunction with a committee of board officials from across Ontario, from small boards, large boards etc. But I wouldn't stand here and tell you that the committee or the Ministry of Education is perfect in terms of assigning the number of spaces to any particular school.

So, number one, let me make clear that we would be happy to correct any mistakes if they've been made. Number two, though, it's up to the boards, within the framework of the money we're flowing to them, to make decisions. The Ministry of Education is not requiring any board to work at any level or any schools to be closed. We're simply providing a fair level of money for the operations of the schools and then the boards make the decisions as to how they apply that money.

GAMING REVENUE

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Minister, Ontario charities have worked hard to become self-sufficient. In fact, they practise what your government only preaches. They've searched for ways to become self-supporting and they've been creative. When you shut down Monte Carlo events, they tried to work with your government to develop an alternative that would work. But your government bungled the charity casino initiative and all we're left with now is a hell of a mess.

You promised charities $40 million in interim funding, and so far they've seen not one penny of that money. With your government, it always seems to be, "The cheque is in the mail." They never see the money. They're asking, "Show us the money." When are charities going to see the money you promised?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): As the member knows, or should know, my counterpart from culture announced today $100 million for Trillium. That's 10 times more money province-wide than was received under the old, flawed Monte Carlo system, which the police asked to be changed, which the charities themselves asked to be changed and which was difficult to regulate and control.

As far as the advance funds of $40 million are concerned, that goes through the municipality so they can make decisions based on local needs and local priorities. That money started to flow last week. You should know that; if you don't, I can get you the details on it. Some areas have received the money.

The problem with the process is that it had to be applied for. It went through the municipalities, and as soon as we got the application, the money went back out to them.

As far as Charities First Ontario and other charities are concerned, they're ecstatic with this news. They think it's about time that the government had vision to strengthen communities and to give this kind of money to help families in need.

Mr Lessard: Minister, you've left charities out in the cold, and it's the communities they serve that are beginning to suffer. Charities live in fear that they won't be able to scrape together the funds they need to survive. They've seen the mess you've made of the charity casino initiative, and they're afraid you're planning to do the same thing with charity bingos.

Bingos raise in excess of $40 million in the Windsor community alone. For many charities, it's their single largest source of income. They're beginning to see a pattern here of increased involvement by the Ontario Lottery Corp in the charitable gaming sector. They're beginning to see the big hand of your government going deeper into the pockets of charities, of hall owners, of suppliers.

Minister, I'm asking you today, under the G for "guarantee," will you guarantee that charities are not going to lose the right to manage and conduct charity bingos?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I don't know how they twist these things around. I don't know what he's talking about in terms of the bingo, but I can tell you that charities are ecstatic this government has had the courage to guarantee, under the G, guarantee $100 million for charities across this province. That is a dramatic step forward.

I know your party supported the Monte Carlos. You participated in licensing 15,000 days of that type of gambling activity that took place in this province. Only about $6 million to $10 million went directly to charities. The charities themselves had concerns about it. They've said to our government, "Thank goodness we've had a government take leadership in this role." There's my colleague Isabel Bassett's announcement today plus our earlier announcement of $40 million in advance funding that goes through municipalities that know the local needs and can work with the charities. The charities I've talked to are absolutely ecstatic about that and they didn't like your old flawed system of the roving Monte Carlos.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We know that a number of municipalities in Ontario have gone through restructuring to find better and more efficient ways to serve taxpayers. Can you provide us with an update on municipal restructuring across the province, and can you tell us what the government has done to support these important reforms?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings for that very excellent question. As he knows, the municipalities are finding that restructuring leads to lower costs and gets rid of duplication and red tape, and that's the main reason most municipalities undertook it. As a matter of fact, there have been 85 restructuring proposals approved by this government to date. That affects and reduces the number of municipalities in Ontario from 815 down to 593. Another piece of important news for municipalities is that it also reduces the number of municipal councillors by more than 1,000, which is probably good news for everybody.

We also recognize that there is a lot required in restructuring and this government has been there to help municipalities in every way we possibly can. We know there are upfront costs involved. We have been there to provide more than $70 million to help municipalities restructure, to enable them to integrate their computer systems, for example, to help them with front-end costs that are necessary when they're giving out early retirement packages and so forth.

Mr Fox: Can you provide some examples of what municipalities have achieved through restructuring? I understand more municipalities are looking at restructuring to achieve cost savings and efficiencies. Can you also tell us about further restructuring initiatives underway and what your ministry is doing to encourage these?

Hon Mr Leach: In the member's own municipality, in Prince Edward county, 11 municipalities were amalgamated into one. In Peterborough the number of municipalities went from 19 to 10. In Wellington county 21 municipalities restructured into nine. In Chatham-Kent, the poster boy of restructuring has gone from 23 municipalities to a single municipality. In Chatham-Kent, for example, the year's budget of those 23 municipalities down to one municipality has shown a savings in excess of $5 million. As a matter of fact, just the consolidating of their banking services in Chatham-Kent saved that municipality in excess of $400,000.

1440

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a question to the Minister of Health. Your ministry has saved $2.6 million by closing psychiatric beds in Ontario and you promised that this money would be applied to after-care services for psychiatric patients of whom there are, as you know, literally hundreds wandering the streets aimlessly without hope or support.

Let me give you an example of what happens when you don't apply this money to after-care. Toronto police 14 division receives 258 phone calls a month for help from the Queen Street psychiatric centre and hundreds of calls from other centres regarding patients in trouble. If a patient forgets his medication or falls on the sidewalk and can't breathe, we're dispatching three services: the fire department, ambulance and the police.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question?

Mr Ruprecht: If a person throws himself in front of a streetcar, we do the same thing. I'd like to know from this minister, as you know there's evidence of a crisis here: When will you treat this as a priority and not use up police -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): This is a priority. If you recall, this past year the parliamentary assistant for health, Mr Newman, did a thorough consultation on mental health services in Ontario. There was a tremendous response from all the stakeholders. The result was that they indicated the strategy that had been developed by the previous government needed change. They made recommendations. As a result of their request, we have already this year made available $60 million in additional funding to support community services. We have set up a court diversion program -

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - to assist those individuals who don't need to go through the normal court system. We have community treatment teams to provide 24-hour support to those -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Ruprecht: I'm delighted to hear there's a strategy, because when you walk down here or on Queen Street you'll find hundreds of people walking about. That certainly is a very shocking dilemma that you have to face.

I just want to point out one thing, and that is, don't use our police as babysitters for psychiatric services. They have other responsibilities as well. You're not saving any money at all. If you don't save money, why don't you put this money into after-care, where it belongs? You will remember that we have in the west end of Toronto hundreds of halfway houses, crisis care facilities and institutions of that nature, yet what's happening? They're all full. If you have a strategy and all these places are full, then we are asking you today to make a commitment: Spend the money for crisis care facilities and for homes, because otherwise the problem ends up right in your face and right on our doorsteps. I'm asking you today, get up here and tell us what you're going to do. Forget this strategy you have, because it's not working. We want you to spend some money for additional housing.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Those are the very issues we are well aware of. In fact, that's why we set up the consultation and that's why Mr Newman spoke to all the stakeholders. That's why we invested in community support services, the $60 million. These are exactly the issues that need to be addressed. That's why we are very pleased that we have made this investment, that we are moving forward. As you know, it was our government that put the moratorium on the closing of the psychiatric beds until the community services were there. This year we continue to move forward. We know that at the present time we are providing more service than ever before to those who are seriously mentally ill as a result of the fact that there are the community assertive teams out there, that there is the court diversion program, that there is more money for community support services, and yes, the housing is a critical component of this as well.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH OFFICE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Heath as well. You have a letter on your desk from the mayor of Sault Ste Marie asking you to locate the new regional health office for northern Ontario in Sault Ste Marie. Will you do that? Will you tell us here today that you will recognize the central location of Sault Ste Marie and the very real unemployment challenge, some 18%, that we are facing, and the number of jobs we have lost through government downsizing and tell the mayor that we will be getting this very important office?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Certainly I am familiar with the issue in this instance and other instances. Obviously when these decisions are made there are many factors that are taken into consideration. Based on the recommendations from staff, there will be a location designated. I'm sure your community is being given the same consideration as the others.

Mr Martin: The mayor, in his letter, expresses his frustration with the process you refer to and the fact that he and other officials from our community attended a meeting with people from your ministry and got the very real impression that a decision had already been made. As a matter of fact he says in his letter, "The thrust of the meeting was that Sudbury was to be the focal point of northern Ontario and Sault Ste Marie could euphemistically be deemed a satellite."

Are you going to turn Sault Ste Marie into a satellite? Sault Ste Marie is a regional centre that has watched its ability to act as such seriously slashed over the last three years. Will you reverse this trend and, for all the right reasons, agree to locate this office in Sault Ste Marie?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I certainly appreciate the member's support for his own community and the case he does make. Let me assure you that all the sites are currently being considered. There are other communities that are lobbying equally hard, and no final announcement has yet been made.

TRAFFIC CONTROL

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I am looking for your help in solving a problem in my riding of High Park-Swansea involving truckers who break the law by driving on neighbourhood streets during hours of prohibition. While I acknowledge that police enforcement is a municipal responsibility, as is adequate signage to alert and warn truckers of the 7 pm to 7 am prohibition, truckers who break the bylaw currently face only a minimum fine, which they tend to see as a cost of doing business.

What can the Ministry of Transportation do to help my constituents with this problem and to help give the residents the peace and quiet they have the right to expect and which the city bylaw assumes they will receive? Will you at least consider the quadrupling of fines?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I'd like to thank the honourable member for his question. I am very well familiar with the stretch of road to which he refers. It is a very busy municipal road, and with the construction of the Humber bridge and other improvements in the area, there have been a number of traffic jams as motorists try to get to the QEW or en route from the QEW to the 427 or 401. Some of that traffic is trucks that are looking for alternative routes, and they may have chosen Parkside Drive.

But that doesn't mean they can ignore posted signs, so I have been working with the Ontario Trucking Association and in fact have contacted them about this and many other streets. The OTA regularly informs its membership about new regulations and strongly encourages their membership to be safe operators.

As for the quadrupling of fines, I appreciate the concern you've raised on behalf of your constituents and the disruption they feel because of trucks that travel on the roadways overnight - that's the real issue - and I'd be happy to take your request under advisement when we look at changes to the Highway Traffic Act.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has announced its intention of dumping the financing for ambulances, social housing and public health care services on to the backs of municipalities; and

"Whereas this irresponsible action will create a shortfall of more than $18 million for local governments in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Whereas local representatives in St Catharines and the Niagara region will be forced to either raise property taxes by as much as $200 per household or cut services; and

"Whereas Mike Harris called municipal representatives `whiners' when they tried to explain to him that his proposal was unfair and would create gaps in important services such as the delivery of public health care; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing accused local representatives of being opportunistic simply because they attempted to point out that the Mike Harris proposal was unfair and primarily designed to fund his ill-advised tax scheme; and

"Whereas the Harris government refuses to listen to the representatives who work closest with their constituents, the municipal representatives;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to scrap its downloading plan, which will cause either an increase in property taxes or an unacceptable cut to important local services."

I affix my signature, as I am in full agreement with the sentiments in this petition.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas heritage is vitally important to the social and economic health of Ontario communities and Ontario residents; and

"Whereas community museums, galleries and heritage organizations work hard to protect, promote, manage and develop our provincial heritage resources; and

"Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to the people of Ontario to promote the value of heritage and heritage conservation;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide stronger support to Ontario's heritage institutions and organizations and to work with the people of Ontario to establish a new heritage act."

1450

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition and it reads like this:

"Be it resolved that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario must immediately improve funding of the hospital and the health system to alleviate major gaps that have developed in Ontario's health system. This is evidenced by chronic gridlock in emergency rooms, lack of sufficient nursing staff and massive debts accumulated by hospitals. The government of Ontario must ensure that sufficient capital dollars are supplied on a timely basis to allow restructuring to occur without negatively impacting patients.

"Does it now exist that in the case that this has not been the case, the government of Ontario must commit to community services being in place before hospitals or beds are closed. The government of Ontario must strike an immediate independent review of the real impact of hospital and health services restructuring on the quality of patient care."

I affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition from 49 people in my constituency.

"We, the undersigned taxpayers of rural Ontario, oppose the current Ministry of Education and Training's funding formula in relation to rural school boards. We believe that special consideration should be given to the fact that our population is spread over a wide geographical area. A blanket funding formula for such a large and diverse province of Ontario will not work for all citizens equally."

I'll be glad to sign this.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Minister of Education intends on taking more than $1 billion out of Ontario's education system at a time when there is an increasing consensus on the importance of supporting our schools and classrooms; and

"Whereas per pupil funding in the province of Ontario now ranks below other jurisdictions, such as Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri and Nebraska; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now embarked on an advertising campaign which will cost the taxpayers of Ontario over $1 million; and

"Whereas the government commercial doesn't constitute an important public announcement and instead is clearly an abuse of public funds, because they are self-serving political messages which are designed to influence public opinion; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government could cancel the advertising campaign and use the $1 million which belongs to the taxpayers of Ontario for the purchase of 40,000 textbooks;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the government to cancel their blatantly partisan, self-serving political advertising campaign and redirect the taxpayers' $1 million to classroom funding."

I'm signing my name to this document.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): A petition 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 introduced 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 will:

"Require all boards in Ontario to design and implement school safety programs, school codes of conduct, and anti-vandalism policies;

"Provide for effective early intervention strategies by requiring boards to design and implement anti-bullying policies and by providing boards with the ability to direct psychological assessments of students that they believe are at risk;

"Provide a provincial violence and weapons-free schools policy and allow principals the ability to exclude violent students from regular classroom settings;

"Give police the tools they need by creating a new provincial offence for trespassing on school property and backing it up with real consequences;

"Direct all boards in Ontario to design and implement alternative education programs for suspended and excluded students;

"Require parents to be liable for any damage done to school property by their children; and

"Protect teachers and staff from civil liability;

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

"To pass into law Mr Newman's Safe Schools Act as quickly as possible."

