Journal des débats 1998-déc-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

CITY OF TORONTO XXIX SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES BID ENDORSEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 APPUYANT LA CANDIDATURE DE LA CITÉ DE TORONTO CONCERNANT LES XXIX^e JEUX OLYMPIQUES D'ÉTÉ

Mr Kells moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 77, An Act to endorse the proposed bid of the City of Toronto to host the XXIX Summer Olympic Games / Projet de loi 77, Loi visant à appuyer la candidature que se propose de présenter la cité de Toronto pour accueillir les XXIXe Jeux olympiques d'été.

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

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I rise today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill 77, An Act to endorse the proposed bid of the City of Toronto to host the XXIX Summer Olympic Games in the year 2008.

The bill recognizes that Ontario's participation in the bid process is a necessity if it is to be successful. This involvement can only be sustained through mutually acceptable terms enshrined in an agreement between Ontario and the organizers of the Toronto proposal. The bill also asks all municipalities in Ontario and citizens of Ontario to support the bid on a voluntary basis.

In my estimation, this bill is no ordinary offering under our private members' rules; rather, it is my summation of why and how the people of this great province can come together to show the world that we are united as one behind the bid of the city of Toronto to be the nominated host of the XXIX Olympiad. I will say nominal host because the very rules of the International Olympic Committee call for support and guarantees from the senior level of government under which the host city functions.

Perhaps at this point I should make mention of the wonderful efforts that have been put forth by David Crombie and his original group of supporters, who were appropriately called BidCo. Over a year ago, Mr Crombie assembled a group of interested business people and activists from all walks of life who shared one common goal: to attract the Olympic Games to the city of Toronto. As a matter of fact, at that time Premier Harris also pledged his support.

Last April, the Canadian Olympic Association listened to the detailed bid proposal and agreed to support the Toronto plan. Mayor Lastman was also present in Calgary for the meeting and lent his enthusiastic support to Toronto's dream to host the Olympic Games.

To solidify the COA's decision, it was necessary for the city of Toronto council to pass a motion in support of the BidCo application and to sign an agreement with the COA. This approval was received in July of this year and the subsequent agreement created the new entity known as TO-Bid.

As I mentioned, one of the rules set by the International Olympic Committee is for the host city to have a guarantee from the senior level of government. This necessity is covered in the agreement that forged TO-Bid. I mention this during our debate because it is the driving force behind the necessity to have this agreement, as I mentioned, between the province and TO-Bid, and it's a stipulation called for by the IOC.

As you may expect, no enterprise of this magnitude can be successful without the efforts of hundreds and thousands of Ontarians, but more importantly, it must be led by community leaders who represent all facets of what makes a city vibrant, practical and economically viable. In this regard, we are fortunate to have Steve Hudson, chair of the board of Newcourt, in the key role as chair of the executive committee of TO-Bid. He is, of course, ably supported by Mayor Lastman, David Crombie and Carol Anne Letheren of the Canadian Olympic Association. Fourteen other key Torontonians make up the committee, and on them falls the onus of leadership and dynamics necessary for any successful enterprise.

The executive committee presides over subcommittees, and each subcommittee deals with a vitally specific area, including villages, venues, community relations, finance and administration, fundraising and others. This group is also supported by a board of directors of almost 100 significant individuals who cover the spectrum of human endeavours in the city of Toronto.

As many of you know, this is not Toronto's first try at hosting the Olympic Games, and there is a background of experience to call upon because of our initial attempt. The first bid did not receive unanimous support from the community, and a group known as Bread Not Circuses, funded by the city of Toronto council, journeyed to Tokyo to speak against Toronto's application. This unfortunate occurrence in effect sealed the doom of Toronto's hopes to sponsor the 1996 games, which went to Atlanta instead.

Ironically, the failure of the games to come to Toronto did not lead to a markedly better society, for we still have homeless people and food banks in our communities today. Nonetheless, David Crombie and his group of dedicated supporters learned a lesson and have taken steps this time to make the bid all-inclusive so that all elements of society can feel that their concerns are heard and met. For this I am thankful, and I believe that all members of the Legislature understand and share this approach this time around.

1010

Preparing a bid is no simple matter, and it requires not only the approval in principle of the public at large, but a great deal of money too. Under Steve Hudson, and with the cooperation of Jim Ginou, Paul Godfrey and others, a substantial effort is under way to raise the $40 million that is estimated to be needed to prepare and illustrate to the IOC delegates and the world that Toronto is serious and totally committed to presenting the best training facilities, venues and infrastructure for athletes that any city can provide. You can be sure that the world will be watching to see what improvements will be made to our infrastructure to best meet the demands, and the huge influx of competitors and spectators will require that. It's too early to guess at what changes will be made, but hopefully governments, citizens' groups, businesses, cultural organizations and the average Ontarian will all be pragmatic in support of what has to be built.

To ensure that our citizens enjoy the maximum benefits from bidding for and hosting the games, this bill includes clauses that call for agreements between the bid organizers and Ontario. Such an agreement was recommended in the report prepared in 1991 after the failure of the bid for 1996. I note that critics and supporters of that previously unsuccessful enterprise all contributed to the list of recommendations contained within the report. This list includes such varied names as Michael Shapcott of Bread Not Circuses, Jack Layton, Dick Pound and Carole Anne Letheren. My bill simply moves to enshrine this advice in law.

The agreement will promote the equitable distribution of venue sites across the province, as called for by this bill. The participation of Ontario's communities in the presentation of the games is an important way of welcoming the world to our diverse province.

The agreement will also contain a management plan, as suggested by the 1991 report. This plan will include methods for dealing with the daily activities involved in producing the bid and how the games should be administered.

As you know, I was appointed Ontario Olympics Commissioner in July by Premier Harris, with a mandate to support the bid to the fullest while protecting the interests of the Ontario taxpayers. May I gently remind the House that Toronto taxpayers are Ontario taxpayers too.

Toronto now faces strong competition from Beijing, Osaka, Monterrey in Mexico, and others. These competitors will challenge us to develop a technically superior bid that highlights Toronto's and Ontario's ability to deliver a memorable games. Once again, I believe this is attainable.

So I call upon the members, indeed my colleagues on both sides of the House, to unequivocally pledge their support for the 2008 summer games. The IOC, through the COA, calls for a sports and cultural legacy to be left behind upon the completion of the games, and this means equal opportunity for Ontario's towns and cities to participate and to build new facilities tied to the Olympics. Successful applicants will then be able to create opportunities to fund the sites to be built. There won't nor should there be any restrictions on creativity that may be used by potential applicants for the use of their community infrastructure.

The Olympic Games are universal in scope, and the Toronto bid should reflect the ability of our citizens to compete with the world when it comes to flair, innovation, messaging, volunteerism and presentation.

The rewards in pride are worth the efforts to win worldwide support. Perhaps I can best illustrate this by using the experiences of the Barcelona games in 1992 as a guide. That ancient Mediterranean port city in Spain has literally transformed its urbanscape in less than a decade, after years of decay. The city is still enjoying huge tourist influxes. Additionally, they now have a 21st-century commercial port facility, modernized rail service, new industrial sewers and a superb recreational waterfront.

Honourable members, I call today for your unanimous agreement that we may move forward together with the confidence that we too can make this possible. We can make the games ring and the world sing in harmony with us.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I rise today in support of the honourable member's motion and to perhaps give you some of the experiences that we've had in Kingston. Kingston, as you may know, is the only Ontario city that has so far enjoyed the Olympic experience, hosting the sailing events for the 1976 Olympics at that time. Let me just tell you a little bit about some of the pitfalls and some of the dos and don'ts that we were able to come up with.

Let me start by talking about the benefits. On an annual basis in the Kingston area, at the Kingston Olympic harbour, we still host about 10 international sailing events that bring sailors in from around the world. The main event I suppose is the annual CORK event, Canadian Olympic Regatta Kingston, in which 1,100 to 1,200 sailors take part annually in the regatta that takes place over a two-week time period. The economic benefits to our area and to the city are immeasurable. Of course, we like to boast that one of the reasons why the sailing events were held in 1976 in Kingston, outside of the province of Quebec, farther away from Montreal than Kingston is from Toronto, was the fact that we have the best sailing conditions in the summer, the best wind conditions that sailors need to make for attractive races. We, as a matter of fact, like to bill ourselves as the freshwater sailing capital of the world.

I first got involved in this in 1973 when, as a newly elected councillor in Kingston, I opposed the Olympic bid. I was one of only two councillors who opposed it, having been raised and brought up within about two or three blocks of the Olympic site.

The thing that turned it around, which Toronto has already had experience with, with respect to an earlier bid, was the mayor at that time immediately set up a post-Olympic users committee and had the broadest consultation possible under the chairmanship of the late Leonard Dover, a prominent business individual in the Kingston area, and they were able to allay many of the fears that individuals and organizations had about the Olympics.

As a matter of fact, through tremendous co-operation of the provincial government, the federal government and COJO, the Canadian Olympic Organizing Committee, a facility was built that was worth at that time some $7 million and is probably worth well over $15 million to $20 million today. The province paid for the land acquisition, the federal government paid for the harbour development, and the Olympic organizing committee paid for the onshore buildings.

What's extremely important is that there has to be strict financial controls. Many of us may still be paying for the Montreal Olympics in one way or another through our income taxes, but we in Kingston were the absolute benefactors of a $7-million facility without a penny of local taxpayers' dollars. The reason for that was that there were good financial controls. Nothing was being built or done in the Kingston area without the money in the bank to do it.

Second, I urge Mr Kells to be really true to the concept of inclusiveness, getting as many people involved as possible, and that he be just as concerned about the after-use of a lot of the Olympic facilities that will be with us for many generations to come, rather than just about the two- or three-week time period when the Olympics actually take place.

Others will speak to the other economic benefits of the Olympics, but I can tell you that it has placed Kingston on the map. We get sailors from around the world. The harbour itself is probably one of the most unusual sights, having as a backdrop the Kingston Penitentiary, which is certainly unusual for a sailing facility and a harbour-like setting.

We in Kingston feel we have the expertise to run the sailing events, the capital structures are there, and we would simply ask Mr Kells to speak on our behalf to the organizing committee, as I know has already happened, to make sure that the Olympics, if Toronto should be successful, are run in as economical a fashion as possible. I can tell you, sir, we have the expertise in the Kingston area, through our many thousands of volunteers who have run these competitions on an annual basis for the last 30 years, to run this kind of competition. All the capital facilities are in place, and I know we will do a bang-up job.

This will really put Toronto, Ontario and Canada once again on the map, and I too join the Olympic commissioner in urging all the members of the House to support this unanimously and to be sure that the people of Toronto and the people who will be using the facilities that may be made available for them afterwards are integrally involved in every step along the way. There has to be a united effort shown if we don't want to repeat what happened in Tokyo some six years ago.

1020

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to rise today to indicate my support for Bill 77, introduced by Mr Kells, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and the commissioner for the Olympics on behalf of the government of Ontario, and to say to him and to all members that as a member from Toronto, as he is, we look forward to Toronto hosting the 29th Olympic Games.

We agree that there is a tremendous opportunity here. I personally believe that, and I know many of my colleagues share that view. We will certainly give our support to this legislation and to the drive that's behind it. We do have some concerns that I want to speak a little bit about, but I also want to say very clearly that we raise those concerns in the light of seeing the tremendous opportunity that lies ahead.

Whenever any venture of this kind comes on the horizon, there are two ways in which you can approach it. You can approach it by saying: "It's going to cause disruptions. It's going to cause problems. Therefore, here are 55 reasons why you shouldn't do it." Or you can approach it in the way that I believe we should and the way in which the Olympic committee organizers are approaching it, which is to say: "This is a tremendous opportunity. There are a number of issues and a number of concerns that have to be addressed. Let's see how we can address those in the most inclusive way, in a way that deals with those issues up front in the early stages of the process by bringing people into the process and by ensuring therefore that as the bid goes forward, it has not just the formal support of the different levels of government but indeed the broad support of the citizens of Toronto particularly and of the province as a whole."

I would agree that while the games would be hosted principally by Toronto were we to be successful in this bid, the glory, the glamour, the benefit that would come from that would not stop at the city boundaries of the new city of Toronto. It's with that spirit that I stand today to indicate my personal support and I believe that of many members of our caucus, those who will be able to be here to express their own support for this bill.

In terms of the legislation that's in front of us, I would echo what Mr Kells said in terms of the requirement that one of the things that happens is that there be a guarantee of support from the senior level of government; in this case, the province of Ontario. Obviously, that could have happened without a bill such as this coming in because the government can indicate its support in the House and outside of the House simply as a matter of policy. I say that as a way of showing that I appreciate that we have this bill in front of us. I think it's even more significant if we are able, as I believe we will be able this morning, to show that there is not just the formal support of the province's government, which is important and necessary, but the support of members of the House from all parties. I believe this bill will succeed in doing that. I thank the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for bringing forward this bill because it does give us that opportunity to formalize that support here in this Legislative Assembly.

There are some issues that we want to raise. I don't think these are issues that are strange to people. They are issues which the Olympic committee organizers are well aware of. I hope and believe that they will pay attention to them. But there are also things to which the government will need to pay attention.

During the Olympic period we're going to need some additional housing. We want to make sure that as the planning for that takes place, we don't get ourselves in the situation where we displace people who might be now in certain types of accommodation. That's an issue that has to be addressed carefully. We want to see that as new housing is built, if such is the case - and I presume some will have to be done - there are then provisions for that housing stock to be made available in an affordable way to people following the Olympics. I would say that in terms of all facilities. I agree with Mr Gerretsen in his comments about the experience in the Kingston area and that one of the most important pieces of this is how we approach what will happen to the facilities after the Olympics. That has to be kept very much in mind.

We of course would want to see and hope that the staffing for the various jobs that will be available will follow the principles of employment equity, and that the diversity that we have in our population will be reflected. We want to make sure the Olympic facilities, as I believe will need to be done, will be accessible to the disabled, and that another aspect of accessibility is also dealt with. That is the availability of tickets to people here locally. In some of these worldwide events, that is an issue that continues. I remember in the last major world sporting event, the World Cup in France, there were some concerns around the issue of tickets and how those were being made available in terms of balancing the need to make them available worldwide and also to the local communities.

Obviously, we believe that in any new development with respect to the Olympic facilities, the new environmental technologies need to kept very much in mind, and can be, in terms of what's possible, using that as a showcase for what can be done and what can be built in a way that looks to the future.

There is the whole issue of accountability in terms of the dollars that are spent, predominantly private dollars, but also to the extent that public dollars will have to be spent, and I expect that at the end of the day some will have to be spent, there must be clear accountability guidelines and, with respect to accountability, this continuing approach which we are heartened to see has begun between the formal committee and the rest of, not just the politicians at different levels, but indeed the broad citizenry.

If that happens and that continues, I believe that whatever concerns people have can be dealt with in a way that they can be addressed constructively, up front, early on in the process. They will not then become the barriers and the obstacles that will lead, as happened in the past, to certain groups being diametrically opposed, and to some extent that playing some factor in terms of the decision being made at the end of the day as to whether Toronto will receive the games or one of the other cities competing for the Olympics will receive the games.

As I say, I see this as a tremendous opportunity for the Toronto area, for the province of Ontario and for Canada. I am heartened by what has happened to date. I have some concerns about what will happen from here on in, but I am confident and optimistic that those concerns can be addressed if the goodwill we have seen so far continues.

I encourage that goodwill to continue formally by the committee organizers and the members and the leadership of that committee, and certainly Mr Kells, in his capacity as the Ontario Olympics Commissioner, to continue to oversee and to make sure the government support - and indeed what I hope will be the Legislative Assembly support that he will be able to take forward if we pass this bill today - is continued in that spirit of collaboration, cooperation, and the very open approach to dealing with the concerns and problems up front early on so that we can all be proudly part in 2008 of having said we were fortunate to have an opportunity to indicate and lend our support in the early stages for this very important event.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It is a pleasure to rise today and speak about Bill 77.

Before getting into the bill, I'd like to congratulate the Premier on his choice of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore as the Olympics commissioner. The commissioner's ongoing dedication to sports, whether it be lacrosse or hockey, I know from personal experience. I owe him a personal thanks because it had been 11 years before coming to this Legislature, and I was convinced into getting the blades on and playing hockey again. I owe that to Commissioner Kells, and I want to thank him personally for that.

When the Olympics issue first came forward, I tried to think about how very specifically I could find some events that Toronto may not be able to avail to the Olympics so that we could bring it outside of Toronto and look at something. I started doing some research and found something that quite honestly was of question. The shooting events, the Olympic trap or the Olympic skeet, were the first events that came to mind that I didn't think Toronto had the facilities for. When I started doing research, I found that they were actually allocated outside of Toronto because they could not provide that facility within Toronto.

At that time, I looked through the local clubs and facilities and found that the Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club was extremely supportive of having the ability to provide those facilities outside during the 2008 Olympics.

1030

Along with that, there were requirements for training facilities. Within that area, mostly in the riding of the member for Durham East, Mr O'Toole, there were both the Oshawa club and the other, the Orono Fish and Hunt Club, the Port Perry club and the Pickering Rod and Gun Club, all within about 20 minutes. Part of the requirement for a site is having alternative sites and training sites. These sites offered the ability to perform those events as training events outside and still have the Oshawa site as a main location.

When I checked, I found that the actual site that was put forward by the original commission was the Borden site, and to my knowledge, they did not have any of the requirements for skeet and trap at that location, although I could be corrected.

When I approached the Oshawa club, there was overwhelming support for bringing the events to Oshawa, not only from the club itself but from the industry as well. At that time I brought the commissioner out to Oshawa to see the facility and what was available there.

There were certain requirements for parking, for seating etc, and the Oshawa club has most of those facilities available at this time to comply with the Olympic requirements, which is something that will certainly help promote and bring an Olympic event to the Oshawa community and help the process along, in that the site may be fully available already.

Not only was there support from the club, but the commissioner who saw the facility was rather impressed with all the requirements that they currently were able to fulfill, and also the local chamber and the economic development office were fully supportive of bringing the events to Oshawa.

There are some of the effects the Olympics will bring: for example, a $2.7-billion impact will result from planning and construction activity from the operation of the Olympic Games and from visitors who come to Ontario for the games. Another thing I'd like to mention is the fact of 30,000 person-years of employment in the three to five years leading up to and through the games, and some of the things the member for Kingston and The Islands said about the ongoing support and having the facilities available.

I think that the Calgary example, about the Winter Olympics that took place there, and the training facility that was utilized for the bobsled team and built in Calgary has shown that in future Olympics those sorts of facilities brought to Ontario will certainly help in the long run; not only that but ongoing events and sponsoring international events will help a lot of the other communities around.

One thing I would like to emphasize - I know there are other members of our caucus who would like to speak, so I'm going to be very brief - is on page 2 of the bill, subsection 3(1), "The desire to host a part of the Olympic Games is one of the ultimate forms of support; Ontario represented by the members of the elected assembly confirms that all municipalities may offer their communities and facilities as potential sites for use as practice sites or venues during the games." I think that in itself will certainly help promote bringing all the events, and I think this aspect may help all events be spread around the province, because truly it will be the province that benefits from hosting these events.

I thank the member and I congratulate him. I hope all members support this, because I think it is going to be a huge benefit for the province.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to join with the other members in supporting the Olympic bid and supporting the act. I guess all of us have had experience with Olympic programs. One of those was with our family in Montreal, and it was a totally memorable experience for all of us, something we still reflect on all these years later.

In Atlanta, one of my sons and I decided we would go down just on the spur of the moment and drove all night one Thursday night, arrived in Atlanta, actually found a motel room cheap - $55, I think - and attended events. Fortunately we were there on the magical Saturday when Canada won, I think, two golds and one silver in rowing, and we then went that evening to Olympic Stadium to see Donovan Bailey win that fantastic race. Although Atlanta was criticized for the games, for us it was a magical experience.