I affix my signature and I'm very proud of Mr Newman.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Just a tip: Next time, member for Huron, if you want to do a petition you should stand up.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas we are concerned about the quality of health care in Ontario;

"Whereas we do not believe health care should be for sale;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is taking steps to allow profit-driven companies to provide health care services in Ontario;

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I concur and I will affix my signature.

RAIL SERVICE

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario entitled "Save the Tracks."

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

"We want passenger rail service southbound from Barrie to Toronto. You must prevent the tracks from being torn up."

There are over 100 names on this petition, and I endorse it.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition that says "Save the Dieu."

"The Health Services Restructuring Commission, HSRC, has given notice that it intends to direct the Hotel Dieu Hospital to close and to require that the Sisters of St Joseph cease to be governed. If the proposed direction is made and implemented, then access to high-quality health care will be seriously undermined in Kingston and region.

"The sisters are recognized for their leadership in the health care community. They have developed the plan for and operated an efficient outpatient teaching hospital and have provided a high quality of patient care for 123 years from the same location. Their distinct values and philosophy, coupled with the sisters' tradition of compassionate care, must not disappear.

"The HSRC's proposed direction calls for the dismissal of the sisters from their role in the governance in outpatient health care at the Hotel Dieu Hospital. This is not in the best interests of the patients and families in this city and region. The people of Kingston deserve to have access to the kind of quality health care for which the sisters are well recognized.

"Those who must use public transportation to get to outpatient clinics will be seriously affected. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder any extra burden in paying for a new outpatient facility, when the Hotel Dieu site can accommodate the needs of the people of Kingston. Many downtown businesses will suffer greatly should the site be closed.

"The sisters of Hotel Dieu Hospital are asking you to help them in their response to the commission by signing this petition."

I affix my signature to this petition.

SCHOOL PRAYER

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have here a petition signed by a number of members of the Loyal Orange Lodge No 370. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the members of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario, are firm supporters of the public school education system and the Protestant faith;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the government of Ontario to reinstate the Lord's Prayer in the public school system of Ontario."

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the government of Ontario.

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology; and

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services; and

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres; and

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of over $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study; and

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm complete agreement with the sentiments of this petition.

1500

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I present a petition which was delivered to me by the Honourable Al Palladini. This petition was delivered to his office, and I'm presenting it on his behalf. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.

"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

This is particularly appropriate, given the debate we had earlier this morning. I affix my signature too.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a further petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas due to the Harris funding cuts to education the Toronto Catholic District School Board is being forced to consider the closing of 29 Catholic elementary schools in the city of Toronto before next September; and

"Whereas the parents of the students of Venerable John Merlini school do not want the school closed, because it is operating at full capacity, and fear the further chaos and crisis the Harris government is imposing on the education of their children; and

"Whereas there is apprehension and turmoil in the community that due to government rules to determine school capacity, hundreds of students will have to find a new school next September;

"Now, therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"We call upon the Minister of Education, who has the primary responsibility for providing a quality education for each and every student in Ontario, to:

"1. Listen to the views being expressed by the teachers and parents of Venerable John Merlini school students, who are concerned about the implications and disruptive effects the school closure would have on their children;

"2. Recognize the fundamental importance of our local schools to our neighbourhood community;

"3. Live up to its commitment to provide adequate funding for the important and essential components of a good education and not allow the closing of Venerable John Merlini school, because it is operating at full capacity."

I concur and I will affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE

Mr Martiniuk, on behalf of Mr Harnick, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 68, An Act to incorporate Legal Aid Ontario and to create the framework for the provision of legal aid services in Ontario, to amend the Legal Aid Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 68, Loi constituant en personne morale Aide juridique Ontario, établissant le cadre de la prestation des services d'aide juridique en Ontario, modifiant la Loi sur l'aide juridique et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres lois.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Madam Speaker, I would request unanimous consent to share my time with the members for Simcoe Centre and York-Mackenzie, and in addition, that both the opposition and the third party lead speakers be stood down to another date.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Just to be clear, you have moved that the lead speaker for the third party be stood down for a later date?

Mr Martiniuk: The opposition and the third party.

The Acting Speaker: And the official opposition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr Martiniuk: The purpose of the Legal Aid Services Act is to reform the legal aid system to better meet the needs of Ontarians who require legal aid services. The legislation would establish the mandate, governance, accountability, services and funding for a new organization, which would be called Legal Aid Ontario. This organization would be independent of government and would be responsible for finding better ways of delivering legal aid services to those in need.

Thirty years ago, Ontario's legal aid plan was established on three principles that still apply today. First, services would be provided by private sector lawyers to Ontarians who need legal aid. Second, eligible individuals would be entitled to legal aid. Third, the plan would be operated as a partnership between the province, as the funder, and the Law Society of Upper Canada, the administrator. That was 1967.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, lawyers and community groups concluded that the judicare system needed to be supplemented in order for the plan to adequately address the needs of low-income Ontarians. As a result, in 1971 the community legal aid clinic system was established.

When our government took office in 1995, it was clear that something needed to be done about the legal aid plan. Between 1989 and 1994, government spending on legal aid doubled. The previous government negotiated a four-year memorandum of agreement to deal with the funding problem, but there was no corresponding attempt to reform the plan or find better ways to provide services.

When this government assumed office, we honoured the funding levels guaranteed by the previous government, and we insisted on financial stability and more accountability to the taxpayers. During the past three years, the Attorney General has worked with the Law Society of Upper Canada to successfully bring legal aid spending under control.

It is against this backdrop of the need for change that in December 1996 the Attorney General established the Ontario Legal Aid Review. It was to be the first comprehensive review of the Ontario legal aid plan during its 30-year history. The review was chaired by Professor John McCamus, one of Canada's foremost legal scholars. The panel was composed of people who reflected a diverse experience and were best qualified to provide advice about the future course of legal aid in Ontario.

The panel was an independent task force to recommend changes to legal aid in order to provide more and better services for clients; in short, to make recommendations for a flexible, efficient and effective system that reflected the changes in population, laws, and current and future legal needs of Ontarians who need legal aid services. Input was sought from many sources, including the public. This included groups such as the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Last September, the team's review was submitted to the Attorney General.

After receiving the McCamus review, the Attorney General consulted extensively with the public, community groups, consumers of legal aid, legal aid clinics and the legal community, and also with groups such as the John Howard Society, the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Criminal Lawyers Association. Everyone agreed and told us that after 30 years without significant change, it was time to reinvent legal aid, and that a new organization was the best way to create a legal aid plan better able to provide high-quality services for Ontarians.

1510

The proposed reforms contained in Bill 68 build on Professor McCamus's recommendations, which formed the blueprint for the new organization. Bill 68 would ensure that Legal Aid Ontario operates on three principles: more and better service, more accountability for public funds, and independence.

Let me outline improvements in the area of service. Legal Aid Ontario would have a mandate to identify and assess the unique needs of people, groups, communities and regions across this province. The new organization would respond to those needs by setting priorities and focusing its resources on developing high-quality services.

This new plan would encourage the evolution of flexible and innovative ways to deliver services and to run pilot projects that test new approaches. These alternative forms of delivery would complement the current system of legal aid clinics and certificates. These two systems would continue as the foundation for the delivery of legal aid services. The result of these reforms would be a legal aid plan that is more flexible, effective and accessible, a plan that better responds to the needs of legal aid consumers.

In addition to providing better service, there would also be improvements in the area of accountability. Let me outline some of these provisions.

Legal Aid Ontario would be expected to manage its financial resources and deliver service effectively. The organization would be more open and accountable for public funds that are devoted to legal aid services. Several measures would ensure this result, including the following:

Members of the public will serve on the board of directors. I think this is a very important step, that the public have some degree of governance in regard to this new legal aid system. The organization would be required to table an annual report in the Legislature. An annual audit would be performed by the Provincial Auditor. Annual budgets and three-year funding projections would be submitted to the Ministry of the Attorney General for approval in advance. An annual business plan and multi-year strategic plan would also be submitted to the Ministry of the Attorney General for approval.

These reforms would ensure that the organization uses its budget to deliver the maximum amount of high-quality service at a cost that taxpayers can afford; in other words, deliver more and better services at costs consistent with its budget.

We are also proposing improvements in the area of governance. We are proposing a governance structure that would be led by an expert board of 11 directors. The board would be chosen from members of the public, legal aid consumers, the business sector and the legal profession from all parts of our province. Board members would have knowledge of or experience with Ontario's legal aid services, the law, the justice system, business and financial management, and the needs of those requiring legal aid.

The board's composition would be as follows: The majority of directors would be non-lawyers. Five of the 11 directors would be nominated by the Attorney General. Another five directors would be chosen from a list of nominees provided by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The chair of the board would be appointed by the Attorney General following a nomination process.

The proposed legislation also lays the groundwork for Legal Aid Ontario's independence from government and the legal profession. Independence ensures that the governance system is free of conflicts of interest between the public who need legal aid services, the governing body, service-providers and government. This approach is consistent with similar legal aid reform in most provinces and in the countries of England, Wales, Australia and New Zealand.

Our government knows that quality services require appropriate funding. Our government would provide Legal Aid Ontario with a stable, guaranteed budget for the first three years of the organization's operations. Provincial funding would be set at the same amount as this current year. Funding at this level would provide it with sufficient financial resources to deliver high-quality services.

It is expected that Legal Aid Ontario would begin operating by April 1, 1999. A plan would be put in place to ensure the smooth transition to the new organization.

I would like to conclude with a few important thoughts.

Legal aid reform is necessary. Taken as a whole, Bill 68 lays the groundwork to do just that. It creates a new legal aid system well suited to meet the needs of Ontarians into the new millennium. It ensures that high-quality legal aid services are delivered at a cost that taxpayers can afford. It provides the correct model of governance and gives the public a greater role in the management of legal aid services. And it will once again put Ontario at the forefront of the evolution of legal aid systems.

For those reasons, I invite all members of this House to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I am very pleased to join the debate on second reading of Bill 68 today.

The legislation to be introduced deals with a number of areas. It establishes Legal Aid Ontario. It lists the objects and mandates of the corporation. It sets advisory committees. It lists the powers and duties of the transitional board and, through the Law Society of Upper Canada, outlines the services to be provided to clients. It sets financial eligibility. It sets clinic terms and funding. It permits cost recovery. It permits a temporary trustee if necessary. It requires a memorandum of understanding for accountability. I think those are the pillars and the framework of this legislation that are important for it to succeed.

There are a couple of aspects I'd like to deal with on this particular piece of legislation.

The first is, why amend the Legal Aid Act? In my opinion, and I think it's shared by other people who were consulted in this area, legal aid is long overdue for change. The status quo was not working for Ontarians who needed access to legal aid services.

The proposed changes build on the first comprehensive review of the Ontario legal aid plan in Ontario's history. The review was chaired by law professor John McCamus, one of Canada's foremost legal scholars, and formed the blueprint for the creation of the new model to deliver legal aid services in Ontario.

Recognizing that the demand for legal aid had changed greatly during the past three decades and that between 1989 and 1994 spending on legal aid had doubled, the government launched a review to ensure that the $230 million spent annually on legal aid provided the maximum amount of high-quality legal services to those Ontarians who need them most.

1520

During the legal aid review, major legal, community and user groups were involved in the public hearings. The review received more than 200 written submissions. Following the release of the Ontario legal aid review in September 1997, our government consulted widely to get the public's feedback. I think that's one of the important features of this legislation, the public consultations that took place, because it is a very sensitive area, not only for the people who provide the services through the legal profession but also the users and the people who need the services, in particular in the family law and criminal law areas.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Speaker: I don't think there's a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there is a quorum, please.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The member for Simcoe Centre.

Mr Tascona: I am very pleased to continue with this debate with respect to the Legal Aid Act, in particular, Bill 68.

One of the questions out there is the fact that lawyers are no longer going to be required to contribute to legal aid funding. At present, lawyers have 5% deducted from each legal aid account, as well as contributing a levy paid by each lawyer in the province through the law society. The levy totalled $5.8 million in 1997 and 1998. If Bill 68 is passed, administration will be transferred from the Law Society of Upper Canada to Legal Aid Ontario, an independent statutory agency. At present, Ontario is the only province which requires lawyers to pay a levy to fund legal aid. Ontario is also the only province which imposes a statutory clawback on lawyers' billings. Moreover, no other professional group in Ontario is required to contribute directly to the costs of a government-run social program.

The Law Society Act requires the Law Foundation of Ontario to contribute 75% of all revenues earned from lawyers' trust accounts to the Ontario legal aid plan. The law foundation will continue to contribute these funds. It's the law society that has proposed that it no longer continue funding legal aid once the administration is transferred to Legal Aid Ontario. The law society points out, as I've stated, that no other professional group in Ontario is required to contribute directly to the cost of a government-run social program. The ministry shares this view, as I do. Moreover, Ontario is the only province which currently requires lawyers to pay a levy in addition to fund legal aid, as well as the statutory clawback on lawyers' billings.

There's one aspect I'd like to deal with. As many people know, legal aid is used by a number of citizens to fund a family law case or a criminal case, but there's one other area that it's been used to fund, and that involves immigration.

I'd just like to point out that in regard to the immigration and refugee law, Bill 68 would guarantee that Legal Aid Ontario will maintain service for immigrants and refugees at current levels for two years. The Immigration and Refugee Board is the responsibility of the federal government, yet Ontario pays the majority of the legal aid costs for those appearing before it, which are similar in terms of the costs the province is paying, for example, towards OHIP with respect to immigrants who come to this country, and also with respect to welfare, another added feature that the federal government has reduced or is not paying anything towards: these social programs and towards the health care of this province.

With respect to health care, I think the federal government contributes something like eight cents on the dollar and at one time they contributed 50% towards welfare in this province, and they're not even close to that today. That's another area where the federal government is shirking its responsibility, not only with respect to social programs and health care programs, but also with respect to the legal fees that are put forth to assist immigrants and refugees in front of a federal immigration board.

The federal government has dramatically reduced its funding over the past several years with respect to funding legal costs in front of the federal immigration board. Federal funding for immigration and refugee cases has declined from $14.4 million in 1991-92 to an estimated $3.8 million in 1997-98. The federal share of funding for immigration and refugee legal aid services has decreased from 46% in 1991-92 to approximately 23% in 1997-98. Judging by their performance with respect to funding for health care in Ontario, with respect to funding for welfare in Ontario, that's going to go down dramatically also, because their commitment to this province is at best unstable, and there is no commitment to this province.

The federal government's responsibility for immigrants is alarming, because where do these legal aid costs go? They go towards representation in front of the federal immigration board and in terms of dealing with providing fair process and also providing representation for their legal rights.

What is the federal government doing? They're responsible for immigration in this country. What they're doing is saying to the provinces: "You're going to be responsible for paying the legal cost to represent immigrants in front of our court, in front of our tribunal, because we're not taking responsibility for it any more. We're responsible for immigration. We'll let the immigrants come into this country, but don't look for health care, don't look for welfare, don't look for social programs and don't look for legal representation, because we're not there to provide the funding for it." That's just another example of where the federal government is shirking its responsibility to those who are in need as they come to this country.

The next area I want to talk on deals with other jurisdictions. How will the board of the new legal aid corporation compare to similar boards in other jurisdictions? I think that's a valid question that needs to be responded to. Among the 10 provinces, only three legal aid plans are presently administered by provincial law societies: Ontario, Alberta and New Brunswick. Six provinces administer legal aid through an independent statutory organization. In Prince Edward Island, legal aid services are administered directly by the provincial government.

The six provinces which administer legal aid through a statutory corporation have the following governance features, and that's what we're proposing through this legislation: The corporation is administered by a board of directors. The size of the board varies from seven in Newfoundland to 17 in Nova Scotia. The appointment process varies. In Quebec all directors are appointed by the LGIC. In British Columbia the majority of appointees are chosen by the stakeholders. Other provinces provide for LGIC appointments but with a certain number of nominations to be made from lists supplied by the stakeholders.

The qualifications for serving as a director also vary. Some jurisdictions require directors with knowledge of legal aid or stakeholders' issues. Others emphasize knowledge of the law. Currently, only the United Kingdom requires a broadly based, highly skilled expert board with business and management expertise in addition to knowledge of the legal aid issues.

1530

The proposed governance structure of the new legal aid corporation in Ontario under Bill 68 has the following features. There will be 11 directors. The majority of the directors are to be non-lawyers. Five of the 11 directors are to be nominated by the Attorney General. Five directors are to be chosen from the nominations by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The chair of the board would be appointed by the Attorney General following a nomination process. Board members would have to meet a composite board profile set out in the bill, designed to ensure that the board has expertise and is broadly based. Board members will have management and financial expertise as well as experience and knowledge of Ontario's legal aid service, law and the justice system. The board would be representative of the geographic diversity of the province. The board members would be chosen from the public, consumers of legal aid, business and the legal community.

The changes that are being put forth through Bill 68 are very sound changes in terms of the law society, which has expressed interest in no longer being a part of the process in terms of directly running legal aid but is still going to have some input with respect to the board and its representatives, which is very prudent on behalf of the government. The bottom line is that legal aid is going to be provided through an independent corporation that is going to be independent of the government in terms of how it's going to provide these vital services.

Obviously they are independent of the federal government, because the federal government has decided it's not going to own up to its responsibilities and fund legal aid responsibly for the people who need it. They bring these people to this country and yet they say: "Don't look for legal representation in front of the immigration board. We're not going to provide it to you." All they are providing is 23% of the funding towards the legal aid in this province. Typically, the federal government, in a critical area, immigration and refugee boards - which we're not responsible for as a provincial government; that's a federal responsibility in terms of the immigration board they provide and the responsibility that they're supposed to ensure we have an immigration process that is going to adequately provide legal representation to the people who need it. But that's not the federal government's worry, because obviously they feel: "Let's dump it on the provinces again. We'll let whatever immigrants want to come into this country, but if they do need legal protection, don't come to the federal government, because we're not going to provide any money for it."

With this legal aid bill, certainly the changes are long overdue. There was extensive consultation on this and, quite frankly, agreement with respect to who the stakeholders are going to be and who is going to be involved. It certainly has a representative basis in terms of the fact that it's not going to be all stocked by lawyers. There are going to be non-lawyers, people from the business community and people who use legal aid.

The focus of legal aid is not all immigration and refugee board claims. I would say the vast majority of the funds go into family law cases and criminal cases. Obviously, those are responsibilities of the provincial government. Those are very vital areas to the citizens of this province, and the province wants to be in a position to make sure, through this new corporation, that those services are provided adequately.

We can't look to the federal government for proper funding in anything, because basically they're not involved, as they'll say, in provincial programs. They want to set the standards, for example, in health care, yet they don't want to put any money into it. They want to be the arbiter, the feel-good people who provide health care in the country, but, "Don't look to us for money." The same thing goes for social programs. But when it comes to fundamental legal rights and providing them through legal aid, they've been shirking their responsibility in a vital area, and I want the public to know that.

In the funding of legal aid, the provincial government - we're not going to say the federal government, because we know they are shirking their responsibilities - is also committed to three years of stable funding for the agency at the 1998-99 level. This will provide the proposed agency with the financial stability to accomplish the proposed changes.

What are those proposed changes? To provide high-quality services, to develop flexible and innovative ways to deliver services, and to run pilots that test new approaches.

So what are the main elements of the Legal Aid Services Act? The act establishes the mandate, the governance structure, accountability and services for a new organization called Legal Aid Ontario. Legal Aid Ontario would be independent, as I said, of the provincial government - certainly independent of the federal government, because they're not funding anything and they don't want to have any responsibility for providing legal rights.

We have this so-called gun control registry system; they don't want to fund that either. They want to make sure the province administers it, and the people who are law-abiding citizens who own guns are going to have to pay a fee to fund this registry. It's all right with the federal government: "Make sure the province goes out there and collects it, make sure that we get the money from these law-abiding citizens," because, quite frankly, that's another way to raise money, just like the EI surplus.

They raised that surplus on the backs of the workers. They've got a surplus of $20 billion. What are they going to do with it? They don't know what to do with it. "We can't count our pennies, so we're going to count our billions," and what are they going to do with it? They're not going to give it back to the workers. They're not going to give it back to the taxpayers. It's the taxpayers' money, but they're not going to give it back to them. "Let's figure a way we can put it into general revenue; let's figure a way we can confuse the public and take that money. We'll use it and spend it because we're good at spending it because we're Liberals. We're good at spending the public's money."

Getting back to the legal aid bill, as I said, it's going to be independent of the government. That's right: independent of this provincial government. I think that's a fair way to go, because then they'll be responsible in making sure that the system works for their clients. I'd like to see this agency go to the federal government and say: "If you want to dump all the immigration problems on us and you don't want to make sure that the people who need immigration legal representation are going to get it, you've got to own up to your responsibility. You can't point to the provincial government any more. You've got to point to yourselves."

I'd be interested to know where the provincial Liberals will be on this. Quite frankly, we know what Allan Rock wants. They want a parasite government in place, they want the provincial Liberals in place, so they basically can do whatever they want. They don't want any real checks and balances so the public will know what shenanigans the federal Liberals are getting away with. "Let's put in a provincial government full of Liberals and make sure nobody knows what's going on."

Getting back to the legal aid bill, how is Legal Aid Ontario going to improve legal aid services? I think that's a fundamental point. Let's face it, it's very important. We can't look to the federal government for more money, because quite frankly they're not going to give any more money. So how can we improve legal aid services?

It's not our intention to forsake the successes of legal aid. It has provided good representation, good lawyers, good service to legal aid clients, people in need who need legal services, for the past 30 years. That system was through issuing certificates to private lawyers in criminal and family matters. I say criminal and family matters, something that's within the jurisdiction of this province. They would remain the foundation of the service provision.

Clinics would continue to deliver front-line services in areas of law which particularly affect low-income individuals. That's who we're dealing with here. We're dealing with people in need, low-income individuals who cannot afford a private lawyer and have to come to legal aid. There's another level also, where people who can't afford a private lawyer or can't qualify for the services that are provided through legal aid go to a clinic. Of course, those clinics aren't funded by the federal government, they are funded by the provincial government, administering federal law: criminal law and immigration law.

Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, if passed, would provide us with ways to supplement and enhance the existing certificate and clinic systems. It would create a legal aid system which will serve us well over the next 30 years. The viability of this legal aid program is fundamental to a just and fair society. I'd echo the words of Pierre Trudeau, "a just and fair society," because the current federal government and the provincial Liberals don't know what a just and fair society is. When it comes to helping people who need services, they are not there. "Don't come looking to us for the money. We'll basically just talk, but we're not going to walk the walk. We'll just basically tell you what to do, but don't look for the money."

1540

Legal Aid Ontario would be responsible for high-quality services which meet the needs of Ontarians who require legal aid. It would be obligated to encourage new ways to better deliver services and to ensure that services are cost-effective and efficient.

The Attorney General has done a lot of good work in this area with respect to bringing in mediation services in the family law area and the civil litigation area, streamlining the criminal court system, bringing in courts that deal specifically with sexual abuse and sexual assault, basically restructuring, trying to get fair justice and immediate justice, because that's the only way the system is going to work. But of course, don't look for money from the federal government, because they're not going to provide you any to administer the Criminal Code. That's not their bailiwick. They just want to make sure the provinces administer their programs without money.

The proposed bill will provide a statutory basis for the major areas of service delivery. It focuses on the key areas of legal aid law, including criminal, family, clinic and mental health law, but leaves specific priority-setting to the corporation.

Legal Aid Ontario could also provide legal aid services in other areas of civil law where they are needed, where we need flexibility. The bill provides Legal Aid Ontario with the flexibility to use a variety of service delivery methods, including certificates, community clinics, staff offices, student legal aid societies, aboriginal legal service corporations, duty counsel, public legal education, assisted self-representation and alternative dispute resolution. There are a number of different ways to deliver the service.

We fully expect that Legal Aid Ontario will continue and expand the pilot projects currently being developed by the law society. In order to ensure the stability and the continuation of high-quality services, the bill provides that certificates remain the foundation of the delivery of criminal and family services. Similarly, clinic law services will have community clinics as their foundation.

Is a message being sent out to the federal government here? I think there's a message being sent out to them: If you're not going to fund immigration and refugee claimants with legal aid services, don't look to the province to do all your work. You're going to have to come to the pump and provide the legal representation to the federal immigration board and not look to the provinces to be dealing with your specific area of jurisdiction.

Of course, you won't hear from the provincial Liberals about that. They don't want to get out of line with the federal government because the federal government says, "We're going to work with you to make sure you defeat the Harris government." So they want to keep in good stead with their federal brothers and sisters. They're going to work together to make sure that Ontarians don't get good representation from their 101 elected MPs, because that's not what they are there for. They are basically just there to toe the party line, to make sure that Ontarians don't get their fair share of the EI surplus, don't get their fair share for CPP, don't get their fair share for health services, don't get their fair share for social services. But it's all in the good cause of federal Liberalism.

I think what we have reached here is a watershed with respect to legal aid representation. We're focusing on what legal aid should be out there for: dealing with family law, dealing with criminal law, dealing with mental health law, what's needed immediately for the citizens of this country.

In summing up, the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, proposes a new organization, Legal Aid Ontario, to deliver better legal aid services to Ontarians. The organization would develop new and innovative ways to better provide legal aid services, would operate independently of this provincial government and would be clearly accountable for the use of public funds.

I urge all members of the House to support this legislation so Ontarians can benefit from better and more accountable legal aid services, but I'm not going to close without mentioning how the federal government has shirked their responsibility. Their funding is dropping. They think it's going to go unnoticed that they're not funding immigrant and refugee services in front of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I close in support of this bill.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the member for Simcoe Centre for so graphically pointing out the shortcomings of the federal government around this issue. I have never heard it said more eloquently, more succinctly. The Liberal members here, the cousins of the federal Liberal Party the member for Simcoe Centre was referring to, are all sitting there red-faced, ashamed of what their federal cousins have done. We empathize with the members of the Liberal Party.

Mr Curling: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: In describing me, a Liberal, as red-faced, I take offence at that. I'd like him to know that he should re-describe me as a Liberal over here.

The Acting Speaker: Is that a serious point of order? I would ask you to withdraw, because the member is offended by that description.

Mr Klees: I was sure I detected some red on his face, but if the member is offended, I will withdraw and just simply say that they look ashamed at the actions of their federal cousins.

I'm pleased to participate in this debate. We have followed through once again on a commitment made in the Common Sense Revolution that we would, when elected, reform the legal aid system in this province. We have done so. We have delivered.

It's not often that I can refer to the Toronto Star with any pleasure, but I'm prepared to do that today because even the Toronto Star of October 12, 1998, had the following to say, under the headline of "Sound Legal Aid Plan." I'd like to quote for the benefit of my colleagues and the people of Ontario who may not have read this article. It says as follows:

"It's been a long time coming, but Ontario's new legislation to overhaul the legal aid system was worth the wait.

"Attorney General Charles Harnick has tried hard to ease concerns that the government would starve the system after taking it over from the Law Society of Upper Canada." You'll recall that the reason for that was that the system was in fact in deep trouble; serious financial problems.

The article goes on to say:

"The Star" - and this is the Toronto Star - "wanted the new system to meet three tests:

"Legal aid should be independent, or as independent as possible given that the government both decides who will be prosecuted and how much will be spent defending against prosecution....

"The agency's budget should be adequate, predictable, and preferably multi-year....

"The agency should have room to experiment, innovate and test ideas."

It goes on to say, "Harnick has met our concerns on all points."

I'm sure that not only the Toronto Star but people across the province will welcome the reforms represented in this bill that's before the Legislature today.

1550

As a member of this Legislature, I've had a number of occasions over the last three years to meet with people in my office who have had contact with the legal aid system - contact on both sides, as consumers of the system as well as employees and lawyers working under the system. It is very clear that this system needed reform. It wasn't working effectively. I don't think it was working effectively for any parties concerned.