During the last bid by Toronto for the Olympics, as a member of the Legislature at the time, I had an opportunity to work as one of the people helping to encourage the bid, and I would say to Mr Kells that there were some very good things in that bid. One of the strengths of it was taking advantage of the enormous diversity in Ontario. Without a question of a doubt, we are blessed in this area to have people living here who have come from virtually every country in the world and know, obviously, many of the important IOC members personally. I hope that the bid committee once again involves the entire community and takes advantage of the enormous opportunity we have to bring the world to Toronto to see this rich diversity.

I'm also supportive because it is an opportunity for Toronto, but I might say for all of Ontario, to look at itself and at the strengths and weaknesses of our social and cultural situation and our infrastructure and determine what things we need to change and improve. The bid will force us all to look at what things are working well here and what things aren't working well. I hope also that the bid does what I know we plan to do, and that is to ensure it's more than just a Toronto event. We happen to cottage in the Haliburton area and there is a terrific white water course there for kayaking and what-not. I would think that area could benefit. My colleague from Kingston and The Islands has already talked about Kingston. It is an opportunity to showcase the diversity of Ontario as well.

The final thing I would say is that I think it's important to recognize that there will be those who are not fully supportive of this bid for their own quite legitimate reasons. One of the challenges of the bid group will be to listen to those concerns, because they're legitimate concerns. I think people do worry, for good reason, about cost overruns and what the taxpayers will be left with. It's important for the bid committee to address those issues, to involve those people and to provide assurance on that.

I know that with the announcement that Beijing will be competing for the games the knees sag a little bit, because they will be a formidable competitor, but we're in a political environment and all of us have gone into proposals and elections where it may look like we're a little bit behind, and things change. I hope that the committee's knees don't buckle at all at the fact that Beijing is competing and that they will simply say, "Listen, that just makes us work a little bit harder," because things, times and events change.

I look forward to being as helpful as I can to the bid committee, and I have already said that in writing many months ago. I'm supportive of it. As I say, I hope we do not ignore the voices that have some concerns about it and that we address those legitimate concerns, and that we take advantage of what I think is perhaps our greatest strength in this bid, and that's the rich cultural diversity we have here where we can speak to IOC members and say, "Listen, there's no where in the world where your athletes will feel more at home and more welcome than in Toronto and in Ontario." I'm pleased to lend my support to this private member's proposal.

1040

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On behalf of our caucus, the NDP caucus, I would like to add my voice in support of this bill. First of all, congratulations and best wishes to the member who brings forward the bill. I think it's an important issue, not only for the city of Toronto and the benefits it will give to Toronto economically, but for the province as a whole, both economically and also to enhance our ability to train athletes, to get people involved more keenly in sports themselves.

I want to make two points. I want to add this to the record because when we get them, there's always a legacy after the Olympics and that's what I want to speak to.

The first thing is that we know we're going to have to build some sort of Olympic village or find some way to accommodate the athletes once they come to Toronto. The only thing I would caution the committee about when doing that is that whatever housing arrangements they make for the athletes, it should be done in a way that we can then convert those units to rental units, hopefully non-profit, back into the city of Toronto. We know that we have a housing shortage here in Toronto. As a matter of fact, because of rent decontrol we saw rents go up 7%, and the reason is very simple: There are not a lot of apartments out there. If we get the Olympics, I think it's an opportunity to build some much-needed non-profit housing, and we need to do that in a way so that we know we can convert it easily afterwards.

The second point is that one of the great strengths Toronto has is the ethnicity of the city. We have people from all around the world who reside in our cities and participate in our communities. I just would want us to reach out to all of those people to make sure that our bid attempt really puts forward the face of Toronto, which is very diverse when it comes to various cultures of this world.

With that, I would like to wish the member good luck, and I look forward to having the Olympics come to the city of Toronto.

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague Mr Kells for the great work he's doing on behalf of Ontario as the Ontario Olympics Commissioner.

I am pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill 77. This legislation endorses the Toronto Olympics bid and asks that all municipalities in Ontario also support the bid. It makes sense.

I am wearing a pin today, and I notice that many other members here are wearing the same pin, for the bid by Toronto for the 2008 Olympic Games. I think it was a very nice touch of Mr Kells to provide us all with those pins today.

My wife, Meredith, and I were very involved in the 1996 bid by Toronto. I know from that experience that if Toronto is going to be successful in this bid for the 2008 games, the province must be supportive, and seen to be supportive right from the outset. This is obviously what is going on in this House today and I'm glad to see such support, and it's important that it get registered very quickly.

I was in Tokyo, along with my wife, and we could see that support by all aspects of a jurisdiction is very important. We were particularly impressed with the support that Atlanta had from all aspects of life in that region.

Had Toronto been successful in winning the bid for the 1996 Olympics, I want us all to think of the facilities that would now be in place around Ontario. There would be sports facilities, housing, more transportation, as well as the spinoff jobs that would have been created. Think about it, because it is possible that the economic downturn we experienced in Toronto and in Ontario in the early 1990s would not have been as severe as it was had we had the added economic activity that the Olympic Games would generate. Certainly Atlanta's gain was Toronto's loss.

From an economic standpoint, it is a win-win situation for Ontario and Toronto to have the 2008 games. An estimated 30,000 jobs in the three to five years leading up to the games would be the result.

Tourism is an important part of our economy. A city of Toronto report which was prepared in February 1998 estimates that 20,000 jobs in the hospitality and retail sectors will be generated. Think of the added long-term advantage that the exposure generated by the Olympics will have for Ontario. Olympic viewers around the world would see all that Ontario has to offer because, as previous speakers have said, this will not only be for Toronto, it will be for all of Ontario and the venues.

It is estimated that the economic impact generated from the games, if we were to be successful in achieving them, would be approximately $6 billion - a large amount of money. That also represents a large number of jobs for Ontarians.

I'm a great believer in the value of sports and physical activity for young people - for older people too, of course, but I want to emphasize just what it does for young people: It provides them with competition - our world is now full of competition; it embodies the desire to do your best - we need the brightest and the best people in Ontario; it develops team spirit - all people are members of the Canadian team; and it embodies the will to win. I think that exposure to the Olympic experience is a gift to our youth that we can give to them by getting these games.

I know all this because my son Brian participated as a rower in the 1988 and 1992 Olympic Games. The entire experience he had made a tremendous impression on him. It made him focus on his life and on his goals. One of those he has now achieved by becoming a lawyer. I'm not so sure this would have happened without that Olympic experience. This will happen for all of our youth. There's an enormous amount of work that goes into preparing for the bid process, and there are many factors that make up a winning bid. A great many volunteers give unstintingly of their time, and the Olympic committee and all those involved deserve our official support and our moral support as well.

Of course, there are concerns about the impact of a project of this magnitude on our communities and how we will balance the needs of Ontarians against the pressures of a project of this size. However, due to my good friend David Crombie's hard work and his committee's hard work, extensive consultation and research have been done. I'm confident that if we are successful, everyone will benefit in Ontario.

I'm proud of Ontario and of what we have to show to the world. I can think of no better way to showcase Ontario than to host these Olympic Games in the greater Toronto region.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I also want to speak in support of the bill presented by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in support of the XXIX Olympics here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. After all, we have been told by the world that we are the best country to live in. I believe that Toronto, Ontario, has participated in and contributed on a very large scale to this title that we all enjoy. Indeed, we deserve it. I think Toronto deserves to lead the world in 2008 to have the summer Olympics.

I congratulate the commissioner, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, for very promptly presenting this bill to the House and getting the support of all members. As the commissioner, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore knows, we have some hurdles with respect to the agreement between the province and the city of Toronto. That entails some commitment on both parts, especially in the economic area, where even though we may not say that we don't want to trouble the people of Ontario with debt and stuff like that, I believe it's an area where we should be looking at contributing money and making sure we get the 2008 Olympics here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is our way of supporting not only the actions of the commissioner, but also the members of the IOC, to have a very successful bid and bring the Olympics to Toronto.

They are played in the summertime, of course, and it is a time when we are going to have many economic benefits. Especially during the summer a lot of our young people, students, look for summer jobs, and other jobs will be created; I'm sure long-term jobs will be created as well. It will be an opportunity for us here in Toronto and in Ontario.

I encourage the commissioner to include the active participation of the other regions, the other municipalities, and make this not only a Toronto event but an Ontario event as well. We not only have wonderful natural beauty here in the summertime, I have to say that within an hour or an hour and a half, we also have wonderful ski hills, where we could show the rest of the world what we have in Ontario. Of course, we have the wonderful mountains in western Canada, but I think Ontario also has wonderful winter activities. In support of my members, we have natural facilities, natural beauty all the way from Kingston and the Islands, the Bay of Quinte, to Niagara Falls.

1050

This would be a wonderful opportunity to say yes, to offer our support to the member and this bill, to the city of Toronto, and to the committee that is doing great work in trying to bring this Olympic bid to a successful conclusion. I think we are ready; we are ripe. We are already on the world map, but this will be the icing on the cake and show exactly who we are, what we are and show this part of Ontario, Canada, and Toronto, show what we really represent.

I believe that it already has been mentioned that we should do a couple of things to improve our situation, especially with respect to housing, but all in all I support the bill. I congratulate the member. Let's hope all members will do the same.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm pleased to be able to speak on this bill today. It is a good PR bill, I think; it's a feel-good bill. I'm glad to see the provincial MPPs discussing the Olympic bid so it doesn't just remain a discussion in Toronto. Obviously, for a massive undertaking such as an Olympic bid, we need to have all levels of government in support, we desperately need that, and we need all Ontarians to be supportive and for all Ontarians to see the benefits to them, not just Toronto. That's one of the reasons why I'm glad to have this before us today.

One of the main reasons why I support the bid is that I see it as an opportunity for Ontario - I'm speaking as a Toronto member - to get some infrastructure that we badly need, that could take years and years or perhaps never be, in this city and across the province that will be of lasting benefit for Ontarians. That includes, which some of my colleagues talked about, affordable housing, which we badly need, and sports facilities for communities, which we badly need.

What I don't want to see is an event that makes a lot of money for a few and at the end of the day - I'm sure none of us want this - the taxpayers, we, the citizens, are left holding the bag without a whole lot of benefits back to the community, that lasting legacy. That is absolutely critical. The finances of this and the community involvement are of absolute importance.

One thing I want to speak to briefly is the environment. When things are being built in a hurry and we have a deadline, the environment can suffer as a result. What I would like to see - in fact, it would be critical from my point of view - is that the bid should have a plan to construct the Olympic facilities and operate the games in a way that does the least possible harm, in my view there should be no harm, to the environment, and which uses cutting-edge environmental technology. This is critical because, particularly with the massive environmental deregulation we have seen over the past few years, when it comes to environmental protection it is really important that for this kind of massive undertaking we have that built right into the bill.

For instance, I'm concerned about the latest government proposal, and I'll be fighting it, which has something to do with what's called "inert fill." The government has proposed changes to that in allowing certain fill that used to be considered contaminated now to be considered not so contaminated. The idea is that now, if this passes, you can move contaminated soil from a site, say, in Toronto to an industrial site which may not be contaminated, but under these proposals that fill could be moved to a site which doesn't have any contamination. It could be moved there just because it's an industrial site.

Those are the kinds of things we have to look out for, that in the rush to get things built and in place, we don't ignore the environment and again, down the road, leave our children and our grandchildren with a terrible legacy of cleaning up the environment as the result of rushed and very bad planning.

I support this bill today. I, personally, and my party, the NDP, have bottom lines for this bid. I believe David Crombie has been doing a great job and I believe his goals are similar. We would all agree that David Crombie is very inclusive. He is working very hard to make sure all of the players, all of the citizens have a say in how our Olympic bid should look. Thank you very much.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Let me first say thank you to the member from Etobicoke and the commissioner of the Olympics for allowing me to speak to this bill.

They say it's only a dream until you write it down; then it's a goal. I suggest to you that with the legislation that is being presented today, it's a goal. It has been written down and it is the goal that we want to make sure happens in this province. The goal is not only the future of Toronto; it's also the future of the small rural and urban communities across this province if we indeed get the summer Olympics.

What better place than Ontario. What a great venue for these games. All of these communities will benefit not only from an economic standpoint but from renewable local pride, human resource development, partnerships and sports and youth development. The naysayers will project all kinds of negative thoughts but, in the long run, who will benefit from these games coming to our province and to Toronto? The people who will benefit are Ontarians. The people who will benefit are those who participate in these games.

Look what happened in Atlanta when they sold in excess of 71% of their tickets: new highways, new sports facilities, a new city core, improved public transit, improved infrastructure, new and upgraded community recreation facilities. That will happen not only in Toronto but in many of the host communities across this province. There will be an infusion of millions of dollars into the Ontario economy through tourism and related employment, something to the tune of 90,000 person-years between 1998 and the year 2008. We will establish a network of volunteers which will outsize the volunteers who took part in the winter Olympics in Calgary.

The benefit to communities such as Peterborough, my own community, my riding in the heart of the beautiful Kawartha Lakes area, cannot just be counted in dollars; we have to look at the human aspect of this whole event as well.

Peterborough has made a proposal to the Olympic committee to have the Olympic youth camp in Peterborough. This is an international leadership opportunity for young persons from all over the world. In this community alone it will allow 500 to 600 teenagers to participate in the best of the Olympic values, ideals and spirit. Youth would be part of a 10-day event where they would participate in working groups, with challenges on such themes as environmental concerns, global issues, personal skills and sports.

With this type of showcase, a community such as Peterborough would experience worldwide exposure for future tourism and development. Certainly it would highlight the tranquil beauty of our area.

What of the other communities that have pledged their support for the games? Each community will be improved by its participation. The volunteer network that will be created will prepare all communities for future challenges. As I speak, the volunteer committee in Peterborough is having a meeting this morning.

As I said in the beginning, it's only a dream until you write it down; then it becomes a goal. Ontario's and Toronto's goal is to have the best Summer Olympic Games in the year 2008, and it will happen.

1100

The Acting Speaker: Mr Kells, you have two minutes.

Mr Kells: I rise to thank the honourable members on both sides of the House for their comments and for their support. It's very gratifying. I take it very seriously and I appreciate it.

Similarly, I take seriously the suggestions that things could possibly be better, or should be done better, than last time. I understand fully their concerns to protect the communities in Toronto and also to bring the communities outside of Toronto into the Olympic bid.

I know there are critics who claim that the disadvantaged in our society cannot and will not share either the celebrations or the lasting benefits that accrue from the games. My answer to this is that I am confident that it is within our power and ability to make this pursuit of world recognition an adventure that ultimately bestows benefits on all segments of the public profile. I really feel sincere and confident in that regard.

This bill, as you know, asks municipalities to pass motions in support on a volunteer basis. I will be contacting all the municipalities in Ontario as a result of this show of support today to indicate the all-party support and also to ask that they participate.

I've been around the province a bit already. I am willing to go anywhere and everywhere if requested by any member of the Legislature. Happily, I was down to Kingston early, and I feel confident that if we were to have the games tomorrow, Kingston could be ready almost overnight from a sailing point of view. I've been down to Oshawa, as the honourable member mentioned. I'll be going up to Wasaga Beach to look at a beach volleyball site. I've been in Halton Hills and I'll go to Haliburton.

By and large, I just want everybody to know that I do not make the final decisions, but our office will be eager to assess any site and offer suggestions.

GASOLINE PRICES PRIX D'ESSENCE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I move a resolution on the price of gasoline:

Whereas the gasoline pricing practices of large supplier/retailers continues to be a problem which threatens consumers with unreasonably high prices, and price increases timed to coincide with long weekends, and which undermines the important role played by independent gasoline retailers in Ontario; and

Whereas gasoline pricing is an issue of common interest to all Canadian consumers; and

Whereas ensuring fair competition in the marketplace is the responsibility of the federal government under the Competition Act; and

Whereas the federal report of the Liberal committee on gasoline pricing in Canada, the McTeague report, tabled in June, 1998, concluded that the current Canadian wholesale and retail gasoline market is not truly competitive and that competition has steadily lessened in recent years; and

Whereas the McTeague report recommended that the Competition Act be amended to provide better protection for consumers, and that the federal government immediately act to replace the criminal burden-of-proof model currently used in sections dealing with predatory pricing and price discrimination; and

Whereas the need for immediate action on the part of the federal government to restore competition to the gasoline marketplace has been expressed by Ontario consumers to the Consumer Watchdog Commission of MPPs, appointed in spring 1998 by the Honourable David H. Tsubouchi, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations; and

Whereas the federal Competition Bureau is of the opinion that no marketplace problems exist in the gasoline industry which violate the Competition Act as currently drafted and a private member's Bill C-235 sets out amendments to the Competition Act to address certain of these issues;

Be it resolved that this House and the government of Ontario should call upon the federal government to address this problem of national dimensions by amending the Competition Act to address pricing practices within the gasoline industry and appoint a special investigator to enforce the revised act to ensure that Canadian consumers benefit from competitive and transparent gasoline prices across this country.

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

Mr Rollins: I rise today as this motion addresses some of the concerns we have as far as the independent gasoline dealers throughout Ontario and the problems we have as consumers watching prices fluctuate all over the marketplace are concerned.

Today as we speak, in my riding of Quinte and in the Belleville area, gas from the major oil companies is selling at 43.9 cents a litre on the street. The wholesale price for gasoline out of the Toronto depot, the rack price with taxes rolled in, is 43.9 cents. If this is not detrimental to the independent dealers of this province, where there is no margin, there is nothing to put in - the last load of gas that was purchased at our station was 45.7 cents or 45.8 cents a litre, yet the competition - the major oil companies - is selling gas on the street at 43.9 cents. This is how the major oil companies are starting to put the squeeze on independent dealers across this province.

In 1992, the average gas price in Toronto was 53.26 cents; in Ottawa, it was 57.38 cents. There was a large variation in that. Today we have the same thing. In Sarnia, the price of gas today is 55 cents or 54 cents; in Barrie, it's around 54 cents or 55 cents. One of the reasons the market has been able to get away with this is because there are very few independent dealers in the Sarnia market. In 1992, 22.5% of the market in Ontario was independent dealers. In 1997, that had dropped to 18.2%. Now, in 1998, it has dropped to 17.3%.

Statistics right across this province and across Canada show that when we see the independent dealers removed from the marketplace there is only one thing that happens: It takes maybe a month or a month and a half, but then you see the price steadily increase, and then the major players sit there quite contented to sell their product equally down the street.

The federal government has looked into the pricing practices for a long time as far as the street price is concerned, but the street price is not the problem. The problem is that major oil companies have been allowed to produce product and sell it out of the refineries at no cost. They put it out in the tanks. They sell it and they price it after it goes into the consumer's tank. As long as they're allowed to do that, to put that price on the product after it's sold, then they're able to charge that dealer whatever they want. They can take the loss, and in that way the small independents are slowly pushed out of the marketplace.

I had the pleasure of being down in Charlottetown early this fall. That is one province that has priced gasoline.

Regardless of what the oil companies say, that they've been paying a lot higher price, I challenge anybody in this province who was able to buy gas all summer at 50.5 cents a litre across the province.

I know that Prince Edward Island is a very small place, but they took a stand and took the pressure and said: "OK, fine, we're going to have some control over the price. We've got to have some continuity, to be able to protect the individual and make sure that those people are not upset."

When we as a government started putting on a little bit of pressure, the main gasoline suppliers, who are Shell and Imperial and Sunoco and Petrocan, got together and spent $3 million to try to advertise to the public and say: "You're getting a good deal on oil prices. Look at what the price was back in 1957, look at what it was in 1960 and look at what it is today."

Those people are only interested in one thing: removing the competition from the marketplace. As long as that competition is in the marketplace, we as consumers have the opportunity to push for a little bit cheaper product in a fair market. But when the major oil companies decide they want to take hold and run out the independents, the Imperial Oil manager and the Shell Oil manager will stand up and say: "Well, we don't control the price. We only have 250 or 300 dealers across Ontario and we only set the price in 25% of them."

It's very nice for them to say that, but the 25% of the places they set the price in deal with about 80% of the total market. They don't set the price in a small station in Belleville, they don't set the price in a small place like Carrying Place; they set the price in downtown Toronto, where they go through millions of litres a day. That's where they have the input and the practices pushing that out on to the cost of the consumer.

1110

When you look at the independent retail gasoline marketers together, you have to compare a little bit once in a while to the United States. In the United States, Shell has 7% of the whole market, Mobil has 7%, Amoco has 7%, but here in Canada Esso has 22%, Petrocan has 17% and Shell has 16%.

When they control that much of the market, who is going to be the loser? I can tell you, the consumers of the province of Ontario are going to be the losers when the major oil companies have no competition from the independents to put the opportunity for choice in the marketplace when we fill up with gasoline.

Mr Speaker, you said you aged yourself because you can remember buying gas at 30 cents a gallon. I can remember selling it at 29 cents a gallon, so you and I must not be too far off.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I don't remember that.

Mr Rollins: Some of those younger people don't remember that. They don't even remember gallons. They know that small quantity called a litre.

When the Canadian petroleum industry and the institute pushed out their reports, they wanted to make sure they were proving to the public: "If we're fleecing you and giving you a bit of a price hosing at the pumps, it's not a bad thing. You're getting a good deal, because in Germany, in France and in Switzerland they're paying a lot more." Well, our consumers don't drive their cars in those places; they drive their cars here in Ontario.

I know that the McTeague report was an improvement and tried to have some input. The committee believed that predatory pricing does occur in the province of Ontario. The committee found that there was a coalition and that there were predatory pricing practices. Mr Manley decided he would accept that report and has said he would table it and appoint some people, but that report has been given absolutely no teeth. As far as the federal government is concerned, yes, it's nice to go out and allow the people to look at it.

What I would like to see happen with this resolution is to put some more pressure on the federal government to bring transparency to the pricing practices. When an oil company can stand and tell you that they have 113 pricing zones in the province of Ontario so that they can have good competition, is it fair that somebody in the Quinte area today is buying gas at 43 cents a litre to put in their tank and yet in other parts of Ontario people are paying 55 cents? I don't think that's a fair practice, not only in Ontario but anywhere in Canada. We're Canadians. We have a lot of our own product. We have to stand up and make sure that as consumers we're protected.

Also, the McTeague report and Mr Manley's report said the independents don't have a big voice. No, they don't have a big voice, because they're only small compared to the oil companies.

We had a tax bill brought in by this government not too long ago to try to bring in some fairness as far as the pricing of gasoline and the tax level was concerned. There again, the major oil companies aren't too enthused with it because they don't want to put the tax money they've collected from the consumers of Ontario into the bank account of the federal government, into the province of Ontario's treasury. They would like to use it for the 30 or 40 days for themselves. It may not be collecting a whole lot of interest, but it saves them writing out that big cheque for the tax man. For anybody else, when you buy something, it's paid for at that time.

Those are the kinds of things that we, as people who try to make the laws in this province, should push for to make sure that the consumers of Ontario are better protected by ensuring that we have the opportunity for independents, that we can have the opportunity to pull into any station that we see fit to and not kowtow to the major oil companies and the major markets of this province.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's a pleasure for me this morning to speak to this resolution from the member for Quinte, as I have been over the last almost two years speaking to this government about our concern with gasoline pricing in the province of Ontario.

I want to point out just a couple of things in the few minutes I have. The resolution certainly encourages the federal government to make recommendations that there be revisions to the Competition Act. We would all be supportive of any revisions that can be made that will make the Competition Act more binding on the major oil companies to price gasoline.

But the member for Quinte spent a significant amount of time talking about the independents, and we too are concerned about where it leaves the independent gasoline retailer in this province. The member should know, the Competition Act aside, that pricing is under the control of the province. If the government were really serious about the peril of the independent dealer in the province of Ontario, they would be looking at predatory pricing, because that is under their jurisdiction.

It's interesting to note that again a lot of reference has been made to the McTeague report. I attended those hearings and made a presentation to the committee. I point out today that in the government's concern over gasoline pricing, to my knowledge at least, having checked with the federal member, no government member appeared before that committee. I would have encouraged that at the time and I think it would have been helpful if they had brought the concerns of the province to that committee and been supportive in that way.

Having said that, though, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is supposed to look after the consumers of this province, has appointed the commission, the gas-busters, as they're better known, but that's very limited in its scope and its ability to do much of anything. If the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations were serious about this issue, I would have hoped it was not left to private members' business, because as we know, it doesn't have the opportunity to get the full debate that a resolution brought by the government before the House would have had.

Another thing the government of the province of Ontario can look at, that it has under its control, is that we are the second-highest-taxed province in the Dominion of Canada when it comes to gasoline pricing. The government can show leadership, if they really have the consumer at heart, by looking at gasoline taxes in Ontario, particularly where they could be used to benefit northern Ontario.

I have on record from one of the Ministry of Finance people that not one red cent from gasoline taxes is specified to go towards highway construction, for example. In other words, it goes into the general fund, into the general account, and is used in a number of ways. The government, if they didn't want to reduce gasoline taxes, could certainly specify that a certain amount of gasoline taxes would go into highway improvement in the province of Ontario.

The resolution that's before us today is similar to the McTeague report, and I suggest, although it may not say that specifically, that it supports that. As I said at the outset, I think we all support the fairest gasoline prices in the province that we could have.

But we've been at this now a year and a half. In fact, I quote from a Toronto Star report in August 1997, where "The Premier said if the federal government won't do so, Ontario will go it alone to get the answers, he vowed," as he was outraged after we had brought the gasoline pricing issue up in the House that day.

The Premier also said in another report, I believe in the Globe and Mail, "I think the federal government should show leadership, but I am certainly prepared to lead the way with the other provinces. And if we have to, at the end of the day, we will go it alone, but we will have more impact if we go together."

All I'm saying is, I encourage the province of Ontario to do what it can in its jurisdiction, and that we also press for any violation of the Consumer Protection Act to be looked at by the federal government.

1120

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ça fait combien de débats ? Ça fait au moins deux ou trois débats auxquels je peux penser dans l'année passée, et on a encore un projet de loi qui vient ici le jeudi matin pour demander qu'on fasse quelque chose en ce qui concerne le prix du gaz dans la province.

Chez nous, dans le nord de la province, le prix du gaz est beaucoup plus élevé comparé avec le sud de la province. Vous savez que cela représente un problème.

Ce que je trouve intéressant, c'est qu'on a encore un membre du gouvernement conservateur qui vient ici aujourd'hui avec une résolution, puis il faut croire que ce membre est honorable et que, franchement, il essaie de faire quelque chose pour résoudre le problème. Mais il n'y a pas d'action. Ça fait pas mal longtemps que ce gouvernement est en place. Ça fait au-dessus de trois ans et demi, puis ils n'ont fait quasiment rien quand ça vient à trouver des solutions au prix du gaz.

Pourquoi ? C'est très simple. Le prix du gaz est réglementé par le gouvernement fédéral. Ce qu'on a besoin de faire, si on est très sérieux comme députés provinciaux, pour être capable de contrôler le prix du gaz, c'est convaincre notre gouvernement fédéral de prendre sa responsabilité et de trouver des solutions.

On sait ce que c'est, le problème. Le problème est bien simple: les compagnies de gaz se mettent ensemble puis ils disent : «Écoutez, nous, on veut faire plus de profits. On va jouer avec les prix. On va s'entendre pour être capables de tous élever les prix à un certain temps. On va jouer avec les conditions du marché et on va faire un plus gros profit quand ça vient à l'argent qu'on fait du gaz.»

Mais à la fin de la journée, c'est le gouvernement fédéral qui a besoin de prendre cette responsabilité, parce que ça tombe sous les responsabilités du gouvernement fédéral.

Là, comme politiciens provinciaux, il y a certains parmi nous qui disent, «On veut faire quelque chose.» Je veux dire encore que le membre conservateur qui amène cette motion est honorable. Il essaie de faire la bonne affaire. Mais le point que je veux faire est que c'est une responsabilité fédérale. Combien de libéraux de la province de l'Ontario sont élus au gouvernement fédéral ? Tout le gang bien proche, à l'exception d'un seul. Est-ce qu'on ne peut pas avoir dans ce gang-là un couple de libéraux qui vont voir M. Chrétien pour dire, «Écoutez, on veut avoir une réponse pour ce qui est un vrai problème dans le nord de l'Ontario, comme dans le sud, et on veut trouver des solutions. Monsieur Chrétien, on vous demande d'agir.» ?

Moi, je n'entends pas Réginald Bélair, mon député fédéral, parler de cette question. Je n'entends aucun député fédéral en parler. Les seuls que j'entends parler, ce sont les députés ici à l'Assemblée provinciale parce qu'ils essaient de trouver des solutions, puis on n'a pas les outils.

Le seul temps que quelque chose a été fait sur le prix du gaz ici dans la province, la seule action de la province, c'était sous le gouvernement de Bob Rae. Notre gouvernement en 1990 - vous le savez, monsieur le Président - avait dit après les élections qu'on était pour ôter les frais d'utilisation sur les plaques de nos automobiles.

On avait fait ça pour le monde du nord de l'Ontario parce qu'on a réalisé, comme députés du nord, que le prix du gaz était entre 10 et 12 cents de plus le litre comparé au sud de la province. Notre gouvernement a dit : «On ne peut pas réduire le prix du gaz. Ce n'est pas nous autres qui le faisons. On ne peut pas réglementer les compagnies de gaz, parce que c'est une responsabilité fédérale. Mais on a un choix. On peut essayer possiblement de réduire les taxes sur l'essence», comme l'autre député l'a mentionné, ou on pourrait faire ce qu'on a fait pour le monde du nord : ôter les frais d'utilisation sur les plaques. On a choisi de faire ça. Ça veut dire que pendant le temps de notre gouvernement, pendant cinq ans, si on demeure dans le nord de la province, on ne paie pas les frais d'utilisation pour ses plaques chaque année.

C'était le gouvernement de Mike Harris, quand ils ont été élus en 1995, qui ont remis en place ces frais d'utilisation. Loin de faire quelque chose de positif pour aider sur le prix du gaz, monsieur le député conservateur, c'était votre gouvernement qui a rechargé les frais d'utilisation sur les plaques.

Je comprends qui vous avez un problème, je comprends que vous voulez que quelque chose soit fait et j'ai deux suggestions pour vous : Un, allez parler à Mike Harris et à son cabinet et convainquez-les d'agir là où ils en sont capables comme province ; par exemple, comme nous l'avons fait, d'éliminer les cotisations pour les plaques. Ou, deuxièmement, essayez de convaincre Mike Harris - et nous dans le parti NPD, allons vous aider sur cette question - de se mettre ensemble pour aller voir M. Chrétien à Ottawa pour dire: «Vous avez une responsabilité. C'est un problème dans notre province, et on exige que notre gouvernement fédéral fasse quelque chose pour réglementer les compagnies de gaz pour qu'elles s'arrêtent de nous escroquer sur le prix du gaz qu'on achète à la pompe.»

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): First of all, I want to thank Mr Rollins for bringing forward this resolution. He is a member I have a tremendous amount of respect for. He has an awful lot of experience and expertise in this particular area.

His resolution speaks to the issue we've heard about consistently around this province, not just since this government's been around but previous governments as well, an issue of gas pricing and how gas prices rise consistently before long weekends and fall afterwards. It's a consistent volatility price issue and we've heard it for a number of years.

We have also heard, and we are all aware in this Legislature, that competition in the marketplace is the responsibility of the federal government through the Competition Act. We have also heard in his resolution that it speaks to the McTeague report, which is by a Liberal committee that talked about gasoline pricing. It went around the provinces and heard from other people about gasoline prices. They stated quite unequivocally in their report that the retail gasoline market is not truly competitive and that competition has steadily lessened in recent years. We can all attest to that.

As a matter of fact, yesterday I spoke with an independent retail gas station owner in my riding who told me that he drove from Windsor to Hamilton the previous day, and in Windsor gas prices were about 55 or 56 cents all across the city. That's because there are no independents there. In Hamilton yesterday we were experiencing prices around 44 or 45 cents, so there's quite a difference in pricing across the province.

The McTeague report also recommended that the Competition Act be amended to provide better protection for consumers, and we fundamentally agree with that recommendation.

I might also say that when you talk about this issue, it's not, as I said, an issue that is unique to this term of government; it's an issue that's been ongoing for a number of years. It's also not unique to this province. As the member said, in Charlottetown at the consumer ministers' conference this issue was discussed. It's an issue that's of concern to many people, not just in our area but in Newfoundland and New Brunswick.

The member for Essex South talked about regulating prices. They've regulated prices in PEI. What it's done is that it's stabilized prices, but they're stabilized in a high area and there's no competition - none whatsoever.

He also talked about the fact that the resolution would have been better coming from the government, but I'll say to him that a resolution from the government needs unanimous consent, and he knows that. When the minister brought it forward last year, the Liberals would not give unanimous consent. So it's not fair to say that when he knows full well it was his party that voted against it.

The member for Cochrane South talked about federal jurisdiction, and they understand. I must say to their credit that the NDP understands that it is federal jurisdiction. It's their responsibility to look at gas prices.

I urge all members in this House to vote in favour of this resolution. One of the best things I think we can do is send a message to the consumers to shop the independents, go to the independent gas stations, support them. Send a message to the big guys that we want competition in the marketplace.

1130

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm delighted to rise today to support once again the motion standing in the name of my friend from Belleville. I've never known a Rollins who didn't know a lot about the oil business. He has brought forward a resolution that I think we've seen before, Doug. This is pretty well the one, I think, that we had a year and a half ago. It doesn't change the fact that it's an important resolution. I want to take a few moments this morning to talk a little bit about the concern that a number of other members have also identified.

I represent a large part of rural eastern Ontario. We have no TTC, we have no OC Transpo, we have no public transit of any kind - I should correct that. We have a public system, sort of, in the city of Pembroke, but it's under some review at the present time and it's been changed to a private operator, essentially, running the Pembroke city transit. But by and large, if you live in communities like Petawawa or Deep River or Renfrew, which are the towns in the county, there is no public transit, and certainly if you're one of the tens of thousands of people who live in places like Barry's Bay and Rolphton and La Passe and Beachburg and Griffith, there is no public transit.

There's not even a bus in many of those areas. So you depend on your half-ton truck and you depend on your car. That's absolute reality for the vast majority of the people I represent, and I'm not alone. Mr Danford represents an area, north Hastings, which is very similar, and I'm sure the member for Chatham-Kent knows what of I speak for his rural constituency.

When we talk about gasoline, we're talking about a subject that touches on the vitals of the daily Canadian experience, whether you live in rural Ontario or in rural Saskatchewan or in rural New Brunswick. That's why this subject is so important for legislatures, whether it be Queen's Park or New Brunswick or wherever.

I share the concern that other members have. The member from Hamilton is right to tell us there is some consumer preference that can be applied by going to support your local mom-and-pop operator, if you can figure it out. It's not always easy to figure out who's where any more in this business.

I was speaking this morning to a former member of the Legislature, the former member from Muskoka, who's in the business now up in Muskoka, and I was asking him how things were going. He had some very interesting things to say about dealing with one of the big oil companies. I'm not surprised because I've heard it, and we've heard it again this morning from Mr Rollins who's bringing forward this resolution.

Something else has changed, though, in the last little while and that's the consolidation that's occurring within the oil business. I brought yesterday's Wall Street Journal to make the point. It is 127 years ago, I think - it was in the early 1870s - that John D. Rockefeller created the famous Standard Oil cartel. Was it Standard Oil of New Jersey? It started out as that. The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting example of what became of those companies.

In the late 19th century, Rockefeller had something like 85% of the market for petroleum products in the United States, and governments at the state and particularly at the national level in the United States in the early days of this century said: "You're running a trust, you're running a cartel. We're going to break it up." The breakup was ordered I think in about 1910 or 1912. But isn't it interesting what's happening these days?

We heard this week that Exxon was going to be taking over Mobil. You'll be interested to know that they are both part of the old Rockefeller cartel. We heard again this week that the French multinational Total is buying out PetroFina. We heard just a few weeks ago that British Petroleum and Amoco, both again I think substantial products of the old Rockefeller cartel, are coming back together again. So what are seeing? We are all standing and saying, "God, let's support the mom-and-pop operator," and I agree, but is anybody noticing that John D. Rockefeller's cartel is coming back together again? If you think it was tough a year or two ago, or five or 10 years ago, what do you think it's going to be like if you're Doug Rollins out in Belleville or someone up in Cobden or Petawawa in my constituency when Exxon and Mobil get together? We are seeing a massive consolidation in this critical sector.

The Wall Street Journal tells me that this is good for consumers and, you know, if probably will be as long as crude oil prices are at their near-record lows. But I ask this Legislature and I ask the government, is anybody giving any thought to what this consolidation is going to mean over time, because it is now being reported that the other majors in the North American market, people like Atlantic Richfield and Chevron and a few of the others, can't sit still, that there's probably going to be even more consolidation.

So where does the average consumer and, more important, where does the small retailer stand in that scheme of things? It's not just in petroleum products.

One of the things that really concerns me about this current pork crisis is the situation where we're seeing pork prices at the farm gate dropping by 70% in the last 10 weeks, a 70% drop in the farm gate price in 10 or 12 weeks, and hardly a move on the retail price. What are we seeing at the retail end? Well, you've read it all in the last couple of weeks: Loblaws is buying Provigo; Sobey's and IGA are getting together. In central Canada the retail business in food is going to be very substantially consolidated, and what is that going to mean to a pork producer or any kind of a food producer in Renfrew or in Kent or in Oxford or in Perth or in Glengarry?

You've got to think that there's something wrong with this marketplace. I thought competition was something to be applauded, and I want to applaud, but as one of the representatives of the OFA said to us yesterday morning in our briefing, it seems that the primary instinct of competition these days is to eliminate competition. Whether it's in gasoline or petroleum products or whether it's in the retailing of food, I think this Legislature representing the broad community had better start to think about what kind of strategies we can reasonably develop and reasonably employ to give the average consumer of petroleum products or the regular consumer of food, and we're talking about critical staples that affect the daily lives of everyone, what we are going to do to bring some reasonable pressure to bear on conglomerates and cartels that are combining to develop market shares that in the areas of gasoline and petroleum products we haven't seen since the last days of the famous John D. Rockefeller.

That's why I want to support my good friend from Belleville for bringing this issue to the House, and I support the resolution again for those and other reasons.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It's interesting around here today. I've had a number of people ask me why I'm wearing the green tie that I have on. Some will remember -

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): He's Irish.

Mr Martin: No, it's the tie that we in this caucus wore almost a year ago today to object to the passing of Bill 160, the attack by this government on teachers, on trustees, on the school system.

Mr Wettlaufer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe the explanation given by Mr Martin, the member for Sault Ste Marie, means that his tie is a prop and it should then be removed.

The Acting Speaker: I won't go that far. You have the choice of colours that you can get today for ties. Look at mine.

The member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Speaker, which brings me to my point, which is that this government seems to have no difficulty, no sense of right or wrong when it comes to attacking public servants, teachers, the poor, the labour movement -

Mr Wettlaufer: We're talking about gasoline here.

Mr Martin: I'm getting to it - to move their agenda forward. But when it comes to their own friends, when it comes to the big business interests of this province, when it comes to those people who peddle gasoline in this province, there seems to be an interesting and obvious lack of intestinal fortitude, backbone.

I find it passing strange that this member should again, in front of an issue that is very concerning to all the constituents of all our ridings, be bringing forward a private member's resolution. Why doesn't your government take this bull by the horns and bring -

Mrs Ross: We did.