There were often times when individuals who by the very nature of having qualified for legal aid were destitute. Financially, they don't have the resources to be able to retain services. I was quite disturbed on a number of occasions, when I was told about how they had qualified for legal aid, that their particular certificate allocation under the legal aid certificate had been used up by the lawyer who was representing them. That was that, yet their particular circumstance still hadn't been resolved. Often they were simply told by the individual representing them that they could no longer be represented. I can tell you that in itself shows a fundamental weakness of the system as it was, because if the system itself can't help those who can't help themselves, who don't have other resources, what is it for?

We have before us now a system that will deal with some of those inadequacies. I'd like to refer to one aspect of the act, and that is the offences that are provided for under the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998.

It's an offence now under this act for lawyers or service-providers to submit fraudulent accounts.

It's an offence for Legal Aid Ontario or its employees to fail to maintain the confidentiality of information obtained in a quality assurance audit, which is provided for under subsection 91(5).

It's an offence for legal aid lawyers or service-providers to extra-bill. Again, often I have had representations where individuals have had a certificate and they've found that their lawyer was asking them to supplement the fees they were being paid. We've closed this loop. It's important for individuals who need to rely on legal aid in our province that they can do so without having that kind of intimidation factor introduced to the relationship between them and their lawyer.

It's an offence for applicants to make false statements about their financial eligibility for legal aid. We will wait to see, but obviously we're concerned that taxpayers' dollars that are being used to fund this important program are in fact coming to the aid of those people who need it, not to those who choose to use the system and abuse it. It's important that we have those safeguards built into this legislation.

It's an offence for a lawyer or a service-provider to fail to disclose knowledge of an applicant misrepresenting their finances. This goes again to the heart, if you will, of the integrity of the system - not that there is necessarily rampant abuse of this, but there have been occasions. I certainly have some personal knowledge, through contact with individuals who have come to me to tell me of circumstances that they personally know of where there has been this kind of misrepresentation. The taxpayer, I believe, is more than willing to come to the aid of people in our society who need help. Everyone wants to ensure that in our society people who need legal advice have it available to them. But no taxpayer wants to have their support abused, so it's important for everyone to note that this legislation deals with those issues.

The issue of how young offenders are dealt with under this act is important as well. Under this bill, a young person charged with an offence has the right to legal aid. When such an application is made, the corporation will assess the young person's financial eligibility, including the eligibility of the young person's parents. If in fact there is an ability to contribute to the legal costs, it's clear there is an obligation and a responsibility of those parents to make a contribution. If the financial criteria are met, the certificate then may be granted. If the young person or the parents do not meet the financial eligibility criteria, then a certificate may well be denied. Again, I think that's very appropriate. Alternatively, if the person or parents have some financial means, they may be asked to contribute, as I indicated, to the cost of legal aid as a precondition of granting a certificate. If the young person or the parents refuse to contribute, the corporation in turn may as well refuse to issue a certificate. Once again, this is in the interests of ensuring the long-term sustainability and credibility of this program.

I'd like to refer to the role of the independent monitor as it is dealt with under Bill 68. In 1994, you will recall that the law society and the Ministry of the Attorney General entered into a memorandum of understanding which set out a multi-year fiscal arrangement for the funding and the management of the plan certificate program. Subsequently, the plan ran into financial difficulties and the role of the monitor appointed at that time was to oversee the operation and financial status of the plan during the term of the memorandum of understanding. That expires March 31, 1999.

Bill 68 does not specifically address the role of the independent monitor in respect of the new corporation. However, as part of the general oversight, the powers of the government may retain the independent monitor until the new agency has the capacity to provide services which were previously supplied by the monitor. Frankly, we believe that would be appropriate; we believe it's important that there is a proper transition period during which time all the business matters relating to this program are dealt with.

The area directors I believe are an important aspect of this proposed bill. This bill proposes a less cumbersome and more flexible framework for establishing areas and appointing area directors. Subsection 15(1) of the act gives Legal Aid Ontario the authority to designate areas within the province for the purpose of providing legal aid services. Subsection 22(3) gives Legal Aid Ontario the sole authority to appoint area directors if this power is not subject to the approval of the Attorney General through order in council. I think that in itself is important from the standpoint of the independence for the management of the program.

Like the current Legal Aid Act, the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, specifies, however, that each area director must be a member of the law society. The Legal Aid Services Act also maintains the current rule that area directors shall not render legal services to any person except as authorized under the act. Taken together, these provisions ensure that area directors have legal expertise and are free from conflicts of interest.

I believe the objective that we were looking for in this bill will be achieved. People throughout the province have been consulted as to the structure of the act, as to the program, the kind of structure that would work most beneficially to those who are consumers of legal aid in our province.

It's important to recognize, because on occasion accusations come forward that this government has not consulted broadly enough, that certainly in this particular case we consulted extensively with the public. Consumer groups working with low-income Ontarians such as Elizabeth Fry, the John Howard Society, the St Leonard's Society of Canada and the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses were all consulted and had some valuable input into these discussions. Consumer groups working with disadvantaged communities, including Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, Aboriginal Legal Services, the National Council of Welfare, the Canadian Mental Health Association, were a very important part of our consultation.

1600

So that we don't leave out a very important group here I can say that we also consulted with lawyers' groups. A couple of my colleagues will be very pleased about this. We did in fact consult with the law society, the Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers Association, the family lawyers association, the County and District Law Presidents' Association, and the refugee lawyers association.

The response was consistent throughout all of those consultations. People wanted a legal aid plan that was independent of both government and service-providers. They wanted a system that would be accountable and well managed with business principles and they wanted a system that would have fiscal stability and would be sustainable. The result of a system like that will no doubt be improved services for all Ontarians.

I would like to suggest to you that this reform has been long overdue. We have people throughout the province who depend on legal aid services to ensure that their rights are protected. My colleague from Simcoe Centre referred earlier to the fact that the federal government, the cousins to the honourable member opposite from St Catharines, continue to download responsibilities on to the province of Ontario. They have the levers on refugee and immigration. They continue to open the door to refugees, the largest percentage of whom end up in this province.

We're not here to say that that door should be closed, but when you open that door, I would also say that there should be the appropriate funding that follows those refugees. Not only do those refugees end up in our court system and dependent on our legal aid program, to which the federal government does not contribute one red cent, but they become a burden on the taxpayers of Ontario. We think that is inappropriate. We would ask the support of the Liberal Party of Ontario in urging their federal cousins, who hold the levers to that refugee issue, to also open the door for some funding.

That's not the only place that the federal government of this country has let this province down. We heard just yesterday that multi-billions of dollars of fiscal dividends will not be returned to the taxpayers of this province, in spite of the fact that some $2.4 billion of funding has been cut off from this province for health and social services. Not once have I heard the leader of the Liberal Party of this province challenge his federal counterparts on that unfairness.

Interjection: That's shameful.

Mr Klees: It is shameful. The people of this province should know that the leader of the Liberal Party - and in fact I haven't heard one member of the Liberal Party in this House come to the aid of the taxpayers, the workers, the employers of this province. I must say, though, that in this House, Speaker, your party, the NDP, has shown principle, has shown the courage, to challenge the federal government. In fact, I believe it was your party that introduced a resolution in this House so that we would unanimously, as a provincial Legislature, go to the doors of Paul Martin, the federal Liberal member and the finance minister of this country, and challenge him on the fairness of his decision not to return the appropriate dividend back to the workers, to the employers, to the taxpayers of Ontario.

Your party introduced that resolution. Our party unanimously endorsed that. We were looking for a unanimous endorsement from the House and it was the Liberal Party of Ontario that said no. We were devastated that we could not pull together a unanimous resolution in this House. The member for St Catharines - I was sure I heard him say no to that proposal. We couldn't believe it, because normally this member from St Catharines, although he is a Liberal, we believe generally makes some good decisions.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You didn't hear me say no. You can't mislead the House.

The Acting Speaker: You have to withdraw that, member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I said no one can mislead this House. I would never accuse anybody of misleading the House. I would be happy to withdraw that, because those are the rules of the House.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Go ahead.

Mr Klees: As I was saying, generally we would have expected at least the member for St Catharines, although he's a Liberal, to have taken a stand on this particular issue - he failed to do so - in support of health, in support of social services, in support of quality of life in Ontario. He and his colleagues refused to take that important stand. We were disappointed. Speaker, we were proud of you and your party for joining with us on that.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bradley: On this particular bill, I think everybody would agree that there are changes that have to be made to the legal aid system, some which will assist those who need that more so than is the case today, and others who would want to see some responsibility brought into it.

The member sits with a smirk on his face, I should tell the people at home, playing little games. You people have to be very careful with this. You know, you sound like Lucien Bouchard. This little coalition you're putting before us - that's exactly what Lucien Bouchard says. I'm sure, during his election campaign this fall against Jean Charest, your former federal leader - I'm sorry; your federal leader is Preston Manning - but the federal leader of maybe some of the other members here.

Mr Klees: On a point of personal privilege, Madam Speaker: The honourable member implied something about my allegiances politically that are unfounded.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. Continue.

Mr Bradley: I find it difficult to believe he would object to anything after his kind of remarks. I can't use the word I want to use.

I think it's a very dangerous game you play. I know it's funny in this House and I know you have fun. I think you actually sicken some of the NDPers by this, because they've been reading Rosemary Spiers's column, where federally they got together with the Reform Party and the Parti Québécois. I don't think you're going to see that happen very much any more, because they recognize what your agenda is and will not lose that focus.

I'll mention this in my remarks. You get block grants from the federal government that you can use in any way you want, but your choice is to give the money away in a tax cut to the richest people in this province. That is the choice you have made, despite the fact that your Premier was very supportive of every federal government cutting its expenditures.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I am happy to have two minutes to respond to the three members who spoke, Simcoe Centre, Cambridge and York-Mackenzie. In some respects New Democrats support this bill in principle. We have some concerns and we'll debate that.

I want to respond, because I don't have much time, to some of the comments they have made, one with respect to accusing the federal Liberal government of not flowing dollars to support this province, particularly with respect to support for refugees. They're right in that regard, I want to say, but I want to add that the Tories at the federal level, before the Liberals, were no less kind. They too engaged in reprehensible cutbacks against this province as it relates to issues of funds for social assistance, for post-secondary education and many other areas of interest to our folks here.

The member for York-Mackenzie seems to have a great deal of clarity when he attacks the federal government for downloading their responsibilities to us but seems not to make the observation that they contradict themselves when they then engage in similar downloading, to the municipal government, responsibilities for welfare, of course, and ambulance and child -

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): What about your umpteen tax increases?

Mr Marchese: You've got to observe this problem as a contradiction, or at least you ought to, because it is. You can't have it both ways. You can't attack one level and then say, "Oh, but we're not doing anything wrong," because you have.

The member for Simcoe Centre talks about introducing a bill that is one of justice and refers to Trudeau, makes this a bill of justice and fairness to people. I don't know. Since when did they make this U-turn?

1610

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's very interesting to listen to the critiques of the remarks for the member for Simcoe Centre and York-Mackenzie. We must be hitting some reality here when we talk about the federal government's obligation to help pay for part of the costs involving newcomers to this country. I think what is even more important is that your federal friends have failed utterly to help newcomers to this country in settlement and immigration programs. The federal government is not paying the same amount of money to Ontario as it is to Quebec. I wonder what you would say then about M. Bouchard. How come he gets that additional amount of money? There is no difference in the rate of inflation between the city of Montreal and the city of Toronto, none whatsoever.

The biggest failure of your federal friends across the way to help this province is that Ontario, which drives the engine of this country, does not yet have a federal manpower or personpower agreement with this province. You have not helped us whatsoever. Why is that? Because your friends in Ottawa have ordered that there be no settlement with this province or with this government in terms of helping newcomers, for newcomer settlement programs, for federal aid under legal aid and for personpower training; such a lack of responsibility by the federal government and by the leader of the official opposition.

You hear nothing about those three subject matters when it comes to the political realities of the day and federal-provincial relations. We see nothing coming from across the way except silence, like your 101 friends who are completely silent on these key subjects in the interests of this province.

Mr Curling: Let us go back to legal aid and some of the situations that exist right now in Ontario, under the Mike Harris government, the same government that cuts back and attacks the most vulnerable in our society. In legal aid, which we have before us today, the certificates have been cut by 50% since this government came into power, and they have the gall to sit here and talk about cutbacks. It's the same Mike Harris government that has wiped out employment equity and talks about giving service to the most vulnerable in our society, those who need access to jobs and opportunities, those who are qualified individuals.

In this situation, since they've been here, has the court system improved? Under their watch, many cases have been gone aside because of the delay of justice, so therefore, those are denied justice. Under this same watch, under this government here, we have seen people pleading guilty who are not guilty, because adequate support services in the courts and all around are not there. The police themselves need more money. They have the gall here to say, "We've got to look at what's happening outside." Look in your own home.

Look at the situation, when you talk about deficits and debt, that you still have. Look at who you exploit to get money. You take money from the poor and give it to the rich and then you say it is somebody else's responsibility. It is your responsibility. It is your responsibility to look after the most vulnerable.

Now you're moving towards this situation of trying to correct this error here or improve on it. We hope you do better in this round.

The Acting Speaker: Summary from the Tory caucus? The member for Cambridge.

Mr Martiniuk: Rarely in this House is there the unanimity that this bill brings from all the parties about the need for reform of the legal aid system. I think we all agree on that. The terms and the methodology might be subject to some discussion, and I know we'll be having committee hearings on this. I look forward to the submissions of both the opposition and the third party and their comments in regard to the present bill.

I'd like to thank the member for Simcoe Centre for his comments on this bill. He has a distinguished law career and he speaks on the practical aspects of it, and I thank him for that. Of course, philosophically the comments of my friend from York-Mackenzie were well received and welcomed by all parts of the House, no doubt. I would also like to thank the member for St Catharines, whose comments I listened to closely, as I always do, and of course my old friend with whom I sat with on committee on many occasions, the member for Fort York. In addition, I was most pleased that there was an opportunity to hear from my friend the member for Scarborough North.