Mr Martin: You didn't. You didn't do a darn thing. There's nothing on the books, on the table, in this jurisdiction about gasoline prices from this government, not one thing. All you've done is point fingers at the federal government. All you've done is pass the blame. All you've done is continue that thing that you're doing these days, that mantra that you're doing these days: "We're not the government. We're here to fix the government."

Well, you are the government. Wake up. You were elected on June 8, 1995. We all know it only too well. You are the government. Have some intestinal fortitude. Have some backbone. Take on the big guys. Never mind the little guys in the playground. You're the bullies. You guys are showing yourselves to have the big muscles, ready to go out there and fight the labour movement and civil servants and trustees. How about the gasoline industry? What about the petroleum industry? Where is your commitment? What is that power? Where is that drive that the Premier has raised in North Bay and across this province?

1140

"We're going to take the gasoline prices on and we're going to bring them to their knees. We're going to tell them that it's not proper that on long weekends they should raise the prices before the long weekend starts, and then lower them again after the long weekend's over. We're going to take the petroleum industry to task," says the big, bad Harris Conservative government in Ontario. "We've shown them that we can take on the poor, we can take on the labour movement, we can take on the civil service, we can take on the very government of this province. But we can't take on the petroleum industry," because you've done absolutely nothing.

A whole lot of bombast and air and big talk and gas-buster commissions and people out there on long weekends, saying, "We're going to fight the good fight for our constituents," yet, at the end of the day, what do we have? Another private member's resolution; not even a bill that would tie your government to something that we could call your government on, to say: "Bring it forward, bring it on, table it, we'll discuss it. We'll pass it with all due haste in this place so that we can all together send a message to the petroleum industry," and in fact to all those other industries, which, as the member for Renfrew rightly suggested a few minutes ago, are coming together now to make ever-increasing profits on the backs of all of us.

But no, you won't do that. When it comes to actually fighting with somebody who has some power and strength, you back down. It's so typical of the bullies, so typical of that bully image that you've rightfully gained for yourself over the last three years. You'll take on the little guys, you'll take on the poor, you'll take on the single mothers, you'll take on the children on welfare, you'll take on the union movement, which has been the only institution that has done anything in this province to increase and improve the quality of life for the middle class over a long number of years, you'll take on the government that works on behalf of all of us to deliver programs, to make sure that everybody across the province receives equitable and equal service and access to education and health care, but you won't take on the gasoline industry.

It's interesting. In this place, every time this issue comes up - and it has been brought up on a number of occasions. I brought it up myself. As a matter of fact, I was the one who introduced the motion to have unanimous agreement to bring Ontario's voice to the gathering of ministers of consumer and commercial relations from across the country to say: "Let's deal with the gasoline industry. Let's tell them that they can't do this any more."

What did we get? We got a battle going on between the Ontario Tory government, which doesn't think it's the government any more, and the Liberals on this side of the House who want to protect their federal cousins because they know they have some responsibility too. Who loses in that? The consumer loses. Every time he loses.

I understand why the member across the way is bringing this resolution forward. If he's frustrated in his part of the province about this fluctuation up and down and the seeming lack of competition out there in the petroleum industry, particularly when it comes to the pumps and filling up your gas tank, I am as frustrated as he is. I wish we could do something. I know that you can. You're part of the government. You could bring this to your cabinet colleagues. They've done it in PEI. Prince Edward Island, the smallest province in the union, had the intestinal fortitude to say to the gasoline companies -

Mrs Ross: They have the highest prices across the country as well.

Mr Martin: It doesn't matter whether it's high or low. The point I'm making here is that they had the intestinal fortitude to meet with the gasoline industry and say, "Unless you do this, we're going to bring in regulation," and they did. The province has the power to bring in regulation to take care of this.

I know there is a bigger issue here that was referred to by the member from Renfrew, which is the issue of competition and the Competition Act. We know that's in the federal domain and that the federal government needs to move on that very quickly. When you look around at the banking industry coming together now and the petroleum industry coming together now, we really do need to take a look at the Competition Act so that in fact there is existing in Ontario and in Canada today a market system that is free, that allows for some competition, that allows for some entrepreneur to come forward and pick up on an idea or take a gift he has or something he's designed and put it into the marketplace and sell it and get fair return for the effort he's made.

But we know that more and more, as we allow the powers that be in the world today, the global economy, to take over Ontario and Canada, less and less of the marketplace is free, that fewer and fewer of our friends and neighbours and family members who want to get into business can really get into business with any expectation that they'll make a few bucks over time, because the sale of commodities is controlled by financial interests who are not actually interested in the selling of commodities; they're more interested in making money on selling the right to sell commodities. I think that's what you'll find when you get into the whole question of gasoline prices.

As I said today, I find it passing strange to be standing here once again in this place entertaining a resolution by a private member at private members' hour when he's part of a government that could do something. Not only that, I find it passing strange that he's bringing a resolution forward, not a bill. If he brought forth at least a bill, the House leader for the Liberals and the House leader for the New Democrats would be more than happy to bring it forward, debate it for second reading, bring it out for some discussion and bring it back here and pass it for third reading and do something.

This smoke and mirrors, this standing up in great splendour and making statements about how you're going to fight for the constituent and the little guy and the consumer, about how we're going to take on the petroleum industry, but then at the end of the day, nothing - it isn't going to sell. People in Ontario today are not that stupid. They're a bright bunch out there. They know, they can see through this, and they will see through this resolution here this morning.

I know that the member from Renfrew said he was going to support this. I have to tell you, I'm not sure whether I'll be supporting it or not, given the circumstances within which it has been presented, but I'll tell you, I'm listening this morning.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate with respect to this resolution, which essentially is dealing with fair gas prices and also dealing with the unreasonable removal of competition with respect to independent gas dealers. The bottom line is that this very same resolution was introduced in August 1997 by Minister Tsubouchi. He tabled a resolution which required unanimous consent to send a message to the federal government, which is responsible for gas pricing in this country. There wasn't unanimous consent, because the Liberal Party didn't give it in this House, so we couldn't send a clear message in August 1997 because the twins - the provincial Liberals and the federal government - didn't want to do anything about this.

The facts of this matter are very simple. The federal government is responsible for gasoline prices in this country. A report was put out by the private member, Dan McTeague, Report of the Liberal Committee on Gasoline Pricing in Canada, in June of this year. That was followed up by a response by the Minister of Industry, John Manley, to Dan McTeague, responding to the recommendations in the report and dealing with it. Clearly, the federal government is responsible for it. They're trying to deal with it at this point in time.

In response to that, as part of the watchdog commission, we put out a fair price policy at the retail gas pump. Quite frankly, we're doing all we can, from a provincial jurisdiction, to try to make sure that the federal government lives up to its obligations. We're not going to take the road of PEI, which has the highest gas prices in this country, and basically inflict meaningless price regulation where it's just going to harm the consumer. We're not about harming the consumer; we're about making sure that the consumers are protected. We know the federal government doesn't care how those consumers are protected.

This week, I sent a letter to the Honourable John Manley asking him to deal with this problem, because we have very specific problems we have to deal with. I basically started the letter off by saying: "I am pleased that the federal government has agreed that a detailed research of gasoline retail pricing is appropriate, and in particular that a steering committee will be drafting terms of reference for the study within the next month." The federal government, through the Minister of Industry, has acknowledged that they're responsible for gasoline pricing.

1150

I went on further and I said to Mr Manley: "In my riding of Simcoe Centre, which geographically encompasses Bradford-West Gwillimbury, town of Innisfil and the city of Barrie, gasoline pricing practices of large suppliers/retailers continue to be a problem which threaten consumers with unreasonably high prices, price increases timed to coincide with long weekends" - we all know we get gouged every long weekend and the federal government does nothing - "and in particular, predatory pricing practices related to high-traffic volume that result in my constituents paying gas prices substantially more than in other parts of southern Ontario."

The bottom line is that when the McTeague report came out from the federal government, they were basically looking at southern Ontario, acknowledging that gas prices in northern Ontario were far too high. What I said to Mr Manley is that in my particular area of Simcoe Centre, in the city of Barrie, we're paying higher gas prices than any other place in southern Ontario, and the prices are astounding in terms of what they range. As of the week of November 16, we were paying 55.7 cents per litre, whereas in Toronto they're paying 49.5; in Tillsonburg, in southwestern Ontario, they're paying 48.3; and even north of Barrie, they were paying more than 55.7 cents per litre.

I said to the minister: "I further understand that the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute is of the opinion that gas pricing practices are simply a case of supply and demand, with retailers charging prices to keep up with their competitors. In addition, industry representatives say that weekend and holiday price jumps are coincidental, not planned and not related to high traffic periods." I basically said to the minister, "That is a bunch of bunk, and you know that."

The bottom line is that we have tremendous commuter traffic from the city of Barrie down to Toronto and we have tremendous traffic from Toronto and the southern areas coming up to Barrie, because that's one of the areas where they have to stop and gas up their cars to keep on going up north. We have tremendous high traffic volume. The bottom line is, we're getting gouged in our area because we have high traffic volume.

It has nothing to do with supply and demand, because we know the oil industry has a glut and they may be bringing down the price of crude to $10 a barrel, but also we know they can make the most money because of the high traffic volume. It has nothing to do with supply and demand. It's highly offensive when you go through Orangeville and they're paying seven cents per litre less than the city of Barrie, and throughout southern Ontario. We know that basically what they're trying to do has nothing to do with supply and demand; it has to do with making the best dollar they can. I'm not against anyone making the best dollar they can, but don't come out and say they're dealing with supply and demand, because all they're trying to do is gouge the consumers up in my riding of Simcoe Centre.

Returning to the point and to the facts, the member for Sault Ste Marie doesn't have the facts. He knows that the federal government is responsible for gas prices in this country.

The provincial Liberals have the gall to sit there and say, "John D. Rockefeller is going to deal with this and there's a consolidation of the industry." The bottom line is that the minister of the federal government, John Manley, recognizes that they've got a problem. What we're asking them to do is address this problem immediately, because consumers are getting gouged. One of the figures I've looked at for my own riding, for people who have to travel all the time, is that they're looking at paying an extra $200 per year per car in terms of dealing with these high gas prices, so I support the resolution.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The jurisdiction is provincial. I wish the member would bring in a bill which would prevent predatory pricing practices. That happens in many provinces. It happens in over 30 states in the United States.

If the member for Simcoe Centre is very concerned, he should write his letter to the Premier. He's as large as life bullying other people around, but when it comes to dealing with the oil barons, the people who set the gas prices in Ontario, he's a pussycat. He does nothing about it. He talks a lot. He makes some noise. He huffs and he puffs and then he does nothing about it. The honest minister, Mr Saunderson, made a statement in this House that said the provincial government had no interest in getting involved in it, and he was being honest about it. The rest of you play this little game. He's the honest guy sitting in this House.

Bill Davis brought in a bill which froze gasoline prices in 1975. It's within provincial jurisdiction. If you're that concerned about it, I say you have provincial ministers who can take the action: the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Minister of Energy, and of course the person who runs the government, the Premier of this province.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to join the debate on the private member's resolution standing in the name of Doug Rollins, the member for Quinte.

All Ontarians have experienced the rise and fall of gas prices. They've experienced the fluctuation of gas prices, they've experienced the volatility of gas prices and they know, as we know, that this usually seems to take place just prior to a long weekend or in another period that is generally associated with increased travel volume. Ontarians perceive that major oil companies are taking advantage of their dominant position in the Canadian marketplace and are free to raise prices without fear of penalty or retribution.

Many of my constituents in Scarborough have asked why these events have taken place, and I know members across the province have had the same questions from their constituents. In fact, we've had hundreds of calls to a gas busters' telephone hotline, which was set up by the Consumer Watchdog Commission on September 2, 1998. Ontario consumers have used the hotline to express their anger and frustration at what they see as a flagrant disregard for fair pricing policy on the part of oil companies.

If true, these actions would clearly indicate that consumers are being targeted by gas companies. These consumers are the hard-working taxpaying people of Ontario who have called this hotline. They've used expressions, such as "price fixing," "price gouging" and "collusion" in describing the actions of oil companies and their retailers.

Through the efforts of the Honourable David Tsubouchi, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Consumer Watchdog Commission, we've been successful in forcing the federal government to recognize the problem and the need to find solutions.

These are important first steps, but in order to continue the process of returning fairness to retail gas pricing, we must first examine the method used by oil companies to establish the price of gasoline.

According to the Petroleum Communication Foundation, some of the major factors that contribute to the fluctuation of gas prices consist of competition, refining and marketing costs and the retail portion of crude oil costs. They claim that gas prices are driven by market forces and not necessarily by costs. Different competitive conditions and marketing strategies, along with upgrades and modernization to meet present and future environmental standards, and the distance that gasoline has to be transported to market also affect the cost. Marketing costs can also vary from region to region. Finally, there is the cost of crude oil which is priced on the international market.

The industry has also suggested that the reason for the volatility or fluctuation is a simple case of supply and demand, with the retailers changing their prices to keep up with their competitors. However, three major players dominate the Canadian petroleum industry: Imperial Oil, Petro-Canada and Shell. Together, these companies wield considerable influence on both the wholesale and retail markets and have a dual distribution position. This means they are both suppliers and competitors for their own dealers as well as for independents.

The industry has also stated that the overall average price per litre has dropped over the last decade. The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute released a study on gasoline prices. The main objectives of the study were to assess consumers' perceptions and attitudes relating to the topics of concern about gasoline prices. The CPPI goes on to state that in current dollars, inclusive of taxes, gasoline prices have increased in Canada. However, exclusive of taxes, prices have declined by four cents per litre since 1986, and this has led to savings of some $3.5 billion.

The CPPI believes that 32 price wars in the Toronto area last year were based on a healthy and competitive market but the Independent Retail Gasoline Marketers Association of Canada disagrees. They state that in Canada the wholesale and retail markets, dominated by the three national players - Esso, Petro-Canada and Shell - and a few regional refiners - Husky, Sunoco and Ultramar - directly account for 70% of the retail volume and 80% of the wholesale volume. In essence, the market is an oligopoly, the majors being the price-setters.

Even though the prices may have dropped over the last decade, it does not account for the vast fluctuations in price that traditionally appear before and during peak periods, such as long weekends and holidays.

I urge the federal government to take action on the issue of gasoline pricing, and I ask the Liberal members and the NDP members here today to send a strong message to the federal government by voting in favour of this resolution.

As my colleague from Quinte has stated, we are not trying to dictate what the price should be, we're only trying to ensure that the pricing policies of the gas companies are fair and just and do not victimize the consumers of this province. I want to commend my colleague for -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Time has expired. Mr Rollins, you have two minutes.

Mr Rollins: I'd like to thank all the members in the House today who have spoken in support of the resolution I have brought in. I'd also like to bring to the attention of the members of the House that we have Randy Turner here. He's not a constituent of mine but he lives in Northumberland, not far from the boundaries of my riding. He is one of the members who has worked on the Dan McTeague committee that the federal government has set up, yet they don't have the feeling that they have a real listening ear as far as the federal government is concerned.

I'd like to also remind the member for Sault Ste Marie that since he moved out of the backbench, he has lost track of the person who spoke ahead of him. If he had been in the House and listened to the man who spoke ahead of him - he was quite in support of the NDP telling the federal government that it's their responsibility. I don't know whether the colour of the tie upset the member for Sault Ste Marie or what happened, but something went wrong.

I also want to remind the members of the Liberal Party that, yes, we had a resolution brought in by Minister Tsubouchi last year, and those people in the Liberal Party chose to talk the clock out so we didn't have the opportunity to vote on it. That tells us where some of those people - it wasn't all the members of the Liberal Party who spoke here.

I want to thank you very much for listening and giving us support. We all have to keep in mind that if we continually push the independent oil companies and businesses out of our consumer market, you and I that down the road are going to pay an extremely high price. I know the province of PEI set a price, but I can also say it wasn't the highest price in Canada last summer. I thank everybody for supporting it.

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

CITY OF TORONTO XXIX SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES BID ENDORSEMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 APPUYANT LA CANDIDATURE DE LA CITÉ DE TORONTO CONCERNANT LES XXIX^e JEUX OLYMPIQUES D'ÉTÉ

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 35, standing in the name of Mr Kells.

Mr Kells has moved second reading of Bill 77. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Kells: I ask that the bill be ordered for third reading.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

GASOLINE PRICES / PRIX D'ESSENCE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 36, standing in the name of Mr Rollins.

Mr Rollins has moved private member's notice of motion number 33. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

We have debated everything that had to be debated. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1203 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): The government has embarked on a disastrous policy of forcing a number of our local schools to close by imposing a nefarious funding formula.

Quality education for our children cannot be based on 100 square feet per student. Quality education must take into account class size, teacher training, special programs, parental input and community relations with the local school.

The Minister of Education and Training has not taken into account the essential nature of local schools and their symbiotic relationship with the surrounding community. For instance, the province does not support nursery schools, daycares or parenting centres in our schools, yet these are an essential part of our communities.

The province does not care whether children go to school in their neighbourhood. Most parents believe children should walk to school. It makes neighbourhoods safer and helps prevent excessive traffic.

The province thinks middle schools, music rooms, libraries, gyms and space for English as a second language are frills, yet these are essential programs.

If the minister cannot recognize that inner-city schools have special needs and are an irreplaceable part of community life, he should step down and have someone else with a much clearer vision of quality education take over.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Neighbourhood schools, community-based schools are in danger of being shut down across this province, in Niagara region as well.

I want to tell you that I'm proud to stand firmly with the supporters of Monsignor Clancy High School in Thorold. The school council, led very capably by its chair, Dennis Landry, along with parents and students and former students of Monsignor Clancy, appealed to Thorold city council earlier this week, calling on them to support these families in opposition to the anticipated and feared closure of Monsignor Clancy.

Monsignor Clancy is the only Catholic high school in Thorold. If Monsignor Clancy isn't kept open, those Catholic students will have to be bussed outside of their community. It's not good for the students, it's not good for their families and it's not good for the community of Thorold.

Yet another high school, Merritton High School in the community of Merritton, once again is very much at risk, real risk of imminent closure.

This government should be intervening to make sure these schools stay open, to make sure that the communities they serve are indeed well served by them. Rather, this government, with its policies of abandonment of public education, publicly funded education, is facilitating the closure of schools like Monsignor Clancy and Merritton and similar community-based neighbourhood schools across this province at both the elementary and secondary levels.

This government has stolen $1 billion out of public funding for education. The impact is being seen and heard and felt loudly and clearly by folks down in Niagara.

JESSE'S JOURNEY

Mr Bob Wood (London South): It is with pleasure that I provide the House with an update on Jesse's Journey - A Father's Tribute, which is Londoner John Davidson's walk across Canada in support of genetic research. Following on the heels of the successful 1995 Jesse's Journey, when John Davidson pushed his wheelchair-bound son, Jesse, across Ontario to raise more than $1 million for research, this year John is walking alone. He began his 8,300-kilometre walk in St John's, Newfoundland, on April 10 and is currently approaching Calgary, Alberta.

John has traversed more than 7,000 kilometres across nine provinces and is looking forward to the culmination of the journey in Victoria, BC, on January 20. John's goal is to raise $10 million to establish an endowment fund which will continue to direct $1 million each year towards research to eventually find cures for muscular dystrophy, ALS, cystic fibrosis, breast cancer and many other genetic diseases. To date, John has generated more $1.6 million through the generosity of grassroots supporters across Canada.

John is walking across Canada to educate the public about his work and vision to fund genetic research. I invite each and every member to consider supporting this very courageous and special Ontario resident and his worthwhile endeavour to make a difference in the lives of thousands of Canadian families suffering the ordeal of genetic disease.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have stood here many times in the past and told the members of the Legislature how northwestern Ontario does not receive health care funding and support equal to the rest of the province. Today I need to tell you of another crucial service that the people of northwestern Ontario will be losing unless the Minister of Health acts quickly to correct it.

On April 1 of next year, the Ministry of Health is delisting from its OHIP formulary publicly funded rehabilitation services across the province, leaving the only access to publicly funded physiotherapy services in northwestern Ontario to hospital-based and community care access centre services.

The problem is that hospital-based physiotherapy services right now are only providing 15% of patients' needs, and even with that small percentage, the waiting lists are extensive and only priority-needs clients can access care within reasonable time frames.

The minister has acknowledged this province elsewhere in the province by allocating $39 million to provide these needed services through schedule 5 clinics. However, there are no schedule 5 clinics in northwestern Ontario - I repeat, none - and, as a result, this April 1 delisting will leave 85% of the people needing physiotherapy services forced to pay out of pocket or through private insurance plans for services that people in the rest of the province receive under OHIP.

This is nothing more than two-tiered health care, and it is shameful that this situation should be facing all of us in northwestern Ontario. Minister, you can't leave us hanging out to dry here. We deserve the same level of service as everyone else in the province. Fix this problem, Minister, and fix it now.

PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I rise to inform the House that today I introduced a resolution calling on the government to take action to prevent the sale or diversion of Great Lakes waters to foreign countries, commercial enterprises and individuals.

This resolution is similar to one passed unanimously in the United States House of Representatives in October. That US resolution was introduced by Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan in response to the Harris government's granting of a permit to Nova Group of Sault Ste Marie to sell three billion litres of Lake Superior water over a five-year period to an Asian company.

We cannot allow Great Lakes waters, our most precious natural resource, to become a tradable commodity under the free trade agreement. We must act now to keep the floodgates from opening. I am calling for a more comprehensive and detailed regulatory policy designed to protect Ontario's water. That's especially needed in light of the threat to water from the Canada-US free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement. The failure to pass laws to protect Ontario's waters has opened the possibility of unfettered commercial exploitation.

The federal Liberal government has promised a plan to ban water exports, but months have passed and still we've seen nothing. I hope my resolution will provide some strong encouragement to act.

EDUCATION IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my pleasure to rise today to inform the members of the House of the good things that are happening in education in Durham.

At a special meeting held on November 30, the Durham Catholic District School Board and chair Jim McCafferty approved their 1998-99 budget of $166,157,321. It's a budget filled with good news for students, parents and, most important, taxpayers.

The average class size in secondary schools has been reduced from 27 to 22 - down. At the elementary level, the average class size has also been reduced to under 25, as outlined in Bill 160. As well, almost $4 million is being spent on technology in the classroom.

Clearly, the student-focused funding model is working for my citizens and my constituents in Durham, along with the member from Oshawa.

Jim McCafferty, chair of the Durham Catholic board, had this to say about the approved budget: "I am quite pleased with the improvements we have been able to fund including reductions in class size...increased services in special education and significant steps in providing more student accommodation." I'd like to commend director Grant Andrews and the staff of the Durham Catholic board for their hard work in preparing the 1998 budget.

I believe that with every board that's responsible for the student-focused funding model, listening to the input of their ratepayers, the students, we have a better system in Ontario thanks to our Minister of Education, Dave Johnson.

1340

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Today is International Day of Disabled Persons. It is a sad day for the 1.5 million Ontario citizens with disabilities who were betrayed by this government's introduction of a sham Ontarians with Disabilities Act last week. People with disabilities were appalled that the government would attempt to claim that it has fulfilled its promise to them with a bill that could have been written on the back of a paper napkin. Legislation is not even needed to bring about the minor changes they are offering.

There is only one way for the government to redeem itself. It must withdraw Bill 83 and recommit to a genuine, full and open consultation that will produce a bill with substance and teeth. Persons with disabilities need to have the barriers they face in every facet of daily life addressed by forward-thinking and progressive measures. Often the accommodations that need to be made are small but not obvious and would make a tremendous difference, while the cost of not including vital and talented people in the economic life of this province hurts everyone.

The government must assume a leadership role and provide effective incentives for positive change throughout all sectors of society. People are willing to change, but need to know how. Meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee now to set up a process to put this initiative on the right track. Withdraw this sham legislation now and do it right.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise again to bring to the attention of the government members the kind of devastation that's happening in communities like mine in Hamilton as a result of your agenda. On the front page of the Hamilton Spectator today is an article entitled "Lower City Trailing in Grade 3." When we look further at the story, the next headline is "Don't Point Finger at Teachers: Experts say poverty a significant factor in lower city's poorer grade 3 test scores."

It goes on to quote Gina Brown, who's a McMaster University nursing professor:

"`There is more that determines health and competence than health care and education.

"`Everything we know shows that there is a higher concentration of problems in children - be they emotional, learning, social or conduct problems - in poorer areas.'"

Jackie Gordon of the Hamilton-Wentworth Social Planning Council says that poverty is one of the major risk factors affecting children's ability to learn:

"It is hard to learn math when you are hungry.

"It's tough to decipher English grammar when your clothes are thin and you're cold."

What has the agenda of this government been? You've cut the income of the poorest of the poor by 22%. You've downloaded public housing and public health. You've cut education funding and health funding, and the growing gap shows us that the middle class and poor are going further and further down while your rich corporate friends go up and up with your 30% tax scam.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent for permission for male members of the Legislature to wear the white ribbon today indicative of the support of the White Ribbon Campaign.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder -

The Speaker: I have a statement left. Do you think I can do the statement?

Ms Churley: I'm sorry. I didn't know there was another one.

NIAGARA GATEWAY WELCOME CENTRE

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): It's my pleasure today to announce that after seven years of planning and dreaming, the Niagara Gateway Welcome Centre in Grimsby is officially a go. Construction will begin next year at the site, located at Casablanca Avenue, the South Service Road and the Queen Elizabeth.

The project is unique in that it demonstrates a capacity for partnership between the province and local governments for a project that will be developed and operated by the private sector. The centre will be designed to be self-sustaining and at no cost to the taxpayers. The town of Grimsby and the province came to terms on the sale of land earlier this year. Since then, a developer has been chosen and construction will begin early in the new year. The region of Niagara, the Niagara Economic and Tourism Corp, the Wine Council of Ontario and the Grimsby Chamber of Commerce were all key partners in this operation.

Grimsby, on the Queen E, is the northwestern gate to the Niagara region, home of Niagara Falls, the Shaw Festival, Casino Niagara and the grape-growing and wine-making country of record. Some 14 million tourists visit every year. The new welcome centre includes restaurants, food, visitor information, traveller service, retail stores, fruit vendors, community artisans, picnic areas and office meeting space.

My congratulations to the town of Grimsby for its diligence and hard work in making a dream a reality.

WEARING OF BUTTONS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker - I actually have two points of order. The first point of order is that I'm asking for unanimous consent for us to be able to wear the December 6 memorial button.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Unanimous consent to wear the December 6 - it's the school massacre. Agreed? Agreed.

Your second point of order?

Ms Churley: My second point of order is - I don't know if it's a mistake on today's order paper or what, but traditionally in this House all three parties have made statements in memorial to the 14 women who died, and -

The Speaker: I don't need the history. If you're looking for unanimous consent, could you just -

Ms Churley: I'm asking for unanimous consent outside of ministerial statements.

The Speaker: So you're asking for unanimous consent for a statement outside the ministerial statements. Agreed? No.

Ms Churley: He's saying no?

Interjection.

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Standing order 62(a) provides that standing committees on estimates shall present one report with respect to all of the estimates and supplementary estimates considered pursuant to standing orders 59 and 61 no later than the third Thursday in November of each calendar year.

The House not having received a report from the standing committee on estimates for certain ministries on Thursday, November 19, 1998, as required by the standing orders of this House, pursuant to standing order 62(b), the supplementary estimates before the committee on the Ministry of Education and Training, the Ministry of Health, the Management Board Secretariat, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry of Transportation are deemed to be passed by the committee and are deemed to be reported here and received by the House according to the clam chowder act.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on estimates.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Mr Kennedy from the standing committee on estimates presented the committee's report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 60(a), the following estimates (1998-99) are reported back to the House as they were not previously selected by the committee for consideration and are deemed to be received and concurred in:

Office of the Assembly

Vote 201, Office of the assembly, $94,259,100 -

The Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES CONSOMMATEURS EN MATIÈRE D'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

Mr Sampson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 90, An Act to increase fairness and consumer protection while maintaining a balanced and stable automobile insurance plan in Ontario / Projet de loi 90, Loi visant à accroître l'équité et la protection des consommateurs tout en maintenant un régime d'assurance-automobile équilibré et stable en Ontario.

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

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): As the government's lead on auto insurance, I am today introducing the Automobile Insurance Consumer Protection Act.

The intent of this bill is to support initiatives resulting from our promised review of the automobile insurance system every two years. It recognizes the special needs of children and ensures a level playing field for all those in the insurance business.

Subject to the approval of the Legislature, injured accident victims, especially children, will receive the treatment they need, and all Ontario consumers will continue to benefit from a competitive and stable auto insurance market.

1350

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (PARAMEDICS), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (AUXILIAIRES MÉDICAUX)

Mr Gerretsen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 91, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting Paramedics / Projet de loi 91, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui a trait aux auxiliaires médicaux.

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

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): The bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to allow paramedics to use lamps that produce intermittent flashes of green light on their own vehicles when proceeding to an emergency.

EMERGENCY VOLUNTEERS PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA PROTECTION DES TRAVAILLEURS AUXILIAIRES EN SITUATION D'URGENCE

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 92, An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 92, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du travail.

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

Mr Flaherty.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I will wait for ministers' statements, Speaker.

FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DIVULGATION RELATIVE AUX FRANCHISES

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 93, An Act to require fair dealing between parties to franchise agreements, to ensure that franchisees have the right to associate and to impose disclosure obligations on franchisors / Projet de loi 93, Loi obligeant les parties aux contrats de franchisage à agir équitablement, garantissant le droit d'association aux franchisés et imposant des obligations en matière de divulgation aux franchiseurs.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Just briefly, I'd like to thank the members of the franchise sector working team. Representing the franchisors was Richard Cunningham from the Canadian Franchise Association; Sam Hamam from One Hour Moto Photo; Nick Javor -

The Speaker: Is this part of the bill?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No. This is just a -

The Speaker: Introduction of bills.

THISTLETOWN CENTRE FOUNDATION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA FONDATION DU CENTRE THISTLETOWN

Mr Hastings moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 94, An Act to maintain the Thistletown Centre Foundation / Projet de loi 94, Loi visant à maintenir la Fondation du centre Thistletown.

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

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): The bill continues the Thistletown Regional Centre as a crown agency and a corporation without share capital under the name, in English, of the Thistletown Centre Foundation; in French, Fondation du centre Thistletown.

The objects of the foundation are mainly to establish and maintain a facility for diagnosing and treating children and young adults who suffer from mental health problems or related physical problems, or who are at risk of suffering from those mental health or physical problems, and to raise funds for this facility.

VISITORS

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to inform the House today that we have two members of the St-Victor school here, who have successfully passed the test to attend a full week here at the Ontario Legislature. The two students I have here with me today are Caroline Blondin and Roxanne Taillon. They're in the gallery up there.

PRESS GALLERY CHRISTMAS AUCTION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You would like to know, and so would the House, that thanks to 160 generous donations from cabinet ministers, MPPs of all political stripes, corporations and others, the annual press gallery Christmas auction has raised about $13,500 for the United Way of Greater Toronto, making this year's Christmas auction the most successful yet.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): More important, the member for St Catharines has finished his Christmas shopping.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect to the issue we raised earlier in asking for unanimous consent in remembering the 14 young women who were killed in Montreal on December 6, 1989, as you know, every year since that tragic event took place, there have been statements with unanimous consent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: You know what? I think they agree. Let's try again. Agreed?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Our particular representative who wanted to speak on that issue was not present when the unanimous consent was requested. That's why we said no. I would ask for that unanimous consent again.

The Speaker: The member for Dovercourt has already asked for unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / JOUR DU SOUVENIR ET D'ACTION CONTRE LA VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Nine years ago this Sunday, 14 women were gunned down in a university classroom in Montreal; 14 engineering students targeted merely because they were women. Marc Lepine, the man who did the shooting, was mentally ill. He was driven by an insane hatred of women. But the sad truth is that negative attitudes towards women motivate violent acts against them every day.

Des images de cette horrible journée présentées à la télévision ou dans les journaux sont gravées à jamais dans la mémoire de bon nombre de Canadiens et Canadiennes de toutes les régions du pays. Il est bien que neuf années plus tard, nous nous rappelons cette journée et cette tragédie. Il est bien que nous nous rappelons cet immense deuil et de toute l'horreur de ce drame, mais nous devons également nous rappeler que les femmes continuent d'être les victimes de la violence dans nos rues et dans leur foyer.

There may be a greater awareness that domestic violence is a crime, but incidents of domestic violence are increasing, not decreasing. The sad truth is that not everyone believes women and men are equals or that violence against women is completely unacceptable. Demeaning, negative attitudes towards women still exist.

Those same attitudes led to the tragic death of Arlene May on March 8, 1996, near Collingwood in our province. Unlike the 14 women killed in Montreal, Arlene May didn't die at the hands of a stranger. Like most victims of domestic violence, Arlene May was killed by a man she knew, a jealous, obsessive boyfriend; a man who repeatedly threatened to kill her; a man out on bail for the fourth time for stalking and assaulting her; a man who was able to go out and buy the shotgun he would later use to kill Arlene May.

I think it would be a terrible mistake to allow ourselves to become desensitized to the events in Montreal that December day nine years ago or to dismiss that act simply as one of a madman. The facts are that many Ontario women will experience acts of violence and abuse today, and most of these acts will go unnoticed and unpunished by the rest of us. These women - our mothers, our sisters and our daughters - will continue to lead lives of quiet and painful desperation.

1400

As legislators, I'm sure that we all agree that we bear a heavy responsibility to enact tough laws that will protect women against all forms of violence and abuse. We must continue to provide supports to survivors of abuse to allow them to break out of the vicious cycle that they are trapped in.

I share the belief of Ontarians, as a strong supporter of gun controls, that the recent tightening of controls and the introduction of a gun registry system will reduce the risks that many women face.

The great tragedy of December 6, 1989, is the loss not only of those 14 bright young women and all they represented to their families and friends, but also the loss of all that they were to become during the remainder of their promising lives.

Geneviève Bergeron, 21, was a second-year scholarship student in civil engineering. Hélène Colgan, 23, was in her final year of mechanical engineering and planned to take her masters degree. Nathalie Croteau, 23, was in her final year of mechanical engineering. Barbara Daigneault, 22, was in her final year of mechanical engineering and held a teaching assistantship. Anne-Marie Edward, 21, was a first-year student in chemical engineering.

Maud Haviernick, 29, was a second-year student in engineering materials, a branch of metallurgy, and a graduate in environmental design. Barbara Maria Klucznik, 31, was a second-year engineering student specializing in engineering materials. Maryse Laganière, 25, worked in the budget department of the polytechnique. Maryse Leclair, 23, was a fourth-year student in engineering materials. Anne-Marie Lemay, 27, was a fourth-year student in mechanical engineering.

Sonia Pelletier, 28, was to graduate the next day in mechanical engineering; she was awarded a degree posthumously. Michèle Richard, 21, was a second-year student in engineering materials. Annie St-Arneault, 23, was a mechanical engineering student. Annie Turcotte, 21, was a first-year student in engineering materials. Fourteen bright flames abruptly extinguished.

December 6, this Sunday, is national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

We have a special obligation on that day in particular to remember these 14 women. But we also have an obligation every day throughout the year to do what we can to ensure that no harm comes to the women in Ontario who are, after all, our mothers, our sisters and our daughters.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I thank the government for allowing unanimous consent today.

This week we remember a tragic event in the history of this nation. This week we remember 14 bright young women who were murdered at École polytechnique in Montreal on December 6, 1989.

These 14 women were executed because the gunman saw them as a threat, the object of his rage. We all have a responsibility in this. We have a responsibility to the women who were murdered and to all of the women who remain. We have a responsibility to our daughters, our friends, our mothers, our sisters, our aunts, our cousins. We need to teach our children. We need to ensure that events like the one in Montreal on December 6, 1989, are never forgotten - which is partly what this is all about today - and never repeated.

To do this, we need to root out both violence and the attitudes that allow women to be second-class citizens, attitudes that sometimes cause women to be victims in society rather than equal participants.

Tomorrow I will once again be participating in a heartbreaking ceremony where I join with my colleagues from both parties and others to remember the 14 young women who were shot that terrible day nine years ago. I will once again hold a red rose representing the life of one of the women who died. Her name will be called and I will walk to a vase and put that rose in, along with 13 other red roses, each rose representing a life. I will think of that young woman then, the one my rose represents. I will imagine her before that day and just before the horrible incident, full of energy and promise, bright-eyed and full of life as she prepared to become an engineer. I will think of her parents and her family and the unimaginable anguish and agony that they must have experienced, and the grief and the pain and horror that they must feel to this day.

I think of all the women who have been murdered and terrorized by their spouses and lovers and how very much I want the life of my own daughter to be free of sexual harassment and free of the fear of violence from men. Government has a role of paramount importance. As I said, if nothing else, we must learn from this tragic event.

Today we are remembering the women who were shot, but it is necessary to point out that violence against women is an all-too-common occurrence in our society. Over the past three years, 82 women and children in Ontario died at the hands of their abusive spouses and countless others were severely injured. Thousands of women experience sexual harassment in the workplace. This harassment can result in death, as it did for Theresa Vince of Chatham.

Our vision of equality must lead us to a world where girls and women are safe in their homes, schools, on the street and in the workplace.

I would like to read a portion of the mission statement of the White Ribbon Campaign that describes violence against women:

"If it were between countries, we'd call it a war. If it were a disease, we'd call it an epidemic. If it were an oil spill, we'd call it a disaster. Violence against women in our society is all of those things."

Today, the Ontario NDP and the Ontario Federation of Labour released a joint statement on violence against women. I'd like to read from part of that statement now:

"We call on men themselves to speak out and honour the prescribed steps of reporting, challenging and eradicating violence against women. We recognize that positive male role models engaged in dialogue with their male peers is another effective tool in quelling violence against women. While women speak for women, men should speak to men and support women.

"December 6, 1998, is the national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. As a symbol, we call on men everywhere to show their support for women by turning on their porch light or placing a light in their front windows on the evening of Saturday, December 6. On this day we call on all men throughout Ontario and across Canada to begin helping shed the light of awareness on the problem of violence against women by pledging to speak out against it, counsel other men, report suspected abuse cases and stand as a role model who shows no tolerance for any man's physical, emotional or verbal abuse of women."

I hope that all members of the House will support this statement and turn on your porch light on December 6 in honour of the 14 young women who died on December 6, 1989, and for all of the women who remain.

1410

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): On December 6 across the country we mark the national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. On this day in 1989, 14 young women in Montreal were murdered because they were women. As we reflect on this terrible loss, we must never forget that many women continue to live and die in the shadow of violence.

My colleagues the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women are committed to working together to end the violence against women. The evidence of our commitment is clear today as each and every one of us across Canada makes a declaration on violence against women, a declaration that was agreed to with enthusiasm and commitment at our meeting in September in Iqaluit. I read:

"Today, I join all my colleagues across the country, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women, in a declaration of our commitment to end violence against women.

"Violence against women has devastating consequences in many women's lives and significant social and economic repercussions for society as a whole. Every day, women are intimidated, harassed, stalked, assaulted and abused, often at the hands of an intimate partner. As a society, we cannot and must not tolerate this violence. We must recognize and address the root causes of violence against women and the underlying issues of power and control.

"The ministers responsible for the status of women share a vision of safe, healthy communities where women are not exposed to violence or even the threat of violence. Our vision is based on the full equality of women and men. We stress the importance of culturally appropriate and community-based solutions that take into account linguistic, cultural and geographic diversity, that respect aboriginal values and culture and that reflect the particular needs of vulnerable groups.