I thank all the speakers who addressed this bill and I look forward to the next three rounds which follow myself.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I think the parliamentary assistant, first of all, has identified the fact that there is some degree of consensus around the need for the updating, I would call it, of the legal aid plan in Ontario. That has to be done with a lot of legislation from time to time.

While he indicates clearly that there may be some points of divergence between the three parties, I don't think you'll find on this bill the kind of division that you might find on other legislation, because there is that recognition that you want, first of all, a very compassionate plan which meets the need of the low-income people in this province who don't have access to legal services that others might. At the same time, you want to have an efficient plan which is run in a businesslike fashion and which ensures that the dollars actually go into the kind of assistance that's required for those who don't have the financial wherewithal to deal with legal cases. I think if you looked around you'd say that's a goal that you would hope each of the parties would look to.

Legal aid has a history which, and I believe my recollection is correct, started under the Bill Davis government. There was a need out there that showed that people who didn't have high incomes didn't have the same access to the court system as others. An interesting study in the United States: If you look at the death penalty, for instance, in the United States, the people who usually end up on death row are people who don't have the money for good lawyers. Not all the time, but there's a disproportionate number of people from the low-income bracket who end up on death row compared to those who do not.

Obviously if you look at one of the celebrity cases, O.J. Simpson had a lot of money to spend on lawyers, and some other people have a lot of money to spend on lawyers. You don't usually find those people on death row. In fact, sometimes they are found to be not guilty by a court. They have access to the very best legal assistance. Those who were able to watch this trial, which was on television, saw that an individual who had a lot of money, who had a powerful position, was in a much better circumstance than individuals at the lower end of the income scale.

No one, regardless of where they happen to find themselves in the economic strata of society, has a right to commit crimes. Everybody agrees with that. You cannot use as an excuse one's background to commit a crime against other people. But I think what we do want to ensure is that we have a system in our province where people who don't have the financial resources and find themselves encountering the courts have a similar opportunity - I guess it will never be the same - to others to have appropriate representation in the cases with which they are dealing.

1620

If one were to knock on the doors of the Albany Club in Toronto, where we find a disproportionate number of wealthy Conservatives, one would find very few people there who would be in need of legal aid. They might well need the services of a lawyer at some time or other, but it's unlikely that they're going to need -

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): He's cruel.

Mr Bradley: Well, for some purpose, a house or something like that. I don't know why the member became exercised by that comment. Everybody at some time or other utilizes a lawyer. If it's a real estate transaction, if it's an accusation made, you're going to find people in any strata of society who are going to require legal services. But they are going to have the financial resources for those.

The parliamentary assistant appropriately points out that there is going to be a need for those in the lower-income brackets from time to time to have this financial assistance. They're not going to be able to hire the very best in the legal profession, but they should have representation. I think that brings about the kind of equality we want.

I was a bit concerned at some of the code words I heard. I call it a dog whistle. A dog whistle is a whistle which is blown so that only certain people can hear it. Those code words are used from time to time. If you use a certain allusion, it gets to the extent that "Maybe we don't want certain people in our country." There are other ways of wording it without saying it.

I know my friend from Brockville would not be the kind of person who would use those code words. He has been a member of this House for a long time. He's very blunt on many occasions. He doesn't have to use code words, because I can always understand what he's saying. He's upfront with it, he's straightforward with it, and I appreciate that trait in him, though I may find myself in disagreement with him from time to time.

I wanted to look at some of the issues out there that confront people from lower-income brackets that may not confront the wealthiest people. I think that's why we have a system of this kind.

I notice that Dr Duncan Sinclair, who is the chairman of the Ontario Health Services Restructuring Commission - I call it the Ontario hospital closing commission; perhaps that's unfair, but certainly that's what they've been doing in many cases - was lamenting the fact that he had to access private health care here in Ontario and was able to do so because he had the money.

I'll quote from the Ottawa Citizen, an article by Tom Spears. Again it points out the difference, whether you have money in this province and the services you can get and whether you don't have the money.

"Dr Duncan Sinclair, chairman of the Ontario Health Services Restructuring Commission, learned first-hand what a difference private insurance makes when his back started to hurt.

"The treatment his doctor recommended was physiotherapy.

"His choice was to wait two or three months for the hospital to get around to it, or to go the very next day for electric acupuncture - something covered only by private insurance.

"He chose acupuncture. His back felt better the same day, but his moral sense felt worse.

"`I worry very substantially about the growing inequity in Canada between people who are able to pay for private health insurance and those who can't,' he said yesterday in Ottawa."

Here's a man who, as I say, is in Ontario. He's heading up the commission which is given the responsibility to restructure health; that means to close hospitals in the province, though I suspect, as we get closer to the election, there will be far fewer hospitals closed or restructured.

Even though we are assured that there's no political input in the process, my good friend from south Niagara was writing letters to the minister about this. I'm glad to see that, but I had heard all along from the previous minister and this minister that this had nothing to do with politics and that the commission was totally independent. I'm glad to see that he's joining me and others in the Niagara Peninsula in imploring the minister and imploring the commission not to do the dirty work of the Premier, which was to close hospitals in the province. I'm glad to see that but, boy, it contradicts what I keep hearing from both health ministers, that this commission is independent and there will be no political interference at all. So I'm glad to hear that there is going to be some persuasive influence that can be brought to bear on the Minister of Health and that my colleague from Niagara South is going to be joining me in that particular initiative.

Dr Sinclair goes on to say, "`So there's a growing gap between the perception and the reality.'" That's when he's talking about the delivery of health care for people of modest means. I think you can apply that to the legal system as well.

Now, we don't want abuses of it. I can't think of anybody in this House who wants to see any system that is funded by the taxpayers of this province abused. For instance, I suspect that when people see advertisements on television with the Premier in them, or other government advertisements, or they hear the commercials on the radio from the government of Ontario, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, or when they open a newspaper up and see advertisements, or when they open their mailbox up and find pamphlets, all paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, they would probably say - and I know the taxpayers' coalition will lead this charge - this is an abuse of public funding, abuse of a system that is in the public domain. That's why they would be equally concerned if there were any abuses with the legal aid system.

I just find it passing interesting that this government seems to look for abuses that may exist where lower-income people are concerned, but when it's the people at the top end of the echelon, they look the other way. They are prepared to abuse taxpayers' dollars by squandering them on self-serving government advertising of the most blatant kind, but when it comes to some other area, where a person at the lower end of the echelon may benefit in some way or other, they are quick to be Sherlock Holmes and ferret that out and solve the problem.

I can assure the parliamentary assistant, who I thought was quite straightforward in the presentation he made, that all of us want to see any abuses removed. Our goal - surely all of us - is to have a legal aid system that gets the money that is required to have equal justice in this province to the people without too many intermediaries and in the most efficient fashion. I can't think of anybody who would disagree with that particular goal.

There have been two reports commissioned by this government that indicate serious shortcomings in the legal aid system. This bill only addresses one of the many recommendations that have come forward. That's fine; it does at least address one of them. But there are a number of recommendations that came forward that I think are deserving of the attention of the government.

The inability of low-income earners to access legal aid has been intensified by certain cuts in other areas. Let me give an example. The government has ended rent control. A lot of people in this province don't know that, because they haven't moved from their rental accommodation to this point in time. When they move, that apartment or that rental accommodation loses its status under rent control and the sky is the limit. Then the landlord may charge whatever the landlord wishes. That, of course, is going to impact upon people of more modest income than others.

I would say proportionately more people with lower incomes, particularly in communities outside of Metropolitan Toronto, tend to live in rental accommodation than others. That's simply a fact of life. They may not have the funds to be able to purchase accommodation and so are compelled to rent accommodation. Those people will get into disputes. Sometimes one side is right, sometimes the other. One can be sympathetic from time to time with landlords who have tenants who are simply not prepared to pay and are bad tenants. I think everybody would be sympathetic with those people. On the other hand, there are tenants who are often victims, and they will need some assistance in dealing with the legal system.

It's important to know, where we see all these cuts, that these people who are unable to obtain funds in other ways are certainly more disadvantaged when they have to access the system known as the legal aid system.

There are a number of other justice issues out there that are of some importance. It's safe to say that lack of legal representation results in increased court appearances, for instance, and they add more delays to the system. When you don't have the appropriate counsel with you, the judge will often say, "We'll have to remand this case," so again we increase the backlog in the system and ultimately cost the system more money. Judges are put in the position of having to make decisions, as well, based on perhaps unreliable and possibly inaccurate information, because there may not be the kind of representation that's needed.

1630

I can think of a number of cases where the backlog is huge in the court system and has to be appropriately addressed. A recent survey by crown attorneys themselves found, for instance, that they have only five minutes with clients before they go to prosecute a case. The government, in terms of the legal system, has not fixed the family support system in this province. There are still millions upon millions of dollars owing, and in some cases you have the two ex-spouses both on the same side saying that the foul-ups are administrative.

The people who serve individual members of the Legislature do a fine job, but those who do not have access to that are still entangled in a system which is far from satisfactory and which doesn't have that regional component that people can get at.

I don't know, when the government was involved in the consultation on this, how they were able to do it before the Cornerstone Club met, because it's my understanding the Conservative Party is having - Bob is at a convention or a conference this weekend in Ottawa, and one component of it is the Cornerstone Club with its special access to the ministers. That must be a nuisance to my friend Bob Runciman, who has perhaps not had to experience that before, to have these people who pay $500 to be a member of the Conservative Cornerstone Club and another $325 to go to this special session with the ministers and the policy advisers. I hope Guy Giorno is there, because he's the most powerful person, next to the Premier himself, and I hope some of those advisers, the whiz kids, are there for them to get at. Otherwise they won't be getting their money's worth.

I hope that my friend from Scarborough Centre, Mr Newman, does not have to pay $325 to get access to that session, because I was reading in Hansard what it said about that session, and that of course is where we find some consultation that this government does. My colleague John Gerretsen asked the question. He showed me the memo. It was in italics so you couldn't miss it, and this was the advertisement for getting people to go to this session at $325 a shot plus the $500 for membership. It says:

"The important addition here is the day of workshops with ministers and policy staff prior to the annual meeting. This will give everyone an opportunity to participate in decisions."

I thought the caucus had some influence in those decisions, I thought the people of Ontario were to be consulted, and I find out it's members of the Cornerstone Club, this exclusive club for the wealthiest and most powerful people in the province to get together with the ministers.

I feel bad for the parliamentary assistant, because I don't know if they're going to invite him to this, and he's a person who I think should have some input into matters of this kind. He's a crime commissioner and he has some input in that direction. I always enjoy seeing him in action in that regard. I'm worried that he won't have the same kind of influence as perhaps those who are paying the $325 to attend this session, with direct access to the policy advisers and to the ministers. This is before the rest of the crowd, before the mob descends on Ottawa, before the mob gets to the convention; there is this very special meeting.

There will be lots of people because of course they're lining up for those patronage jobs that you continue to dispense. What's interesting, I say to my friend from St George, is the conventions - did you ever notice? - tend to be larger when the party in power is having the conventions. I don't know why that is, but it always seems to be the case. Whatever party is in power, the convention seems to be the largest of all time.

Anyway, I want to say to my friend the parliamentary assistant that I think there will be some interesting discussion in committee. I hope there is some further input into the changes. This is a start. I think there's a consensus here that there will be support for the kind of changes we're going to see, and it's nice to see that kind of unanimity in this House for once.

Hon Mr Leach: You didn't mention Tom Long or Leslie Noble yet.

Mr Bradley: My friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing says to me that I should be mentioning Leslie Noble and Tom Long, because I guess he feels they have far more power than he has, and they do. I'm sorry to say that. They have far more power than he has. Even though he's duly elected and he's a member of the cabinet, he knows that Leslie Noble and Tom Long have more power. I'm glad he interjected that, because I had completely forgotten to introduce that.

Hon Mr Leach: What about Conrad? Did you get Conrad in yet?

Mr Bradley: I won't mention Conrad Black today. I don't have time for Conrad today.

I know that the government has limited resources because the Mulroney government, a number of years ago, began cutting the financing to provinces.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Then the Liberals came along and did it better.

Mr Bradley: I know my friends in the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party will mention what happened after that, but I have to mention that it was the Mulroney government, and my friend from Hamilton Centre will remember Mike Harris applauding. "Cut more," he said. He was calling on the federal government: "Cut more. It's not enough."

Now, when he's approaching an election, he, like Lucien Bouchard - this must make my friend Bob Runciman just shudder, to think that Lucien Bouchard and Mike Harris are hand in hand fighting the federal government. My friends from the NDP, I don't know what you're ever going to do if the NDP forms the federal government. That will be a day of reckoning for somebody.

Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I'm looking forward to further speeches.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?

Mr Marchese: It's a pleasure to have two minutes again to respond to the comments the member for St Catharines has made, and there is some agreement with him on some of the comments he has made, and that is to say that providing three years' stable funding is important, providing legal aid for refugees for another two years - I'm not sure why they didn't do three, but at least two years is better than no support for refugees, who are very vulnerable people - is good. These are some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people we have in our province, so it's important obviously to find ways to better serve and protect them.

I was reminded about some of the comments the member for Simcoe Centre made, where he says, "We are dealing with low-income individuals who can't afford a private lawyer," and he was struggling to accomplish what Trudeau was doing many years ago, and that is to fight for a more just and fair society. I was taken by those remarks, because it makes it appear that somehow, all of a sudden, this government has made a U-turn to a government of good as opposed to a government of evil in the last three years. I was startled by this U-turn and wondered when it happened, if it happened, because in the last three years they've been whacking everybody over the head, including most recently talking about the homeless.

The Minister of Housing is here. We were arguing: "Please provide homes for the homeless, because that's what they need. If we can't deal with that fundamental issue, we can't deal with other problems they might have, issues of substance abuse or mental illness and the like. They need a home before we can even treat those other issues." We urged this government to do something and they said no. Their response, in my view, has been very pitiful, so the fact they're looking for a just society pleases me.

Mr Tascona: I'm pleased to respond to the member for St Catharines on this Bill 68 on the legal aid system. The member for St Catharines says that taxpayers do not want to see any system abused. He goes on and cites, in particular, abuses to the legal aid system. Conveniently he fails to mention the biggest abusers to the legal aid system are his own federal cousins, the federal government abuse. Let's see how they've abused it.

The federal government has dramatically reduced its funding over the past several years. Federal funding for immigration and refugee cases has declined from $14.4 million in 1991-92 to an estimated $3.8 million in 1997-98. The federal share of funding for immigration and refugee legal aid services has decreased from 46% in 1991-92 to approximately 23% in 1997-98. We all know, with the federal commitment to Ontario and our programs, we'll see that go down even further, an even further abuse by the federal government.

1640

The federal government, as everyone should know, is responsible for the Immigration and Refugee Board. That is their pivotal responsibility. They are responsible for immigration in this country. I say to the member for St Catharines, why should Ontario fund the federal immigration system? I put that to the member for St Catharines very succinctly and I hope he understands the question: What is his party's position on the federal government's abuse of the legal aid system? I've given him the facts. He should understand that they are not living up to their commitment. Even though they are responsible for immigration and responsible to look after the needy, they're not doing it. I would say to the member, what is his response? What is his party's position on the abuse by the federal government of the legal aid system? I'd like to hear that.

Mr Curling: I just wanted to make some comments in regard to my colleague from St Catharines, who put the case so eloquently and, what's most important, tried to focus and bring the issue right back where it belongs. As a matter of fact, he commended the government for bringing forth this bill, but he also said that there is a responsibility that must be borne by the present government, acknowledging the fact that they are the ones who have cut back on all the certificates, about 50% of the certificates issued to legal aid people at the time, and did not fund it properly in itself.

Who suffered in the process? Those who need it most. My colleague was trying to say that we fully agree that abuse in the system should be taken out, of course, but while you're taking that out, make sure that those in need get the service.

If there is one area that needs to be addressed and done properly, it's the area of legal aid, because mostly the poor are the ones who have no access to a good legal system. The reason? It is so costly. It is a very costly affair to address a legal position. Lawyers are costly. The court system is rather costly. It's very costly for those individuals who take time off from their work to address the courts. So as he said, we must clean up the system and get rid of all the abuse.

As he has also pointed out, the Conservative government of the day in the province doesn't seem to like refugees, those people who need the legal system to work for them, to work for everyone.

I want to commend him for the very pointed way in which he puts his case.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm pleased to respond to the comments of the member for St Catharines. As usual, given his eloquence and experience, one could say just about anything and probably tie into some aspect of his speech. I say that with great respect and in a complimentary fashion as a tribute to the vast experience that indeed you have had.

Certainly I think it's worth emphasizing, as the member has, that what we're really talking about is deciding the governance of a plan, as opposed to many of the major changes. There are some changes, and we do have some concerns. Although we accept the legislation in principle, we'll raise those concerns. In fact, my colleague from London Centre is the next speaker and she'll be raising some of those concerns that we have.

By and large, the issue is, how are we going to govern the legal aid plan? I, like many of my colleagues, don't believe there's any one particular governance model that fits all. Quite frankly, some governance ought to be under the direct purview of a minister of the crown; there are some matters of public policy that ought to be in the hands of stakeholders, as we have had since the 1950s, in terms of the legal aid plan; some ought to be arm's length, as we're moving to here; and somebody hang on to Bob Runciman, because I'm also going to say that in some cases there ought to be private governance of matters.

I believe that what really matters is the democratic debate and openness around the decision-making of what the governance is and ensuring there aren't rules such as the transition board concerns we have about appointments and how these people get their power, as opposed to the actual model itself.

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

Mr Bradley: I always appreciate the comments of members, in this case from Fort York, Hamilton Centre, Scarborough North and Simcoe Centre.

I'm going to touch for a moment on what the member for Hamilton Centre said and how that input is required from people who both receive and are directly involved in the legal aid system.

I kept getting a question from the member for Simcoe Centre, and I thought it would revolve around labour negotiations and the development of labour policies in the province. I can well recall his circumstance where he was involved in developing labour policy for this province. Also, as a member of the legal profession, I think he was on a retainer for a company, wasn't he? I could be wrong on that. He'll correct me, I'm sure, with a point of privilege, but it seemed to me that while you were developing a policy related to labour, the member for Simcoe Centre was on a retainer for a company that was promoting this change, I guess, and opposing what the NDP had done. I thought he might deal with that. He didn't have time. I'm sure if he'd had more time, he would have done so.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe Centre.

Mr Tascona: I don't know what the member for St Catharines is alluding to. Certainly this was dealt with by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and there was nothing untoward found that I did as a lawyer. He's aware of that. It was provided in the Integrity Commissioner's report. It was provided to all of the members. He knows the facts and I think he owes me an apology.

Mr Bradley: Larry Grossman, a former member of this House, used to talk about people and he would say, "They're good pitchers and bad catchers." I think sometimes that's -

Mr Tascona: The member is alleging he doesn't understand what he just said. He's fully aware of the circumstances. I think he owes me an apology. I'd like a ruling.

The Deputy Speaker: A moment, please. I'm unclear whether the member for Simcoe Centre was rising on a point of order -

Mr Tascona: Privilege.

The Deputy Speaker: - or privilege. I'll assume that it was privilege, and in that respect, I have no way of compelling a member to apologize.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): Tell him to say it outside.

The Deputy Speaker: If the member wants to, he will, but I would like to proceed.

Mr Tascona: If the member wants to go outside and suggest what he's trying to suggest in the House here with respect to that, I welcome him to go outside. He wouldn't have the guts to go outside, because he knows what happened. He is basically saying things that he knows aren't true.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to withdraw that comment.

Mr Tascona: What would you like me to withdraw, Mr Speaker? That he's not presenting the facts as they are?

The Deputy Speaker: I'd like you to withdraw the comment.

Mr Tascona: Quite frankly, Mr Speaker -

The Deputy Speaker: No. I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Tascona: I withdraw, but I don't want to hear any more from the member on that.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. There can be only one person standing in the House at a time, so when I'm standing, that is the one.

The other thing I want to be very clear about is that when a person stands when someone else is, it's either on a point of privilege or a point of order, and I have to be able to hear at the beginning which it is so that I can address my thinking towards that. I just wanted to remind the members of that.

The Chair recognizes the member for St Catharines.

1650

Mr Bradley: Before the member bounces up again, I would never want to say anything that -

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry. Why is the member for St Catharines standing?

Mr Bradley: I'm on a point of privilege. I would never want to say anything that would offend the member for Simcoe East. Certainly I do not want to do that to him. I would never do that to any member of this House. I certainly accept his explanation to the House and his comments to the House.

Mr Tascona: Just a point: I'm the member for Simcoe Centre. I want to make sure the member for Simcoe East is not -

Mr Bradley: I'm sorry: Simcoe Centre.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, before I start, I'd like consent for our party to delay the speech by the critic and to proceed with -

The Deputy Speaker: It's my understanding that that has already been given.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you very much. That's good.

It's maybe a quaint sort of notion, but I'd like us to get back to talking about this bill, because it's a very important action we're taking in changing the legal aid services for the province of Ontario. It's very important because there are obligations on the government to ensure that all people in this province have access to legal services, and legal aid is an extremely important part of that, particularly for those who are unable to afford a lawyer of their own.

I must say that I'm very pleased that the work that has gone forward over the last five years in looking at the legal aid system, in looking at the problems that have been experienced in the previous 25 years since it was instituted in the province of Ontario, has gone on apace and that we are at a point where we are looking at some changes around the way we deliver services. It was quite apparent to us some years ago when we were in government and apparent to those who were working in the legal profession and those who were receiving legal aid services that although every conceivable effort appeared to be being made to ensure that those services were provided equitably and that the management of those services was being done, there were many indications that the system was not working particularly well.

One of the things that is very real about the system, as has been mentioned by a number of other folks, is that given the federal government's stake in ensuring that people are appropriately represented before a criminal trial, legal aid was set up as a shared-cost program between the federal government and the provincial government. Like many other shared-cost programs, what we saw, first with the Mulroney government, then with the Chrétien government, was an erosion of that cost-sharing to the point where, in 1993, when I became Attorney General, the cost-share was about 7% for the federal government and the rest for the provincial government, and now I understand from officials in the Ministry of the Attorney General that it has eroded even further, lower than 5%.

We ought to be concerned about that kind of erosion, and it is a factor in legal aid, because when legal aid began in this province, it was an open-ended program. The assumption was that the federal government and the provincial government would share the costs that were required for the necessity of legal representation for those who were eligible for the program who couldn't afford to pay for that program themselves.

It became very clear, as those costs escalated and escalated and the federal government's share eroded and eroded, that something had to be done. So we had a major discussion with the law society in 1993-94 around what to do about this program: How could we manage to continue to ensure that there was appropriate access to legal services and yet protect the budget of the province of Ontario, given that this cost-sharing was no longer the case?

That was a very painful discussion, I can tell you. I bear a lot of the wounds, and indeed there are members of the bar out there who probably consider the action of our government in capping legal aid funding as a very serious cut at access to justice. But we believed very strongly that we needed to do that, that we needed to at least put a limit on the amount of money and then to require the management of that program to look at that cap and try and deliver more effectively and efficiently the services.

At the same time, we realized that the management of the program by the law society was, to put it mildly, somewhat less than the best management style in the world. I know that when I, as Attorney General, would ask for current figures as to where the fund was while we were talking about the funding of the plan, we could never get up-to-date figures. Everything was always a guesstimate based on the last quarter, that sort of thing. There was no way to look at how the flow of certificates would come through. That continues to be a bit of a problem, because you're granted a certificate but very often the account doesn't come in until many months down the road. That is a management difficulty that needed to be done. But we also discovered that the kind of technological aids that could be there did not seem to be in place through the legal aid committee and the law society management and we developed some very real concerns about the management of that.

As a result, there was a lot of negotiation with the law society around how to improve those processes, how to get those processes more streamlined: How could we ensure that that information was coming forward, and how could we, within the cap that had been set on legal aid funds - and I must make it very clear that it was still a very substantial amount of money, certainly compared to other provinces, but very much in keeping with the kind of longitudinal experience of need. It was never satisfactory to those who would like to see completely open access, but at least, with the very fine offices of the committee on legal aid with the law society, we managed to come to some agreement about that.

I think it's fair to say that we were also feeling the breath of fire on our backs. The Common Sense Revolution document had already come out, and the Conservatives, reflecting a belief that legal aid was somehow some kind of free ride for special interest groups, were threatening quite substantially in that document to reduce the amount of funding going to legal aid. Certainly we knew that it was important, very important, for a program like legal aid to be able to show that it was extremely businesslike, that the public that was to be served by legal aid understood what the eligibility rules were, that there was reason in the system, that people weren't arbitrarily being refused access to legal aid and that we could defend that kind of a process.

It was appropriate that this government, when it took power, first of all decided not to reduce the funding to legal aid, which was a great relief to those who are providing legal services in clinics, and to the bar, but certainly to anybody concerned about access to legal services that was a relief. It was also something we could definitely support when Professor McCamus was asked to look at the whole system, to make recommendations for a new way of delivering the services.

The law society, both during our term in office and with the new government, was clearly indicating that it thought it was not in the best interests of the program or in the best interests of the law society to continue to administer that program, but the necessity was to try and figure out a mechanism that would ensure that access to legal services did not depend on any favour of any particular political party, that access to legal services was done in an even-handed way. The recommendations, by and large, that Professor McCamus made as a result of that in-depth study are represented in Bill 68.

1700

We have real concerns about the kind of influence on policy and on decision-making that is inherent in the selection of the corporate board of directors. This is the biggest single concern we have with the bill. While the government has agreed that no more than half of this group can be lawyers and while the bill clearly talks about geographic representation - subsection 5(5) says that the Attorney General will ensure that geographic diversity is represented in terms of selections - we still have some concerns about the ability of that board to reflect very clearly the public interest in the province.

Subsection 5(4) in the act clearly talks about the different skills that are needed. One of those skills, very clearly, is "the special legal needs of and the provision of legal services to low-income individuals and disadvantaged communities." That gives some comfort, as does number 5: "The social and economic circumstances associated with the special legal needs of low-income individuals and of disadvantaged communities," are also to be represented on that board.

So we have concerns about the selection process, concerns about whether in the long run that board is going to be representative enough of the actual needs of those receiving the services. But we are somewhat comforted that those requirements are actually built into the act, that those requirements are not requirements that are simply articulated as policy.

It's important to realize that the legal aid committee of the law society was of course predominantly lawyers. There were lay members of that committee, some appointed out of the benchers of the law society and some appointed by the Attorney General of the day, but they were by no means in the same proportion as they are going to be on the corporate board of directors. That is some comfort and looks like some improvement in that oversight.

But - there's a big "but" here - the transition board, the board that the Attorney General is going to recommend and that will be appointed by the Lieutenant in Council, by the cabinet, has no such restrictions upon it. This can be anyone, hand-chosen. The transition board itself is going to actually set up the corporation, set its organizational structure, make determination about the emphasis it puts on the various pieces of programs and is going to be extremely important in the set-up of this whole plan, and that is of real concern. Although I agree absolutely that there needs to be some transition, to have no restrictions on that transitional board that ensure that some of that transition is carried out by people who do understand "the special legal needs of and the provision of legal services to low-income individuals and disadvantaged communities" strikes me as very odd. I would say to the Attorney General that it is going to be extremely important, if he is to maintain the integrity of this corporation, that that transitional board be carefully selected to represent some of those special needs.

There is one part of the bill that I am very pleased to see here, and that is the part that talks about the legal aid services that will be delivered. This has always been a big issue. What balance will there be in legal services that are offered? Because the federal criminal law - the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act - clearly talks about appropriate representation for people who are faced with the possibility of jail, and, for young offenders, the requirement in the Young Offenders Act for children to be represented, the criminal part of the plan has always been seen to have the greatest urgency. But there are issues of family law, there are issues of what we had always called poverty law in the past and which the bill calls clinic law, and issues around mental health law that had an equal urgency for the people facing the need for representation in those areas.