"To achieve this vision, all of society must take responsibility. The elimination of violence is a long-term goal which can only be realized through lasting change in societal values and attitudes. Governments cannot achieve this goal alone. Individuals, service providers, voluntary and professional organizations, the broader public and corporate sectors all have a role to play. It is important that men, as well as women, participate in finding solutions.

"Sustained action is required, combined with innovative, creative approaches. It is particularly important that programs and services be flexible in their design and delivery in order to be accessible and effective. In this comprehensive effort, strong coordination across all sectors is essential, first and foremost to provide safety, as well as to deal with perpetrators and to prevent violence before it happens.

"Our work to end violence against women is guided by the following principles:

"Living free of violence is a right, not a privilege.

"Violence against women is a crime and should never be considered a private matter. Crimes of violence must be dealt with accordingly.

"Safety for victims and survivors must come first.

"In order to eliminate violence against women, equality and healthy relationships among boys and girls must be promoted from an early age.

"Our approach is built on three key strategies: a long-term focus on public education and awareness to change attitudes and behaviour; accessible and responsive services to provide safety and support to victims and prevent revictimization; and effective justice programs to hold perpetrators accountable and provide treatment programs for abusive men.

"On many fronts, our governments have shown their determination to end violence against women. Through our policies and initiatives across the country and our leadership at the international level in ratifying United Nations conventions and supporting UN action plans, we have clearly articulated the unacceptable and intolerable nature of this violence.

"Much work has been done to address violence against women. We will continue to build on the expertise of women's groups and other community partners and, together, we will work to improve the effectiveness of our efforts through ongoing partnership, consultation, evaluation and research.

"As federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women, we reaffirm our determination to stop violence against women. This is a top priority for our governments. Our commitment will be realized through the actions of each jurisdiction. Together, these actions will enable us to meet the challenges and achieve our goal. We owe it to all women who may be affected by violence, now and in the future."

Mr Speaker, could we stand for a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Mr Martiniuk exchange places with Mr Leadston and Ms Churley exchange places with Mr Silipo in the order of precedence for private members' public business; and that notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the notice requirement be waived with respect to private members' ballot items 38 and 39.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Today is International Day of Disabled Persons. In 1992, the United Nations General Assembly asked member states to observe this day "with a view to furthering the integration into society of persons with disabilities."

Ontario has a long history of leadership in addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities. Thirty-six years ago, it was the first province in Canada to adopt a human rights code. The code was amended in 1981 to extend protection on the basis of disability. Recently, this government introduced a proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act that is the first of its kind in Canada.

Our government is leading by example. Bill 83 will mandate all government ministries to systematically review their legislation, programs, policies, practices and services, with a view to preventing and removing barriers. Ministries will have to submit annual plans outlining what they will review, what actions they will take to remove barriers and what they have already done to improve accessibility.

In time, the proposed Ontarians with Disabilities Act will affect thousands of government activities and millions of Ontarians.

This is a day to renew our commitment as a community to improving access for persons with disabilities in all aspects of our society. Preventing and removing barriers to participation is a shared responsibility, and co-operative solutions are the best way to achieve results. In that regard, I am delighted to announce that the province will be partnering with the Conference Board of Canada to assist Ontario employers to increase workplace accessibility.

The conference board has research capabilities and expertise that is widely respected. It will conduct research to identify current approaches and best practices for barrier removal in the workplace. The results will form the basis for discussions involving disability groups, employers and the government's recently announced Committee on Employment for Persons with Disabilities, among others, to develop win-win solutions and practical ways of removing employment barriers to persons with disabilities.

The government is also establishing an information and referral service and setting up an $800,000 incentive fund to promote best practices and partnerships in communities across Ontario.

These and other actions by successive Ontario governments to support persons with disabilities bring us steadily closer to our vision of an Ontario where every person can achieve his or her full potential. They bring us steadily closer to the United Nations' vision of furthering the integration into society of persons with disabilities.

By working together as a community, we can reach this goal. We can build a strong and caring society where persons with disabilities have equal opportunity to fully participate in our great province.

1420

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Three years ago, this government set out to improve Ontario's auto insurance system, restore fairness and stabilize rates.

Since our reforms came into effect in November 1996, Ontario drivers have benefited from an average filed rate reduction of almost 11%. This is in stark contrast to the records of the Liberal and NDP governments, both of which handed Ontario drivers skyrocketing auto insurance rates. For those who shop around in today's competitive marketplace, prices are even lower - down as much as 18%. Our reforms literally put the brakes on higher auto insurance rates.

But we didn't stop there:

We established the first Ombudsman for auto insurance in Canada.

We required insurers to offer discounts for retirees and prohibit insurers from using minor lapses in coverage as a rating factor.

We imposed higher fines for driving without insurance and tougher penalties for those who attempt to defraud the system.

We reformed the Facility Association so that today half as many drivers are in FA as were in that association a year ago.

We established a task force to make recommendations on an accreditation system for rehabilitation clinics treating auto accident victims.

We set up a committee to oversee the independent designated assessment centres.

After implementing these reforms, we monitored the system and consulted with stakeholders on other ways to improve it. Specifically, we received input from numerous consumers, health care providers, lawyers, brokers and insurance industry officials. They told us the system is working well, but a little fine-tuning is in order.

We heard how applying the current definition of "catastrophic impairment" to children may be too restrictive and that rehabilitating children who have been injured in auto accidents can be more costly and complex when compared to adults. We were asked to increase the ability to sue for excess health care expenses for children.

We heard that deductibles, which are intended to deter frivolous lawsuits, are penalizing the most seriously injured accident victims. We were asked to eliminate these deductibles.

The bill I introduced today, if passed, will recognize the special needs of children and will ensure that injured accident victims receive the treatment they need while keeping auto insurance rates low. It includes provisions to improve access to the courts for children injured in auto accidents and to eliminate the deductible for pain and suffering damages for all accident victims in larger awards. The bill will also protect consumers in the event of an insurer insolvency.

Last, insurance agents will be required to disclose to consumers that they represent only one company, should they do so, and that therefore creates an even playing field with insurance brokers who are currently required to disclose whom they represent.

This bill will support initiatives resulting from our two-year review and will increase fairness and efficiency while maintaining a balanced and stable auto insurance system in Ontario.

VOLUNTEER LIABILITY

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): Earlier this afternoon I introduced the Emergency Volunteers Protection Act. This legislation would ensure that, in case of injury, volunteer fire and ambulance workers across the province are protected under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

I would like to thank my colleague Ted Arnott, the MPP for Wellington, for taking the lead in bringing this initiative before the House. I also understand that all parties have indicated their intention to support these legislative proposals.

As everyone who has ever lived in rural Ontario knows, smaller communities rely on the courage and commitment of volunteers to lend a helping hand to their fellow citizens in times of crisis - a willingness to drop everything and come to the aid of their neighbour. These individuals deserve their communities' gratitude and respect. They need to be assured that, in the unfortunate event of an injury resulting from these volunteer activities, it would not create undue hardship to them or to their families.

This bill, if passed, would address concerns raised by municipalities and volunteer emergency workers, reduce red tape for municipalities and ensure that volunteers would not be penalized for selflessly coming to the aid of their neighbours. The legislation would also allow municipalities to select the amount of coverage for volunteer firefighters or ambulance workers.

It places an obligation on the full-time or part-time employer of the injured volunteer to continue employment benefits, and to co-operate in return to work and offer re-employment. These obligations would ensure consistency in the treatment of emergency workers, such as ice storm volunteers and members of volunteer firefighter and ambulance brigades.

I would like to thank the municipal leaders and the volunteer firefighters for bringing this matter to our attention, in particular the volunteer detachment of Oro-Medonte township. Representatives from that township's volunteer fire force are here today, as well as representatives from other volunteer firefighters across Ontario. I thank you for being with us today.

This bill supports the volunteer spirit as the backbone of self-reliant and safe communities. The government has listened and is acting today. I strongly urge each and every member of the Legislature to work for the speedy passage of this bill.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): This government had the gall last week to introduce something it calls the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. This legislation gives them nothing of substance that persons with disabilities have asked for. This legislation is not worth the paper it's written on. It's an insult and a betrayal of this government's promise and people's hopes.

While this government is all about public relations and positive spin on complex and troubling issues, we in the real world need to face reality eye to eye. The situation that most people with disabilities face is more than most of us could handle.

It doesn't have to be this way. The minister says the government is going to try harder, get its own house in order and encourage others to do the same. Great. After stalling on an ODA for three and a half years, this is all we get.

Where are the provisions for persons with disabilities to be actively involved in addressing barriers? Where are the enforcement mechanisms? You know very well that former Chief Justice Brian Dickson told you that no measures were going to work without mandatory provisions. You know that the underfunded and overburdened Ontario Human Rights Commission cannot protect persons with disabilities against systemic barriers.

This government hides behind lists of program names and funding promises that are announced over and over again. Ask those with disabilities whether their lives are any easier, as the government claims they are. This government wants to say that they have kept their promises whether their announcements have any substance or not.

Bill 83 must be withdrawn. It is time to make it possible for persons with disabilities to come in the front door and take their rightful place in the life of this province.

Minister, let me make my own recommendation, my own suggestion to you. Convince your colleagues at the cabinet to re-establish a ministry responsible for the disabled, as we had in government before when we were in power. The idea was abandoned. Try it. It works well.

VOLUNTEER LIABILITY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond briefly to the Minister of Labour about his bill. Let me begin by saying that we in the official opposition will support this bill and we join in applauding Ted Arnott, the MPP for Wellington, in forcing this issue. We also wish to pay our respects to volunteer firefighters throughout the province.

But I do want to remind the government and the people listening that this bill is about cleaning up a mess that the previous Minister of Labour started when she jammed through Bill 99, didn't listen to public consultations, didn't have full hearings and didn't respond at the time that this issue was brought up.

It's appropriate too that we should be talking about persons with disabilities today. That is going to be another mess that has to be cleaned up, a mess that the minister responsible for the disabled refused to deal with in her Ontarians with Disabilities Act flop, her non-bill.

There are a lot of messes that are going to have to be cleaned up. There's a health care system that's an absolute mess because this government has pushed through things that nobody supports and agrees with, without putting in the kinds of supports we need.

Education: messes everywhere. We look at standarized test scores. What has the government done to improve them? Absolutely nothing.

Yes, today is important, and we support this particular bill because it cleans up one small mess, but there are a lot of other messes, much larger messes, be it closed hospitals or closed schools. Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party will clean up the mess next year.

1430

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I take the opportunity to reply to the Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for privatization and insurance. He's introduced amendments today which we have little time to respond to directly, but in looking over his statement I remember the day the minister was trying to tell me how great his bill was and his attempt to convince me that it actually was moving back towards the Liberal no-fault insurance we had had prior to this, yet today I guess he included us with the most recent record of high insurance rates.

I also see that in the areas that are being changed, updated and improved after two years, as I recall, these were areas that were brought to the government's attention at that time that needed to be fixed, when the original bill was brought in. We're pleased to see that now, albeit it's two years later, it's being done.

VOLUNTEER LIABILITY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I respond to the announcement today by the Minister of Labour. I noted that in his remarks he said we owe volunteer firefighters our gratitude and our respect. On behalf of the New Democratic caucus let me say we agree, but I think the minister ought to extend that and acknowledge the fact that all workers deserve the gratitude and respect of him and every other member of this Legislature, which you sure as hell didn't show when you rammed through your Bill 99.

Let's understand why we're giving Ted Arnott credit here today. He finally stepped forward and convinced you and your caucus that even though it was embarrassing, you had to fix your mistake. You denied those firefighters their rights under Bill 99, just like you denied every other worker's rights under Bill 99. While the Liberals may say they're going to support this and tinker with it, let me say here on behalf of the NDP, we will repeal the entire Bill 99 and show gratitude and respect for every worker in this province.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It's remarkable. It's only this government that can include the words "fairness" and "auto insurance" in the same sentence. They're mutually exclusive. They always have been and they always will be.

This minister doesn't understand that his efforts at reform are precedented by the efforts 10 years ago of the government of the day, by the efforts seven years ago and now by the feckless efforts of Rob Sampson and Mike Harris to once again cater to the whim and fancy of an ever increasingly greedy insurance industry that has the proverbial short arms and deep pockets, that's very efficient when it comes to collecting premiums but sadly pathetic and not at all forthcoming when it comes to paying out benefits.

This government talks about reduced premiums. I've been talking to premium payers across this province. They're frantically searching for some of those reduced premiums because the filings may show an average reduction in premiums, but the filings don't reflect the actual premiums charged after a highly discretionary imposition of penalties and surcharges on drivers across Ontario.

We're looking forward to public hearings on this bill because I want to hear from the insurance industry. I want to have them tell us about their unprecented new profits that are the result of unprecedented new low levels of first-party coverage and the fact that this government hasn't required them to pass those new profits on by way of benefits or premium reductions.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): This is International Day for Persons with Disabilities, and I want to acknowledge the tremendous work done by people with disabilities in this province and especially by the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee, which has had to fight this government every step of the way. Their drive and determination is an example to all of us. Unfortunately, this government still isn't listening to them.

It is perhaps very appropriate that this international day will be followed tomorrow by the release of a report from the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. That committee has been studying Canada's compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Among the questions it has asked Ontario is, why did the Harris government abolish the Employment Equity Act provisions that would have helped people with disabilities get into the workforce? We can only wonder what the UN committee will have to say about Bill 83, a slap in the face to Ontarians with disabilities.

The committee also asked about measures to address poverty among people with disabilities. Getting assistance is another issue. We are beginning to hear about the problems people are experiencing with the Ontario disability support program. They are waiting months to have their applications approved. In some cases the applications are being rejected because their family physician has not filled them out in a technically correct manner or doesn't have all of the minutiae of information.

The Ontario Medical Association says that many doctors do not have enough information to fill out all of the minutiae questions that are on this eight-page Activities of Daily Living report. It's a one-size-fits-all form, like so many things this government does. One applicant who has a psychiatric disability told the London Free Press, "Under this government, it seems that as long as I can have a bath and I can put on a tie, I'm not disabled."

But the most telling side of this government's attitude is Bill 83, a fraud that is being perpetrated on people with disabilities.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to bring to the attention of the House, in the west members' gallery, Mr Walt Elliot, the representative in the 34th Parliament for Halton North. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. You will be aware that there is a coroner's inquest presently taking place into the very tragic death of young Kyle Martyn, a five-year-old who died after a three-hour wait in the crowded Credit Valley Hospital emergency room. Quite apart from that very real and compelling tragedy, this inquest is lending some real insight into the effects of your funding cuts.

David Rowe, who is the vice-president of Credit Valley Hospital, tells us that his hospital is running a deficit of $300,000 every month, it's operating 27 of its 229 beds without funding, he is on an ongoing basis cancelling surgery and redirecting ambulances, and he still, to this day, cannot accommodate the flood of patients coming in from his growing region.

When will you admit that it is your policies that are creating distress for our hospitals, which is in turn creating distress for Ontario patients?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Certainly the case to which the member refers is a very tragic case. However, since that is currently being looked at by the coroner, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I'm not asking that you speak to the issue and the facts surrounding the death of the child. I'm asking about the impact of your policies on this hospital. That's all I'm talking about here.

Mr Rowe said that the crisis in his hospital is due to provincial underfunding. He tells us that while the population in Credit Valley's district has grown 32% since 1992, his $100-million annual budget is slightly less today than what it was in 1992. The patient group he is responsible for has increased by 32% and he is getting less money today than he did in 1992. This is the result of your policies. Why don't you stand up now and admit that your policies when it comes to health care in Ontario are causing distress to our hospitals, which is in turn causing distress to Ontario patients?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the member opposite knows, we are working and have been working very hard with all hospitals in this province in order to discuss any concerns or suggestions they have. However, in this instance I'm not in a position, since there is an inquest taking place, to make any further comments.

1440

Mr McGuinty: Let's take it to another hospital, then, if the minister's not prepared to comment with respect to that hospital, quite independent of the inquest.

Here's what a nurse at St Joseph's Health Centre in London said:

"I see fear in patients' eyes when they come to my hospital. We are seeing an increase in the alarm rate that people are having in reaction to the cuts in funding and to the fact that quality of health care has worsened over the past two years in Ontario."

In Toronto, we've seen ambulances turned away and redirected on an ongoing basis. We know hospitals across the province today are struggling with deficits. We've got stressed-out doctors, demoralized nurses. We've got frightened patients and very concerned families.

You are causing harm to health care in Ontario. People on the front lines are experiencing this and patients are being harmed as a result. When will you admit that your health care policies are hurting hospitals and hurting patient care?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, it was the lack of courage on the part of your government and the previous government that has contributed to a situation where Ontario was the very last province to embark upon hospital restructuring.

Within the last year, I have met on about 15 occasions with nurses in this province in order to understand the problems and the issues and the concerns that they had, issues and concerns that other governments didn't deal with.

As you know, we have moved forward and we have adopted every one of the recommendations that nurses made in May 1996. They indicated to us the need to invest in long-term care, and we have. We've invested $1.2 billion. We've invested -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - in additional beds. We've invested in additional long-term-care services. We have introduced the nurse practitioner legislation. We have made available -

The Speaker: New question, official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: A question to the same minister. The proof is in the pudding. Get out of this place and speak to patients if you want a first-hand account as to what the impacts of your policies are in Ontario.

I want to talk about the crisis you've created in our emergency rooms right across the province. Your funding cuts led to that, very clearly. Then in April, after months of backlogged ERs and pressure from us, you announced that you were going to take action. Then you said you were going to set up 1,700 interim long-term-care beds. Six months later, on October 22 of this year, you finally announced the location of 707 of these interim long-term-care beds. Your press release specifically said they'd be occupied by December of this year and that money would flow as soon as they were occupied.

Can you tell us today how many patients have been transferred from our hospitals into our interim long-term-care beds in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Again, we have a situation here that had been ongoing since the time of your government. In fact, I can look at some of these stories that occurred when you were in office. Quoting from the Ottawa Citizen of December 26, 1987, it says an elderly woman was turned away from two area hospitals on the weekend and died Christmas Day.

I would say to the member opposite, we took action where your government took no action. Yes, we made available 1,700 long-term-care beds, and as my colleague the Minister of Long-Term Care has indicated, the response was insufficient. He has been extremely busy in order that we can ensure that hospitals and communities across this province work together to provide those beds because there wasn't the uptake by the hospitals.

Mr McGuinty: Your press release said those interim long-term-care beds would be occupied by December: 707. Do you know how many are up and running now? Not one. We're closing in on the Christmas season, which is extremely busy for our hospitals. We've got to do everything we can to relieve the backlog in our emergency rooms. That was the purpose of your announcement back in April of this year, that you were going to set up long-term-care beds on an interim basis.

In Ottawa-Carleton, the Ottawa hospital hasn't been able to transfer a single patient to the interim long-term-care beds awarded to the Sisters of Charity. We've got a building in Ottawa, we've got the staff in Ottawa, we've got 39 interim long-term-care beds, but we haven't got any patients and we haven't got the funding.

When are you going to execute on your promise? You said those beds would be up and running by December. There's not a single one up and running now. We've got a building in Ottawa, we've got the patients, we've got to staff; we don't have the money. When are we going to move forward on this?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The Leader of the Opposition stands up and indicates there's a problem. It's unfortunate that under your watch you were not as concerned as you appear to be today. I can go back to the Ottawa Citizen, December 24, 1987. It talks about redirecting ambulances to another hospital.

The good thing is that our government actually recognized there was a problem. Our government did set up an emergency task force. Our government did make money available. Unfortunately, the original uptake was not what we had hoped for, so now the Minister of Long-Term Care has been working with communities across this province to address exactly the issue you speak about; that is, to ensure that those 1,700 beds are up as soon as possible.