So I am pleased that section 13 of the act clearly states, "The corporation shall provide" - in other words, it must provide - "legal aid services in the areas of criminal law, family law, clinic law and mental health law." That gives some guarantee that there is actually the legislative authority to put emphasis on all those areas.

It's quite clear that the transitional board in the first instance, and then the corporate board of directors, will be making the decision about the weight that's put on those various areas. I would hope that the weight would be placed very clearly with respect to need in terms of the urgency of the well-being of those seeking that representation.

Much has been said in the long discussions, the five-year discussions about changes in the system, about where that emphasis should lie. I am pleased to see that there is a protection of those services that are defined as clinic law, the services to people who require landlord-tenant services, the people who require assistance with the Social Assistance Review Board, people who need representation in various areas of administrative law and civil law, in which those who are on low income are particularly vulnerable in their need for representation. I'm pleased to see that here.

I am worried, of course, that there's only guaranteed funding for the existing legal aid clinics and that that funding is only guaranteed for a period of three years. I'm sure that if the government goes forward with hearings it will hear some concerns, not only from the legal clinic people themselves, the boards of directors of those legal clinics, the staff of those legal clinics, but from many of the groups that have been served by those clinics, about the need to really ensure that those services continue to be offered. Of course that permission is here in the act that clinic services now are seen as an integral part of that.

I'm particularly pleased to see that the corporation must provide representation in the mental health process. There are many parts of the Mental Health Act that require individuals who are suffering various levels of illness to appear at hearings, particularly if they're being committed involuntarily. Just as an imprisonment in the criminal system is an important area where people need to have representation to protect them, given that their freedom may be curtailed and given that the Charter of Rights guarantees us that our freedom will only be curtailed if due process has been followed, it's extremely important for that representation to be available to those very vulnerable people who are undergoing the involuntary committal process. If the government goes ahead with some of its mental health reform ideas, that will be even more important than ever. We are going to be finding a whole different class of hearings if the government moves ahead with the ideas it seems to have on community committal orders.

One of the essential aspects of the provision of legal services to those who do not have personal resources to pay for them is that our law is based on an adversarial system, based on a balance between one position and another. We already know that those who can purchase high-powered legal assistance often are advantaged in the system, and it is extremely important that our legal aid system compensate lawyers and other service-providers appropriately so that those who require legal aid can be sure that the talent and the skill is going to be there to balance out our system.

There have been many instances in the past when we know lawyers have found it difficult to continue their support of the legal aid plan because of the impact it would have on their living, their ability to look after their family. It will be important for us all to monitor this corporation to ensure the compensation rates are adequate to ensure balance within the legal system.

1710

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the remarks of the honourable member for London Centre and to thank her for confining her remarks to the substance of the bill, the matter that is before us this afternoon. I want to note that she, in contrast to at least one other speaker earlier today, did not take the opportunity to engage in unsubstantiated innuendo or personal cheap shots aimed at other members of this House, and delivered quite a thorough and well-studied dissertation on the subject of the bill that we are here to consider this afternoon.

I was pleased that the honourable member discussed the work done by Professor McCamus in association with the Attorney General in reviewing the state of legal aid in this province today, in coming forward with some very substantial and valuable recommendations for reforming a system that has been pretty much unchanged for 30-some-odd years.

The bill that is before us will certainly bring forward the legal aid plan to better meet the needs of Ontarians who require legal aid services. The number of ways in which that is accomplished was touched on quite eloquently by the member. The member noted, for example, that the legislation would establish the mandate, governance, accountability, services and funding for a new organization, which will be called Legal Aid Ontario, a body that would be independent of the government, independent of the Attorney General and independent of the Law Society of Upper Canada. It would exist for the purpose of administering and serving the needs of the legal aid system. That's a very important point to have made.

Mr Bradley: Over and above the legal aid system we have, where you have lawyers who have been paid, who have been retained as counsel and have been paid to defend people in the system, another portion of legal assistance which is extremely valuable is provided by the legal assistance clinics in each of our communities. Right now, unfortunately - this is a result of many factors - members would know that in our communities they tend to be understaffed and overworked. They deal with a lot of matters that affect people who are at the low end of the income scale and are unable to fend for themselves in many circumstances. The people who work in these legal aid clinics deserve support from those of us who are in the Legislative Assembly, and credit for taking on cases that many other people may not want to take on.

They do two things. One thing they do which is extremely effective for everyone is to provide what I think the lawyers in the House could tell me is summary advice to people, free legal advice which is not very complicated, but if a person were to go down to make an appointment and ask for some legal advice, they would provide that advice to them. Normally, those people don't have access to members of the legal profession. They may not want to go through the trouble it takes to obtain counsel. The matter may be relatively insignificant to the world as a whole, but to that person, very important. When we are looking at the funding of various offices, that would be very useful.

The other is the worker adviser. In our area, in the Niagara Peninsula, we're worried that once again we're going to see further cuts in the worker adviser office, which assists people particularly with matters related to what we used to call the Workers' Compensation Board. Those certainly should be given consideration as well.

Mr Christopherson: I'm pleased to respond to the comments of my colleague from London Centre once again today. I would like to first underscore her comment that no matter how hard we try, there really is a difference in terms of the justice you get whether you're a rich person or not.

There's a clear American example that I think comes to mind to anyone who's watching this, but the best Canadian example I can think of was a case where a citizen felt seriously wronged by the federal government - not an unusual thing to happen to a lot of Canadians, but in this case the particular Canadian I believe is a millionaire and has access to the best kind of legal help money can buy, and he beat the federal government. That was former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

How many other Canadians would have the means and the contacts to mount the kind of campaign and legal defence that was necessary to take on and defeat the federal government? I realize we can say that there were serious allegations against him, but I can tell you there are an awful lot of people who feel, when the federal government's coming at them, that these are serious allegations also. So there is a difference. The fundamental need of legal aid is clearly there for anyone who cares to and try to rectify the basic injustices that can be built in and are built in.

The other major concern I want to mention in the few moments I have left is the transition board and the fact that there were so many groups that lobbied to have a description of the qualifications people should have for being on the permanent board, yet all that is waived with the transition board. There's no requirement that they meet those requirements, yet they will set a lot of the initial standards that will have long-term impacts on the board. This is a very serious concern we have.

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

Mrs Boyd: I want to thank the members who spoke: the member for York East, the member for St Catharines and the member for Hamilton Centre.

I am very touched by what the member for St Catharines said in terms of the scope of the services that can be offered. It's important to articulate that the scope of services that can be offered is quite broad in this act.

It authorizes legal aid certificates to the judicare system we've had in the past. It authorizes service-providers by means of certificates to provide legal services, and that of course opens the door to paralegals of all sorts who will be able to provide services in the system. The funding of clinics, the establishment and operation of legal services and staffed offices, is another area where there has certainly been some controversy on the part of the bar to the appropriateness of staffed offices. I'm assured by the staff from the Ministry of the Attorney General that the couple of pilot projects that are running will be evaluated before there's much expansion of that, to see whether that is in an effective and efficient way of providing services.

There is the funding of student legal aid services, the funding of aboriginal legal aid services and the provision of duty counsel. There is public legal education, an extremely important aspect of this to educate the public about how our system works and what their place and their responsibility is within the system. There is assistance to individuals who represent themselves, so that we see some of the difficulty that our justices talk to us about in trying to ensure that justice is even-handed when someone is not represented by legal counsel. Also, there is the authorization of alternative dispute resolution systems; that's extremely important to try and ease the kind of adversarial situation we often find in our legal services.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): It's a pleasure to get an opportunity to speak on Bill C - Bill 68, the Legal Aid Act. That's almost a Freudian slip. I'm humbled to be in the presence tonight of several members of the bar, a former Attorney General and the crime commissioners as I offer some comments. My comments will probably be a little more of a non-technical nature, but I will try to stay true to the rule in this House that we periodically at least refer to the piece of legislation we are discussing. I would never dare to compare myself in eloquence to the member for St Catharines; however, I may at times find myself drifting a touch away from the subject and hope that you would allow me, Mr Speaker, to come back to the subject and address it, as is the norm.

1720

It's very interesting in the Legislature to see debate on a piece of legislation where there is roughly unanimous consent. It strikes me that it is somewhat of a miscarriage of our process here to spend a lot of time in front of some TV cameras basically all agreeing with a piece of legislation when probably that same legislation should be before a committee, where we have a chance to hear input from other concerned citizens and get an opportunity to get into the nuts and bolts and the meat of it. So it's interesting to be here and to hear the general consensus by people of all sides that this is good legislation.

If you would indulge me, I'd like to put this particular bill and the need for it in the context of the bigger picture, as we look at the fact that from I believe 1989 to 1994 the bill for legal aid in Ontario doubled to somewhere in the vicinity of $230 million, and quite frankly, had there not been some serious interventions by the provincial government, that amount would have probably escalated, gone unchecked, and goodness knows where it might have gotten to by now. Suffice it to say that in that period of 1989 to 1994, the bill for legal aid services doubled in the province of Ontario.

During that same period of time and a little bit prior to that and maybe a little bit after that, but roughly in that same period of time, we had several things happening simultaneously in Ontario that tie in with this general attitude that the government could do everything for everybody at any cost; the cost didn't make any difference. We had a time there during that particular time, 1989 to 1994, when welfare rates in the province, the amount of money we paid people who were trapped on welfare, skyrocketed. It went to the point where we had by far the highest welfare rates, substantially - 25% or 30% - above the average of other provinces in the country during that same period of time when the money spent on legal aid doubled.

During that same period of time from 1990 to 1995, the accumulated debt in this province tripled, to the point where in 1995 the taxpayers of the province of Ontario had accumulated - or the government, actually, had accumulated on their behalf - $100 billion worth of debt. During that same time when spending on legal aid doubled, the debt of the province tripled to $100 billion and it was escalating at a rate that defied understanding. We were spending, in 1995, $1.2 million every hour in excess of what our revenues were. That was the legacy that Ontario found itself in in 1995.

We also had a situation where it had gotten to the point where in this great province of Ontario, arguably the finest, most productive, richest area of the world, we had one out of every eight people trapped in the welfare system. That was all taking place during that time when the debt tripled to $100 billion, when the money spent on legal aid doubled to $230 million. We found that we had one out of every eight people in this great province trapped on the welfare system. The relevance is that that ratio was even higher than the ratio of the people in Newfoundland, who we all know have undergone several serious economic crises as a result of federal policies.

During that same period of time, when the cost of providing legal aid doubled to $230 million, the province lost 10,000 jobs. Here we had this situation of increasing debt, more people on welfare, jobs being lost, higher welfare rates and more money spent on legal aid. During that same period in time there was an issue that's very dear to my heart, the issue of homelessness. The number of homeless people in the city of Toronto using emergency shelters during that period from 1985 to 1995 - when welfare rates skyrocketed as far as dollars per month, and we were building social housing at a dizzying rate - the number of people using emergency shelters in the city of Toronto doubled. That was the context in which all of those things were happening in the province during what we often refer to as the 10 lost years.

Since that time, of course, there's been quite a change in the fortunes of the province. But one has to stop and say: "What was the attitude that was there, that caused us to get ourselves into all of that mess? What kind of a spirit did we have that created this atmosphere of, `The government can do everything for everybody'? How did we let ourselves get to the point where personal accountability and personal responsibility were put on the backbench in favour of, `Let's let the government do it'?"

I don't know how we got there, but boy, it just about destroyed this great province of ours. We've had a change in that since, and we've had a change now to the point where people are saying: "No, I want to be accountable for myself. Just give me some help. That's all I want, and I can be accountable for myself."

What a wonderful change that has been. We know in the last three years we've gotten about 320,000 fewer people trapped on welfare, we've got over 360,000, upwards of 400,000, new jobs in the province, so a lot of good things have happened since that period during which legal aid about doubled in the province.

I would not have raised the subject of homelessness, except the member for Fort York raised it in some comments that he made. I think it would be appropriate at this time to make a couple of comments about that issue, because there are some things that we can do to improve that, just as there are some things that we can do and we are doing with Bill 68 to improve the issue of legal aid and all the people on all sides agree with that.

I think there are some things we can do and I'm heartened to see that some key people in the city of Toronto have said, "Yes, we're going to do some things." As you may know, I had an opportunity to be on TV the other night with Jack Layton, one of Toronto's more august -

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair recognizes the member for London Centre on a point of order.

Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that the rules require us to speak to the bill, Bill 68, and the member does not appear to be doing that.

The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order. I've been listening carefully to the member and he's bringing his terms within it. I will check carefully.

Mr Carroll: There is no question there is a tie-in between all of these issues because they all involve the government providing services to people who find themselves in need of those services. These issues are all tied together. They all deal with government services. They deal with soft services. They deal with the government being in a position to help people who find themselves in need of that help. Homelessness ties in with the whole issue of welfare, and it ties in with the issue of legal aid.

I just want to reassure people, especially those people at home watching TV that night. Mr Layton confirmed for us that the city of Toronto next year will address the issue that currently in their property tax rate for multi-residential, in other words, apartment buildings - they charge four and a half times the rate they do on single residential. Mr Layton confirmed on TV that night that they're going to fix that issue.

He also confirmed that night that the 106 properties the city of Toronto currently owns, the houses and apartment buildings that are sitting empty, that within two weeks those places that are owned by the city and sitting empty would house homeless people.

I think we should all congratulate Mr Layton and his personal commitment to have the city of Toronto make some profound change in those areas.

1730

Applause.

Mr Carroll: I think it's worthy of some applause. I really do believe that.

There's some talk in the bill about the whole issue of the federal government and their role relative to sponsored immigrants and refugees. This is an area where the federal government, in my personal opinion, has totally abandoned their responsibility. At any one time in this province there are approximately 20,000 failed immigrant sponsorships. There are roughly 10,000 people at any one time in this province awaiting clarification of their refugee status. This is a responsibility of the federal government. However, they have abandoned this responsibility and the enormous costs associated with that.