Mr McGuinty: Eight months ago, in response to a problem that you created by cutting funding to our hospitals, you said you were taking action and you were going to set up 1,700 interim long-term-care beds. Today there is not a single one up and running in Ontario. We're coming into the holiday season. Our emergency wards are going to be crowded. We need to relieve that congestion. We need to relieve space in other parts of the hospitals. That's where the interim long-term-care beds come in. Why is it that today, eight months later, there is not a single interim long-term-care bed set up in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I've listened to the Leader of the Opposition, and certainly he has gone on and on for several years now, but unfortunately I haven't heard his solution to any of the health issues. He has brought no policy forward whatsoever.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Minister, you must know of the shocking epidemic of occupational disease and death among former workers at the Owens-Corning Canada fibreglass plant in Sarnia. The plant was closed a number of years ago, but more and more of the former workers are now dying of lung disease, kidney cancer and other forms of cancer.

In fact, some of the former workers who are suffering, and members of the families of deceased workers, are here today, along with members of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. What they want to know from you is this: Will you expedite the compensation claims? Will you provide adequate funding for occupational health clinic staff? Will you make public all the available documentation on conditions at the plant? Will you act to make sure this never happens again in Ontario?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I thank the honourable member for his question. I can assure him and all members that occupational health and safety is the number one priority at the ministry.

The reforms that have been effected to the workers' safety and insurance system in Ontario have been designed to make sure that the system is operated on sound insurance principles and that it is in a position to honour the present and future claims of all persons entitled under that legislation.

1450

With respect to the issue that the honourable member raises about occupational disease and specific diseases, as he may know, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board has commissioned a comprehensive provincial research strategy into workplace illnesses, particularly the type of concerns that the honourable member has mentioned. This is headed by Dr Bob Norman of the University of Waterloo. It is anticipated that this type of continuing study will help address these specific workplace illness issues which the honourable member knows are not without complications.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary, member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): First of all, I don't think that was an adequate assurance for the workers and their families and representatives who are here today in terms of what they're facing. Their plant is gone. These workers are sick. They are dying. One of the people here is a widow of one of those workers. They need more than what you've offered here today.

Let's look at the larger picture which you alluded to in part of your response. What are you doing, exactly, to update the legal limits for exposure to toxic substances in the workplace and to make sure that those limits are enforced? When you were elected, there was in place a Joint Steering Committee on Hazardous Substances in the Workplace. It was ready to start issuing regulations. You killed it. Then your previous minister, your predecessor, Minister Witmer, said she was going to start looking at these substances one at a time and direct that limits be lowered where necessary.

What's been done so far? Nothing. Not a thing. No work at all in this area. How many workers in Sarnia and other communities have to die before you recognize the need to lower some of those limits?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I thank the member for the further supplementary question. The issue of occupational disease is a very serious issue. It is taken very seriously by this government and certainly by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The bipartite labour-employer joint steering committee that he refers to, the one on hazardous substances, existed for eight years in this province, from November 1987 to October 1995. During that eight-year period, the JSC did not provide any recommendations for regulatory change or status quo to the minister; absolutely zero work product in eight years from that committee.

On the other hand, we have proceeded with an occupational health and safety review with full consultations for a period of more than a year in Ontario; more than 225 submissions. We are listening. We are consulting. As I've mentioned, we're proceeding with a study on the diagnosis and treatment of occupational disease, a very important, complicated issue that needs to be addressed in the province.

Mr Christopherson: The fact of the matter is, Minister, when you arrived in the ministry and when your predecessor -

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Christopherson: As I was saying, when you arrived, there were regulations there all ready to go, draft regulations that were dated April 1995, ready for you to finalize and implement. They could have been done within the first few months of your government taking office, and you didn't do it. You left the regulations sitting there. You killed the joint committee that was working. Since then, what else have you done? You've done worse than nothing: You've killed the Occupational Disease Panel.

Minister, you and your predecessor know that panel had international support. Public health and safety organizations and workplace health and safety organizations from around the world said: "Please don't kill the Occupational Disease Panel. You're a model here in Ontario for the sort of things that ought to be happening." You killed it. You sat on the regulations. You killed the committee. You've done nothing.

There is clear evidence that metalworking fluids can be moved. There's an exposure that can be moved right now. Will you move on those exposures and will you bring in this regulation that's ready to go?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Where were you for the last year?

The Speaker: Member for Grey-Owen Sound, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I thank the member for the further supplementary question on this very important matter of occupational disease. He knows it's complicated. Everyone who looks at the issue knows how complicated it is when you're trying to relate diseases that develop over time with conditions in the workplace. The Ministry of Labour is preparing a strategy for dealing with hazardous substances that will include extensive public consultations. The majority of occupational exposure limits in Ontario are matters that have been reviewed. As I've indicated to you, the Workers' Safety and Insurance Board is proceeding with work, overseen by the board's research advisory council. This is prudent, thorough research which I'm sure the honourable member would find appropriate to address these crucial issues in Ontario.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues. Here's a chance to do something really substantive to mark December 6. In 1995, your government slashed funding for 24-hour crisis lines for abused women. The assaulted women's help line in Toronto was cut by 5%, while the need for the service is increasing each year. They received 26,380 calls in 1997 alone, but Bell monitored the lines and discovered there's a 91% chance women calling that line will get a busy signal, and over that one year, 50,000 desperate women called the line and couldn't get through.

The assaulted women's help line needs at least six more lines to come close to meeting the current demand. It will cost you $600,000 to do this. Will you do it?

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): The member opposite knows that we have hundreds of programs across nine ministries, this being just one of them, to support the prevention of violence against women. She also knows that we actually have an increase over the annual funding that was allocated in 1994-95. We're spending over $100 million. In 1997 we spent 27 million new dollars over three years, and we're the first government to have a comprehensive approach. I would suggest that the member opposite make a presentation, along with that centre or in any way she wants, to the minister responsible for that funding and perhaps there would be some consideration.

The point is, we are spending more money. We have stresses on some of the programs, but we're very proud of the new initiatives across some nine ministries that have been put in place in response to a very public report where we received very specific recommendations.

Ms Churley: I'm really getting tired of you standing up and repeating the same things over and over again. You love to play with numbers. The reality is that you cut these lines. I'm giving you the opportunity today to show some leadership and some compassion here, for you to go back to the cabinet table and demand this $600,000 for this help line.

Let me paint you a picture of what it's like to not have those phones operating. An abused woman has lived in terror and shame for years. She finally gets up the courage to make that call, to find a way out and save her children and herself. Maybe her husband has left her for a few minutes and this is her one chance to make that call, but she gets a busy signal. Will she ever call again? Will she give up? Does she think there's no way out?

This is critical. It's about access and early intervention. We're only talking about $600,000 a year. That's a lot less than a government TV propaganda ad. Will you today say you will go and fight for that money yourself at the cabinet table?

1500

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Just a couple of pieces of information for the member. This weekend there will be many ads in support of stopping wife abuse and domestic violence. We're also, as we know, making our plans for our budget next year, and the member knows we will be looking at all possibilities. I can assure the honourable member that as we sit down in the next few weeks, as Mr Eves has already stated in the House this week, to plan the budget for the spring, we'll be looking towards these kinds of needs. That agency along with other agencies will have an opportunity, I'm sure, to make their cases and bring forward their concerns, as the member for Riverdale has done today, to the appropriate ministers.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Final supplementary.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Minister, it's not just the help lines you've shut down. In your role to show some leadership here, you're actually taking Ontario backwards, not forwards. Let me give you another example. There used to be funding available through government for men who recognized that they had a problem and that they needed help in terms of either verbal abuse or physical abuse or even the potential for sexual abuse. Your government eliminated that. Now, the only time a man can get help in terms of counselling is if he's already been charged by police after the fact.

Minister, here's the question for you: Will your government put back in place the funding so that men who know they have a problem can get some help in terms of counselling before they commit an offence, before the police have to become involved, before women are hurt?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I stand before this Legislative Assembly to say that we're very proud in Ontario of the framework for violence with regard to programs to stop violence against women across some nine ministries. It's a precedent in Canada that's being looked at to be adopted by other provinces and territories.

Having said that, there's always more to do. The honourable member opposite is raising a concern. Programs for men who are abusive do exist in our communities. They're not all focused to people who are there because of the court system. They are for other reasons as well. But I will underline, as I've already done to his colleague the member for Riverdale, that we are assessing our programs. We do that on an annual basis. The time is appropriate for the member and the agencies that have a challenge to bring their case forward, which I understand they are doing, to the appropriate ministries and ministers.

ABORIGINAL HEALING AND WELLNESS STRATEGY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware of a very successful program called the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy that is doing exceptionally good work in our First Nations community right across the province, in community health and family violence. The evaluation indicates suicide in some communities is cut in half. This program needs the government's agreement to proceed before the end of December. If they don't get that approval, they have to give layoff notices to 300 people who are doing very sensitive community services. The evaluation's been done and it is an extremely successful program.

My question to the minister is this: Can you provide the community with the assurance that the program will continue, and can you give the House the assurance that they will have that information before the end of December so they will not have to proceed with the very disruptive layoff notices that otherwise will have to take place?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I'll refer that to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the honourable member very much for the question. Yes, he can have the assurance of this government that they will receive the answer before any of those kinds of decisions have to be made. He is quite right, the evaluation had indicated that this program has done some very, very positive things in the aboriginal community.

Mr Phillips: I want to be sure I understand what the answer was. They need the answer by the end of December. The evaluations are universally positive. I think the community is anxious as to why they couldn't have gotten the answer already, obviously, with something this successful. But did the minister say that, first, this government has the intention to proceed with the program; second, it is the intention of the government to make that known to the community before the end of December this year; and, third, at that time they will also announce the funding for the community to proceed with this program for the foreseeable future?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I think one of the things that is a very good, positive step about this particular strategy is the evaluation mechanism that is in it, because it is giving us the opportunity to judge very clearly and to see the benefits that this program has had in aboriginal communities. We certainly are aware of the time frames. They will indeed have an answer, and my understanding is there is no reason why that answer will not be positive.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also to the minister responsible for community and social services. The question is this, Minister: There are a whole lot of aboriginal organizations out there working in aboriginal communities and in non-native communities to promote health and well-being and actually to save the health care system a lot of money. They need to know that the money is going to be there, not in February, not in March, not next July. They need to know the money is going to be there now.

1510

Minister, the question you have to answer is a very simple one: When are they going to receive the money so that they can do the planning, they can do the organization, they won't have to lay people off and they can continue to provide the programs that are saving your Ministry of Health a lot of money? When will they get the money?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We're well aware of the positive value and the good work that this strategy has done in many aboriginal communities across this province. I know that other ministers and I have had the opportunity to meet with members of First Nations and to see first-hand the value of this program and what it has done.

As I think the honourable member is probably aware, yes, they deserve and will be receiving an answer very shortly. As I said, it's my understanding that it will be a positive answer. But as he also knows, the agreement is very clear that the First Nations and the government will enter into negotiations for a further strategy in terms of what may be needed or what may be done in future. That negotiation must be completed before the end of March, and I hope he is well aware of that. We are very pleased to be able to proceed with discussions with First Nations.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Minister, you don't understand what that means. Those particular programs need to know that they have the dollars now so that they can do their planning into the next fiscal year. They have lease arrangements, they have all kinds of obligations that they have signed with various agencies, and if you delay the process until the end of March, it means those programs will shut down.

Len Wood and I were in Attawapiskat not more than two weeks ago. We were there and saw first-hand some of the work they do. For example, they have the crisis teams. As a result of the work through those initiatives, we have decreased suicides in those communities by significant numbers. How many children will have to die before you wake up and do the job that you're charged to do?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, I really wish he would listen to what I said. We are well aware that there is an answer that needs to be given before the end of December. We also have completed the evaluation. The evaluation indicates it's a very positive program. As I said, I see no reason why there will not be a positive answer. The process that goes on from January to March, though, is a very important process for negotiation with First Nations, because we think there might well be improvements and enhancements that we will be able to make in co-operation with First Nations in this particular strategy.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'd like to direct my question to the Attorney General, and it concerns his announcement a few weeks ago regarding the Office for Victims of Crime coming into being. I would like to know what are the specific outreach activities and the composition of the new crime victims office. How do you see it working in terms of assisting Ontario crime victims?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the question from the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who I know is very committed to programs that serve victims of crime.

On November 19 it was my distinct honour to announce the creation of a new Office for Victims of Crime. The office is the first of its kind in Canada, and it will serve as a focal point within government for victims' concerns and activities. The office was suggested by crime victims and victims' organizations themselves. They have helped us create this office, and the level of their involvement is unprecedented. The level of consultations between people who have been directly affected by crime has been unprecedented, and those on the front lines have been very much a part of the creation of this office.

Sharon Rosenfeldt is the chair of the office and Scott Newark is special counsel in the office. They both have been at the forefront of advancing victims' issues and ensuring victims' services for many years, and under their guidance the office has assembled a team with unparalleled expertise.

Mr Hastings: My supplementary relates to recent statistics announced by the city of Toronto police about the still persistent high crime rate that we have in the city of Toronto, despite some critics' contentions that crime is going down. How do you see the new office for crime victims paralleling and complementing other crime prevention initiatives that this government has introduced in the past year and a half?

Hon Mr Harnick: Because we have increased the number of victims' services associated with the criminal justice system by such a significant extent over what previously existed, it is now very important that an office be created to coordinate the work that various offices, for instance, within the victim crisis assistance referral service and the victim/witness assistance program work. We want to make sure that the services being delivered by these offices are of the highest quality, that the services are comparable from office to office, and that people are receiving the access they need to the programs that are available.

The office will be working in conjunction with other ongoing efforts to improve the justice system, and one of those is undoubtedly the working group that we've set up to deal with the implementation of the May-Iles inquest recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mr Harnick: On completion of consultation that the victims' office is now taking across the province, we will have a blueprint to ensure the coordination of those services -

The Speaker: New question.

TUITION FEES

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. It's always fascinating when the Premier is in the House. Let me remind you of what he said yesterday: "If you can find a university or a college that is turning down a student who has academic qualifications for lack of money, I want you to bring that student to my attention. They are not allowed to do that and operate with public money in Ontario."

On October 28 I raised the case of Chris Chmelyk. Chris is an engineering student at Queen's University. You weren't very sympathetic back in October, but I thought it would be important to remind you of it. Chris doesn't qualify for OSAP because his parents' income is too high. His parents can only afford to send him $200 a month. He has exhausted his lines of credit with the banks and in January he will have exhausted all of the university's emergency funding.

I wanted to ask you, in light of the Premier's comments yesterday, what are you going to do about Chris Chmelyk if he's unable to continue in January, and what actions are you going to take against Queen's University?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I think we all in this House know that whether under a Liberal government, an NDP government or the present Progressive Conservative government, there are criteria to be eligible for the Ontario student assistance program, and students with a family income above a certain level - for example, if your family income is $100,000 a year, one would not expect the taxpayers to be contributing in terms of grants or loans in that kind of situation.

I say to the member for Oriole, I'm sure he would join me in terms of attempting to rectify the problem, whereby in 1995-96 the federal Liberal transfer payments to the province of Ontario were $6.3 billion, whereas in 1998-99 those same transfer payments were under $4 billion, a reduction of about $2.5 billion.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon David Johnson: That money is going to health and to post-secondary education. If the member for Oriole would join me in approaching the federal government -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Caplan: It's interesting. The minister and the Premier have to get their stories straight. You can talk all you want and give non-answers, but that doesn't help Chris and students across this province. Let me remind you of what else the Premier said yesterday, and he was very clear: "If you want to get public money from this government and run a university or a community college in the province of Ontario, you must guarantee access, regardless of financial circumstances" - that's pretty categorical - "for every student who qualifies in the province of Ontario."

Let me ask you again, Minister: What are you going to do about Queen's University and Chris Chmelyk if Chris is unable to continue in January, not because of poor academic performance but because of your tuition policies, because of your changes to OSAP, because of the debt burden that you are placing on students? He's accessed all the possible funding. So let me ask you again: In light of the Premier's comments, what are you going to do if Chris has to leave in January and what sanctions are you going to place against Queen's University?

Hon David Johnson: What we have done is put in place a series of supports for low-income students who need that support to ensure that no low-income student in the province of Ontario is denied access to post-secondary education because of lack of funds. We've done that by, for example, over the last three years increasing the amount of money, direct financial support, going to students through the Ontario student assistance program by $134 million. It's interesting that this now brings the level of support we are giving to post-secondary students up to $534 million.

What do you suppose it was when the Liberals were in office? Let's have a look. In 1990, the level of support was $205 million, over $300 million less.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): In the absence of the Premier, this is a question for the Minister of Citizenship. Today is the International Day for Persons with Disabilities, and my question is about another outlandish remark made by your Premier last week. Last week in this House, your Premier tried to imply that the former member for York East, Mr Gary Malkowski, supports your empty Bill 83 and your government's sorry record in responding to the needs of people with disabilities. After Mr Malkowski heard the outlandish remarks by your Premier, he straightaway wrote him a letter. In his letter he says to the Premier: "Your statements could not be further from the truth. I think Bill 83 is useless, toothless and patronizing legislation. I have never supported Bill 83."

Minister, will you, on behalf of your Premier, retract last week's statement and will you apologize to Mr Malkowski?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): First of all, if you cared to read Hansard carefully, you would see that the Premier's comments in the House last week about former NDP MPP Gary Malkowski had to do with the government's program, the Ontario disability support plan. At a news conference in 1997, speaking for the Canadian Hearing Society, Mr Malkowski said about the launch of the ODSP: "I wish to congratulate you, Minister" - referring to the Minister of Community and Social Services - "for showing the most positive kind of announcement we've had in some time, including previous governments. I would also like to offer congratulations to Mike Harris for making a commitment, for introducing the Ontarians with disabilities legislation."

So your statement is totally false.

Interjections.

1520

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Ottawa-Rideau, could you go back to your seat, please.

Mr Hampton: This is incredible. Not only does this government think they can spend $50 million in taxpayers' money -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. Member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Hampton: This is getting more outlandish all the time. Not only does this government think it can spend $50 million -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Look, folks, he's going to get his question in, so you may as well let him do it. It's going to happen, so stop heckling.

Mr Hampton: I'll try again, Speaker, because I think we've caught the Premier in yet another very outlandish situation.

Not only do you think you can spend $50 million of taxpayers' money trying to brainwash people, but you also think you can twist the words of Mr Malkowski. I've got Hansard. This is what the Premier said. After you introduced Bill 83 he said: "We have had more people with disabilities, including a former New Democratic member who came forward and said of the move that we made, `This is the biggest breakthrough in the history of the Ontario Legislature.'"

Mr Malkowski said nothing like that. This is what he said:

"Your statements could not be further from the truth. I think Bill 83 is useless, toothless and patronizing legislation. I have never supported Bill 83."

Stop trying to put words in people's mouths. Apologize to Mr Malkowski. Stop trying to misrepresent his views. Will you do that?

Hon Ms Bassett: I want to point out I will not apologize because Mr Malkowski did give input and took part in our consultation process during the summer. I want to thank him for that. I must say, that's better than any member of the parties opposite bothered to do. If you were so interested in this issue, you could have come forward and -

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Step outside and say that. Let's go. Come on.

Interjections.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Remember that course in law school on ethics, Howard?

The Speaker: Ottawa-Rideau, you're still not in your seat. If you don't - I've been warning you. Get back to your seat, please. Thank you.

New question, member for Eglinton.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): My question can be answered inside the House. It's to the Minister of Community and Social Services. This government has taken welcome and significant steps in the area of child protection reform. One of these steps was the introduction of amendments to the Child and Family Services Act, which are now proceeding through legislation. This morning I understand you were at the Children's Aid Society of Toronto. Could you tell this House about the purpose of your visit?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Yes, I'd be very pleased to do so. I was at the Children's Aid Society of Toronto this morning to announce that we are introducing our new funding framework for children's aid societies here in the province. It's a new framework that will provide fairer funding and more equitable funding across the province for children's aid societies and it also will better reflect the caseload that front-line workers are currently carrying.