We're talking about people who just want their determination settled. They want to become hard-working members of our society. They just need the federal government to make some decisions on their behalf. The federal government is very slow in doing that and, as a result, they're in limbo. The federal government has abandoned their responsibility in this area and it's good to see that while we are not going to abandon those people immediately, we certainly are going to call upon the federal government to step up and be counted, as they certainly should.

The bill provides Legal Aid Ontario - which is something I was delighted to see in the bill, and I'm going to just read from a note here - with the flexibility to use a variety of service delivery methods, including certificates, community clinics, staff offices, student legal aid societies, aboriginal legal services corporations, duty counsel, public legal education, assisted self-representation and alternative dispute resolution.

The last one of those, alternative dispute resolution, has been proven time and time again as a cost-effective way of quickly resolving disputes and keeping them out of the system. So it's great to see that it is specifically referenced.

The other one that is interesting to see specifically referenced is the area of community clinics. I'm going to read from the act where it defines what the responsibility of the community legal aid clinic will be if it is to receive funding, because I think it's very important that we understand precisely what the role of the community legal aid clinic is in the whole process of legal aid. I'm not so sure that it has always been well understood. I quote from subsection 33(1):

"The corporation" - the corporation being, of course, the legal aid corporation - "may provide funding to a clinic to enable the clinic to provide legal aid services to low-income individuals or disadvantaged communities."

I think it's very good that the act clarifies what the role of legal aid clinics will be in the future.

I have pretty well exhausted the comments I wanted to make on the bill. I think it suffices to say that there are some things that have been mentioned by the opposition in the way of housekeeping issues that need to be resolved.

It is appropriate that the bill get some time in committee. I hope, since there is agreement in general in the House on the intention of the bill to provide a more accountable, less costly, more efficient legal aid system for Ontario, we can move forward with the legislation very quickly and get it to committee so that we can get this bill proclaimed, should it pass, and get it into practice so the people who avail themselves of legal aid services can continue to do so.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Curling: I think the member for Chatham-Kent was about to get around to why it is that legal aid is so much needed. While the member for London Centre pointed out that he wasn't quite focused on speaking to the bill, I think what he didn't say, or was about to say, or in the five minutes he had left he could have said, is a couple of things with regard to homelessness. It was his government that cut out rent control and had rents skyrocket, depleting the disposable income of individuals to fund larger rent increases that they would have to pay for. That contributes to homelessness. They may also find themselves getting lawyers and legal aid because they have less funds with which to fight their case in court. That is why there is an importance to legal aid itself for those who are more vulnerable.

He also forgets to mention the cause of homelessness. There is the 22% cut by his government to those on welfare, the size of that cut. If they would just take a moment and realize, if they personally had 22% cut from their income, how devastated they would be to find out what they would then have to sacrifice. Many people who were most vulnerable would find themselves having to cut back either on food or accommodation, and eventually maybe find themselves homeless.

He speaks about how the bill will assist the people who are more vulnerable. They need it more than any other time. He also forgets that it was his government that started the deinstitutionalization of people in institutions.

Mrs Boyd: I'm pleased to comment on the speech from the member for Chatham-Kent. I'm surprised he didn't continue for his full time because he certainly didn't touch very much on the bill during the time he was speaking. I was hoping he was going to talk about some of the necessity for legal aid services for low-income people in his own community. Certainly I'm aware of the need that exists there, of the number of vulnerable women and their children who are forced to flee their homes because of violence and are forced to look for assistance, both from the criminal courts in terms of abuse and from the civil courts for family law, and how often it is difficult for people to get that kind of representation in his community. I was really hoping he was going to do that.

The other thing that interests me is the pride with which the member talks about this bill having the support of all sides of the House, and then tells us that it's going out to committee. It's one of those interesting phenomena that we observe with this government, that when, generally speaking, consensus has been built on a piece of legislation, through the kind of work Professor McCamus did and so on, they suddenly decide then they have to consult further by going out to committee, whereas when things are highly controversial, things like Bill 31, which took away the rights of workers, they refuse to go out to committee. In fact, they make sure that the bill gets shoved through here without any changes.

This particular piece of legislation does have relatively broad consensus. There are some items of concern. They could be dealt with in committee of the whole. Instead of that, the government has decided to tie up the justice committee yet again so they can't consider Ipperwash.

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): As someone who has represented individuals on legal aid certificates, I can tell you that Bill 68, the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, goes a long way in providing the kind of change that is needed under our legal aid system. Most of the speakers have outlined the items in the bill. I would just throw in some practical aspects that this bill will allow Legal Aid Ontario to implement.

For example, I represented young offenders under the Young Offenders Act in juvenile court. Often, because the Young Offenders Act requires legal representation to be appointed by court, sometimes you would have a game whereby the young offender would go out and apply for legal aid. Legal aid would be denied. The young offender would walk into court and the judge would make an order for representation. The young offender would go out and legal aid would be provided.

What this bill will allow is a specialized system whereby Legal Aid Ontario could establish a panel, could establish a system or a clinic just to deal with young offenders, or a system of a public defender's office to deal with such cases. That can happen in other aspects of law, such as mental health law. Presently we have a lot of problems in helping people under the Mental Health Act, and maybe a specialized panel will go a long way in assisting that. Legal Aid Ontario will be able to implement such programs that will assist and end up saving money for Ontario taxpayers.

1740

Mr Bradley: I want to comment because there was a reference made to going to committee, and I want to make reference to both the members who spoke, the member for Chatham-Kent and the member for London Centre, because I find it passing strange, as my friend the House leader of the NDP would, that on bills where there seems to be a consensus we go to committee. If the bill has some degree of popularity, the government wishes to troop it around the province so they can bring in their supporters and others to say good things about it, if there's a consensus that it's unlikely there are going to be too many people out there who are going to have something negative to say. So I implore my good friend from Chatham-Kent to prevail upon the government House leader, probably more so the Premier and his staff because they ultimately make all the decisions, to speak to them to try to persuade them to have other bills that are more contentious go out to committee and around the province so we can hear on them.

I'm not going to quarrel with him on this bill. I think some of the points he has made are quite valid. He has mentioned the consensus that exists among all of us, and I'm glad it has been reiterated that there are a variety of services that can be provided, that it's not simply somebody going into a lawyer's office with a certificate, but there are a variety of services that are out there to assist people. Those who are at the bottom end of the economic scale often simply don't know who to go to. They often come to us as representatives and we are sometimes in the position of directing them to the appropriate agency. What's difficult is if that agency has a huge backlog you feel very bad about not being able to find someone else who could possibly represent them in certain legal circumstances.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent has two minutes to respond.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the comments. To the member for Scarborough North, I know you share my concern for the homeless, and maybe you might help us to lobby your federal members on the issue of the GST. As you know, I'm sure, the GST on rentals is 8% and on home ownership it's only 4%. Maybe you can help us lobby the feds on that so we can build some more affordable housing.

To the member for London Centre, I too am concerned about the provision of legal aid services in my community. I might just remind her that unfortunately the whole issue of abuse against women is an ugly blight on our society, but it doesn't just happen to poor women. It's an issue that happens to too many women if it happens to even one. Some of them require some legal aid and some don't, and I believe those services should be available for all of them. I think it's a terrible thing this should happen.

It's interesting to hear her talk about the committee issue. Do we or don't we go to committee? She talked about going to committee of the whole House. I can remember a situation in this place where we got into committee of the whole House and I think we were there for 11 days. We couldn't get out of the thing, so to me the whole House is not a really nice place to go with a piece of legislation if you want to move forward, so I'm not sure that is a good suggestion.

When we don't have committee hearings, which is very seldom, we're criticized; when we do have committee hearings, we're criticized. That's kind of a Liberal position. I'm surprised to see the NDP take that position.

My friend from Mississauga East had very enlightened, reasoned comments on the bill. Obviously, in committee he has some input that will be beneficial, and of course, it's always nice to have my good friend for St Catharines stand up and make reference to our party and what happens in our party. It's the same old saw he uses for everything, but I've got to give him credit. He's here, he's an old trouper and we get to hear from him on every issue.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Curling: Let me just take the opportunity to comment quickly on the last comment of the member for Chatham-Kent, just to set the record straight. My House leader stated that if we had put it to the committee of the whole we could have dealt with this very easily, and the member's comments were about how long it could be dragged on. He knows, Mr Speaker, and you also know, that that will no longer happen. The rules have changed. We have a precise time and it should be done efficiently. Therefore the ball is in your court to bring it to the committee of the whole and let us deal with it and get it out of the way. It needs, as you stated, to be corrected and put in focus.

Before we get to that, let me make my comments about this. I also welcome the changes that are happening on the legal aid front. I know there are many, many individuals who were quite frustrated in getting assistance. The process seems that somehow, while it's there, it did not serve very well. Under the previous government, the NDP, they put forward a considerable amount of money to assist in that process. Then when the cap came in, lots of people were shut out and were not able to have access. I presume the system itself needs to change.

With that comment, I want to also make some comments about my colleague from London Centre, one whom I respect tremendously. I try my best at all times when she is speaking to listen to her because there's a lot of sense. Although there are strong emotions - many of us may have a lot of emotions about some issues - she made a lot of sense in her comments.

I also applaud her for the fact that when she got the job as Attorney General she was the first non-lawyer to have taken that position, and did it so well. We have consensus on this bill itself. I say to the members over there, here is someone who was the Attorney General from a layman's point of view and here are the Liberals basically saying to you: "Yes, we see you're going in the right direction. Let's not hold this up. Let's proceed with this bill. But in some of the comments we make, take into consideration that all those little minor details we are pointing out to you can be dealt with in committee of the whole, which can be done very shortly." As we also know, it has become a regular habit now around here that everything has closure to it before we can debate it and have adequate discussion on it. Yet on this one, you seem to want to drag it out in some respect. I would appeal to the members over there in the Conservative Party, in the government, to get on with it.

Legal aid has been around a long time. It's been around since 1951. It has helped many people, but many people who needed help were not able to access this. The system and the process were flawed in many ways. Many women did not have the proper income to have access to justice, because justice, as we know, is extremely expensive. They were denied that and therefore lost their rights and their place in our society. Young offenders, as the previous speaker said, needed that very much too.

Many of the people who are new immigrants to our country need some education about how the legal system works in this country of ours. The fact is that much of the infrastructure wasn't there. When I was at Seneca College, we set up a quasi-legal-aid system, where we had a lawyer who would give free advice about what to do first. It was exceptional, the help and assistance we gave to those individuals. The education about the legal system was extremely helpful. Many times, if I had to bail a student out in some respect, because they then understood the law and knew where it was going, the system did not have to pay for that in the future. We need the infrastructure to make sure that people are educated about the process.

There are some further comments I want to make in the short time I have. We know the amount of money that was spent in the NDP time. Over $167 million was spent in 1996-97. What we saw, though, is that when the Conservative government came in and cut it by almost 50%, it really put a hardship on those who want access to justice.

In fixing the system, although we can commend it, one of the problems we have still is in the court system, which needs more money. If you want to take a visit to see the delays in the courts, there is real need for more money in the court system, more money in the police to service the legal system. It's needed there. We cannot just stop here. The funds are needed there.

1750

One of the biggest problems we have in our society today is that each time we are going to make some sort of cut to the system because we have a deficit or a debt, we look first at the poor and say, "That's where we can get the money." They are the ones who pay a higher cost for any deficit or debt, yet they did not cause it, but they are the ones who get blamed for causing the debt and the deficit.

When we take the money, as this government has done, to give a tax break and say we will use this tax break so other people can put it back into society, guess who gets the best of it, Mr Speaker? You know it's very much so. As you nod in agreement, I presume you would ask, how could you take the money from all the poor and give it back to the rich? It's giving it to the rich. We don't mind, of course, if you take it from the rich and give it to the poor. But it's on the backs of the poor; they are paying the debt and the deficit. Not only that, but it's on the backs of our young people, with the high cost of tuition fees today. They have to come up with more money to pay for their tuition. Therefore, it is the poor who are paying for this debt and the deficit.

How can legal aid address them? Make sure, as we put that infrastructure into place, that we don't deprive those individuals.

I'm glad the Minister of Housing came in. He's been around and listening very attentively. Those renters, those individuals who are now faced with an extremely high rent increase that will come about because of the elimination of rent control, will find that if they have to challenge those landlords if they have done anything illegally, they need legal aid funds to fight those landlords.

So what is happening? The present government creates the problem that costs the government more and then blames it on the individuals that they are the ones who are leaning on the government and want government to do everything. If the government had sensible laws, we would not have these problems today.

I'm saying that the elimination of rent control creates homelessness and creates more legal problems. The elimination of rent control will ensure that individuals have to seek lawyers to do that.

Let me, in the few minutes remaining - we see that 6 o'clock is coming around - talk about some of the concerns I've had in Scarborough North, people who have come and addressed me. They have come before me with lawyers, and many of the lawyers are saying to them, "You can't afford this." They can't afford this lawyer because it will cost them so much to go through all the courts. If individuals do not have sufficient funds in their bank account that will carry this case along, the fact is that some lawyers - and I have cases - are asking their client to plead guilty to cases that they are not guilty of. This is awful for the legal system, awful for the individual.

I had a constituent who is a landed immigrant plead guilty to a case and then later on, when he wanted to get his citizenship, he found out that the guilty plea - he was not guilty - is impeding him now from being a citizen. What is happening? The lack of funds, the lack of money, has caused this individual a greater hardship on their future.

As we know, who gets punished? Those new immigrants who are here get punished for that. As I said, women who are left money as an income find it very difficult to get the legal assistance that they need.

This legislation is a good move, but I say this is so minimal in addressing the entire inadequacy of justice in our society that we need to do much more in that regard.

I'm just going to wrap up here because we know that 6 o'clock is here. Those are my few comments I'd like to make. Would you like me to adjourn the debate?

The Deputy Speaker: Not necessary. It being almost 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 next Monday.

The House adjourned at 1756.

15 octobre 1998