Supported by the $170 million in funding over the next three years we announced this year, this will mean that they will be hiring an additional 760 permanent front-line workers over the next three years. That's a staffing increase of 24% and that's in addition to the 220 new staff that were hired from last year's new investment into children's aid societies.

The framework will provide for more intensive training for both new and experienced staff. We're also increasing the minimum rates for foster parents by 85%.

Mr Saunderson: This is very exciting news for children in need of protection and for the children's aid societies. I know the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies has been calling for an equitable and rational approach to funding. I'm sure that this House would like to know if this new funding framework will achieve this objective.

Hon Mrs Ecker: As a matter of fact, the new framework actually does a number of things. As we mentioned, it is a more rational approach. It's something that the coroner's inquest and the task force on child mortality had recommended. This is also something the children's aid societies have lobbied for for quite some time. We'll be training children's aid societies in the next week or two for this new formula, because the money will be flowing this month to them. There will be $20 million that goes this year, $60 million in 1999, and $90 million in the year 2000.

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Ecker: In the meantime, the other important thing is that they still have access to the contingency funding. That's the emergency funding that is available if their caseload exceeds their base budget. That will be available to them during this transition process.

The honourable member from across the way who keeps saying "Is this indeed more money?" should check the 1995-96 budget, and she can check this year's budget, and she will find that this is a substantial and significant increase in new dollars for children's aid societies.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Last week, I asked you why your ministry was cancelling the support dollars for visiting specialists in northern communities. Today I want to bring to your attention the case of Keith McIntyre of Elliott Lake.

Mr McIntyre presented at the hospital emergency room with acute appendicitis. A surgeon was available but there was no anaesthesiologist available. Therefore, Mr McIntyre needed to travel to Sudbury for surgery. There was no ambulance available for the 170-kilometre trip to Sudbury. Mr McIntyre's senior-citizen father then drove his son to Sudbury.

Minister, do you think Mr McIntyre should have to rely on a senior-citizen father to drive to Sudbury - a distance, by the way, that is about the same as Toronto to London - in order to have an emergency operation?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member knows, our government is undertaking reform in this province so we can bring services in this province as close to the communities and the homes of individuals as possible.

That's why we have expanded the number of MRIs in this province from 12 to 35. That's why we have now opened 21 new dialysis centres. This week we opened two, one in Brockville and one in Cornwall. That is part of what this government is doing. We are responding to the specific needs of people in this province, throughout the province, to ensure that we can bring the services closer to home.

Mr Michael Brown: Again we got no answer from the minister regarding the service to northern patients.

Ten days ago, a patient at Manitoulin Health Centre, who was in hospital with an apparent heart attack at the Little Current facility of the Manitoulin Health Centre, was waiting to go to Sudbury Memorial Hospital to the cardiac care unit for treatment. He had been admitted five days before to the Manitoulin facility. Since this was the weekend, the ambulance wouldn't transfer him to the cardiac care unit in Sudbury. That meant the patient lost his place in the queue. They admitted another patient to the Sudbury Memorial Hospital. This patient didn't finally get to Sudbury until Tuesday.

We want to know what you're doing to help these specific patients in these specific circumstances. We don't need $47 million worth of propaganda to tell us how good your health care is. We need to have the services available now.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would certainly agree with the member opposite. We are doing everything we can to ensure that the services can be provided here.

Even this last week we have again taken action to address the health needs of people in northern Ontario. We have introduced a new initiative with the Ontario Medical Association. These are the physicians in the province. We developed a plan jointly with them so we could provide more physician access in 20 northern communities. We increased the fees that physicians could earn in those communities. We are providing bonuses for those physicians in providing obstetrics, emergency and anaesthesiology services. We are providing retention bonuses of $10,000.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We are taking action to ensure that people in the north have access to the services they need, and this is just one more initiative that we have undertaken. We've also added -

The Speaker: New question.

1530

ABORIGINAL HEALING AND WELLNESS STRATEGY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the minister responsible for native issues. You would know that our government back in 1994 funded the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy. That agreement comes due this year. Earlier we asked a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services, who seemed to indicate that there's going to be an ongoing review until the month of March.

I want to be very clear, Minister, in the question to you. Is the minister prepared to put the dollars on the table and send a signal to the aboriginal communities of this province to let them know that this program will be renewed and do the work it was set out to do?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): For the third time, what the Minister of Community and Social Services said is that, number one, she expects there will be a positive answer insofar as the future of the program is concerned. She also advised you that because an evaluation of the program has taken place, between January and March there will be a review of the program to see what kind of improvements can be made to it.

That's why we have an evaluation. We don't have the evaluation so we can forget about how to make it better. The minister was very clear that during that period of time there will be discussions taking place to see how the program can be improved.

Mr Bisson: I had the opportunity to speak to both Grand Chief Fox, who you know quite well, and also Deputy Grand Chief James Morris. They've told me that in meetings with the Premier and meetings with the then minister, your government was going to renew the funding for this program. They are now getting signals from your ministry that the review will cause a delay and, at the worst, the review will mean there will be program changes in which they will lose money to programs such as the program that's utilized in crisis intervention.

You know as well as I do how important those programs are. I want assurances in the House today, that you say to these individuals and these groups that the dollars will be in place for the programs that were set out initially and you don't have to go through a review because you've already done it.

Hon Mr Harnick: I'm giving you that assurance again. The minister has stated that there will be a positive response to the continuation of the program. The minister also said that because there has been an evaluation of the program, the program has an opportunity to be improved. Certainly that's the intention of the government. I don't know what more we can tell you, until you're going to take yes for an answer.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my privilege to have an opportunity to ask a question of the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. But first, Minister, I want to thank you for visiting my riding of Durham East recently during the salute to small business. I really appreciate that. It's very personal. The efforts you made mean a lot to my constituents and certainly to all ridings in Ontario that I know you visited during that important week.

Minister, you listened and spoke with the employees at a small business in Bowmanville called Durham Precision Cabinets. I heard you remark on a couple of occasions the importance of exporting for small business, the growth opportunities. Could you explain for the House today and share with us what your intention is and what exactly you are trying to convince small business to get involved in exporting with.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'd like to thank the honourable member for Durham East for the question and also for his participation in visiting businesses in his riding during the salute to small business.

Trade is extremely important to Ontarians. Ontario international goods and services support over 1.5 million jobs in this province. For every $100,000 of Ontario exports, one new job is created for an Ontarian. More trade means more jobs.

Our government is committed to creating an environment where small business can grow and compete successfully in a global marketplace. That's one of the reasons we set up the Minister's Export Marketing Task Force under the direction of our colleague Bill Saunderson, the member for Eglinton, to look at ways we can encourage more small businesses to get involved in exporting, because, as I've said many times, more exports mean more jobs for Ontarians.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for those remarks, Minister, because clearly you are the champion or leader of creating jobs in this province. I commend you for the hard work and leadership, and if I had more time I'd go into that.

I was reading just recently in Canadian Business magazine that Ontario is accepting nominations for the Ontario Global Traders Award. Minister, can you tell members of this House today how they can tell their constituents, the small business people, to put their names forward for that award?

Hon Mr Palladini: The Ontario Global Traders Award is Ontario's first-ever program for recognizing export achievement for small and medium-sized enterprises. It was one of the recommendations that was put forward by the Minister's Export Marketing Task Force. We have partnered with the private sector in creating and delivering this particular program.

Companies such as the Bank of Montreal, Canadian Business Data, the Export Development Corp, Canadian Airlines, and Deloitte and Touche have also donated their time and money to ensure that exporters are properly recognized and rewarded.

The objective of these awards is to raise awareness of the importance of exporting for Ontario's economy, to highlight the work of successful companies that non-exporting companies can learn from, and finally, encourage a stronger exporting network.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mr Palladini: Should members of this House like to nominate eligible companies or find out more about this particular program, all they have to do -

The Speaker: New question.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. This government has not responded to the specific and serious concerns that the disabled community has raised about what you call the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Will you commit to meeting with the ODA committee next week to address these issues?

Last year, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a unanimous decision in the Eldridge case that said all governments have an obligation to provide sign-language interpreters for the deaf who use the health care system. This is one aspect of what an effective ODA would address. When and how is your government going to fulfill this obligation?

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): With regard to the Eldridge case, I can tell you that my colleague the Minister of Health will ensure that the charter of rights of deaf patients to effective communication with their health care providers is being considered and will be fulfilled. As part of its commitment to complying with the Eldridge decision, the Ministry of Health is currently consulting with deaf consumers, advocates and service providers on the province's existing interpreter service.

Mr Gilles Morin: Minister, the question I asked was, are you going to meet with the committee next week? Can you answer that? That's a very simple question.

Hon Ms Bassett: I have met with the ODA committee 10 times over the summer. I will be continuing to meet with them. I value their input. I can't promise that I will be meeting with them next week, but in the near future, I'm sure.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I have the weekly business statement that I would like to read at this time.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Go ahead.

Hon Mr Sterling: On the afternoon of Monday, December 7, we will be dealing with Bill 82, the Environmental Statute Law Amendment Act. In the evening we'll have the House calendar motion.

On Tuesday afternoon we will have concurrences; in the evening, Bill 72, which is the Intercountry Adoption Act, and Bill 76, the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, for second reading.

On Wednesday afternoon we'll be dealing with Bill 81, the Tax Credits and Revenue Protection Act, and in the evening we will not be sitting.

On Thursday morning we have ballot item 37, Madam Speaker, in your name, and ballot item 38, in Mr Martiniuk's name. In the afternoon we will be dealing with Bill 73, and we will make clear our intentions about the evening next Thursday as soon as possible.

1540

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to revert to motions. I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with respect to Bill 56, An Act to establish the Greater Toronto Services Board and the Greater Toronto Transit Authority and to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act.

The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed.

MOTIONS

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding the dates provided in the order of the House dated December 2, 1998, for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 56, the standing committee on general government shall instead be authorized to meet for the purposes of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 56 on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, from 3:30 pm to 6 pm, and on Wednesday, December 9, 1998, following routine proceedings until the completion of clause-by-clause consideration;

That at 4:30 pm on Wednesday, December 9, 1998, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and that the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto; and

That all other provisions of the order of December 2, 1998, stand.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this petition.

This petition is signed by some 6,000 people in the city of St Catharines and surrounding area. It's in support of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed closure of Niagara's only denominational hospital and the devastating effects that proposal will have on patients and potential patients from across the region.

"We ask that the Health Services Restructuring Commission reassess its recommendations for the Niagara region and ensure quality, accessibility and affordability through a continued role for the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

ABORIGINAL HEALING AND WELLNESS STRATEGY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition signed by the chiefs of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, who just recently were in Timmins for one of their assemblies. It reads as follows:

"The community members and chiefs and council of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation territory petition the provincial government of Ontario to commit funding for the continuation of the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy, AHWS, into phase 2.

"Phase 1 of the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy has enabled many of the First Nations, aboriginal organizations and individuals to enhance skills and provide programming in many areas of health and healing.

"Phase 1 is coming to completion in March 1999. There is a need to continue the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy into phase 2 to build upon the program and service already established."

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition that was delivered to me today here at the Legislative Assembly by a constituent and it reads as follows:

"Whereas 138 schools across Toronto are candidates for closing, due to changes in the provincial funding formula;

"We, the community of Chine Drive public school, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure funding is available to prevent the closing of schools.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows."

There are 28 names on this petition, bringing it to a total of 381 from Chine Drive school. I have affixed my name to this petition.

SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai ici une pétition qui m'est parvenue de M. Roger Laporte, favorisant les caméras aux feux rouges de circulation.

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que les caméras aux feux rouges peuvent contribuer à diminuer de manière importante le nombre de blessures et de décès occasionnés par des personnes qui grillent des feux rouges ;

«Attendu que les caméras aux feux rouges prennent uniquement une photographie de la plaque d'immatriculation, atténuant ainsi les inquiétudes concernant le respect de la vie privée ;

«Attendu que tous les revenus provenant des amendes pour ces infractions peuvent facilement être déposés dans un fonds qui servira à améliorer la sécurité aux intersections à haut risque de collision ;

«Attendu que l'on méprise de plus en plus les lois sur la circulation routière et que cela cause des blessures graves aux piétons, aux cyclistes, aux automobilistes et, tout particulièrement, aux enfants et personnes âgées ;

«Attendu que le gouvernement provincial a endossé l'usage de caméras similaires pour recueillir les péages sur l'autoroute 407 ; et

«Attendu que les maires et les citoyens préoccupés par cette situation en Ontario ont demandé l'autorisation d'utiliser des caméras aux feux rouges à cause de ressources policières limitées ;

«Nous, soussignés, présentons la pétition suivante à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Que le gouvernement de l'Ontario appuie l'installation de caméras aux feux rouges aux intersections à haut risque de collision pour identifier et poursuivre les automobilistes qui grillent les feux rouges.»

J'y ajoute ma signature.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are the residents covered by the tri-county Lambton-Kent-Essex; and

"Whereas we are the taxpayers covered under the Health Services Restructuring Commission, Lambton hospitals; and

"Whereas we are the health care providers and users;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reinstate all complex continuing care beds and transitional care beds and funding slated to be removed under the Lambton hospitals restructuring report."

I am proud to affix my signature.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario, which reads:

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas 30% of bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas over 70% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of the bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals that are hunted over bait; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

I support the petition and affix my signature.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a very important petition here that deals with prostate cancer. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"Whereas prostate cancer is the fourth-leading cause of fatal cancer in Ontario; and

"Whereas prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of fatal cancer for males; and

"Whereas early detection is one of the best tools for being victorious in our battle against cancer; and

"Whereas the early detection blood test known as PSA, which is prostate-specific antigen, is one of the most effective tests at diagnosing early prostate cancer;

"Therefore be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to encourage the Ministry of Health to have this test added to the list of services covered by OHIP and that this be done immediately in order for us to save lives and to beat prostate cancer."

I agree with the petition. I've signed it, and I would like to file it with the assembly.

ABORIGINAL HEALING AND WELLNESS STRATEGY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition that was signed by a number of people who have been in contact with the Aboriginal Healing and Wellness Centre and it reads as follows:

"To Premier Mike Harris:

"Please fund the Aboriginal Healing and Wellness Strategy, phase 2. We need our crisis teams."

This is signed by a number of people who have been positively affected by the work done by the crisis teams and I'm pleased to present this petition on behalf of those who signed it.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of Minister Leach, who of course is not able to, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, pursuant to standing order 38(b). This petition relates to the importance of heritage issues and it concludes with the comment:

"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."

This is presented by the Governor Simcoe branch of the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris 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 or both; 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 refused to listen to the representatives who work most closely with their constituents, those being 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 or both."

I affix my signature as I am in complete agreement with this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by hundreds of individuals.

"Whereas we are the residents covered by the Waterloo-Wellington-Dufferin District Health Council; and

"Whereas we are the taxpayers covered under the Health Services Restructuring Commission, Waterloo region health services restructuring report; and

"Whereas we are the health care providers and users;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reinstate all acute care beds and funding slated to be removed under the Waterloo region health services restructuring preliminary report."

I am pleased to affix my signature.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 55 people.

"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."

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have petitions that read as follows:

"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 health care 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 $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 to this petition as I am in complete agreement with it.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I have several petitions signed by people in my riding that read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised in the Common Sense Revolution to maintain health care spending at no less than $17.4 billion annually; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has exceeded that spending floor every year since being elected; and

"Whereas total health care spending for 1998-99 will be $18.5 billion, the highest in Ontario's history; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has achieved this despite cuts in transfer payments by the federal Liberal government of more than $2.4 billion; and

"Whereas a recent survey by the Fraser Institute proves that health care waiting lists in Ontario are the shortest anywhere in Canada; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is placing a greater emphasis on community-based health services in order to better care for an aging population; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is eliminating waste and duplication in the health care sector and reinvesting every penny found into quality services; and

"Whereas this has resulted in reinvestments of over $3 billion; and

"Whereas Niagara region seniors will benefit from the government's $54-million investment to create 646 new long-term-care beds in the Niagara region alone; and

"Whereas $75 million is being reinvested over the next two years to open hospital beds during peak demand periods in order to handle emergency patients; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has pledged $24.3 million to dramatically expand breast cancer screening; and

"Whereas 140,000 additional low-income earners are eligible to receive help with their drug costs through the expansion of the Trillium drug plan; and

"Whereas over 520 prescription drugs have been added to the Ontario drug plan formulary, giving seniors and others who rely on the ODB program a wider range of products to serve their health care needs;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed with fulfilling the commitments made in the Common Sense Revolution and continuing to pursue policies which will make Ontario the best place to live, work, invest and raise a family."

As I am in full agreement with this petition, I will affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES DU GRAND TORONTO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 56, An Act to establish the Greater Toronto Services Board and the Greater Toronto Transit Authority and to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act / Projet de loi 56, Loi visant à créer la Commission des services du grand Toronto et la Régie des Transports en commun du grand Toronto et à modifier la Loi sur la Régie des transports en commun de la région de Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 2, 1998, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Leach has moved second reading of Bill 56.

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 2, it's ordered to the standing committee on general government. Agreed? Agreed.

FAIRNESS FOR PROPERTY TAXPAYERS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES CONTRIBUABLES DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Assessment Act, Municipal Act, Assessment Review Board Act and Education Act in respect of property taxes / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation foncière, la Loi sur les municipalités, la Loi sur la Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne l'impôt foncier.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 30, 1998, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Baird has moved second reading of Bill 79.

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

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 30, 1998, this bill shall be ordered to the finance committee.

1600

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT (CHILD WELFARE REFORM), 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE (RÉFORME DU BIEN-ÊTRE DE L'ENFANCE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 73, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act in order to better promote the best interests, protection and well being of children / Projet de loi 73, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille afin de mieux promouvoir l'intérêt véritable de l'enfant, sa protection et son bien-être.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Madam Speaker, may I have unanimous consent to defer our opening comments, as our critic is not in the House today?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is there consent? Agreed.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you. I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 73, because there has been a great interest across the province, certainly among those interested in child protection issues, in the revisions that the Minister of Community and Social Services has brought in. For a good long period of time, there has been a desire on the part of those working in child protection to see a review of the Child and Family Services Act to deal with some of the gaps and some of the concerns that have arisen over the number of years since this act became law.

It is quite customary for a Legislature to review very important legislation after it has been in place for a number of years, to ensure that it is having the effect it was meant to have. There has been a demand on the part of child protection workers for the last number of years that the Child and Family Services Act be looked at in relation to the problems which have arisen around protecting children in the province. It is sad indeed that the current flurry of change really came about because of a number of inquests that occurred on children who lost their lives and who according to the findings of those inquests were not well served, were not well protected by the legislation as it stands.

Of particular concern, of course, was the issue around how we capture the problem of neglect of children in child protection legislation - how we define "neglect," how we can actually ensure that those who are child protection officers have the tools they need to ensure that children who are suffering from neglect, rather that active abuse, get some protection. This is a very difficult issue. As we know from looking at revisions of child protection legislation in other provinces, it is a very delicate matter to try to be sure that you have sufficient protection for children in an act but that you are not being unduly intrusive into the decisions made by parents who believe, whether they're correct or not, that they are acting in the best interests of their own child.

I think you will find that most people in Ontario, certainly those in our party, agree that it is time we examined the capacity of child protection officers to protect children who are being neglected, either in their families of origin or in any other custodial situation.

What we do have to be very sure about, however, is that we are not unduly trespassing on decisions that parents make. We know that one of the major criticisms of the current legislation was that the overriding philosophy behind the act was to prevent child protection workers from being unduly intrusive in the family. In fact, their instruction was to protect children but to be mindful of that prime command that they should do so in the least intrusive way.

Many of us have been concerned that that wording has been interpreted in a way that has prevented people from acting appropriately on behalf of children. I myself know that in many of the cases we have seen, that was the directive that prevented the children's aid society from taking very concerted action in cases where they were concerned about children. That need to balance the ability to protect children with the need to respect the integrity of the family in which that child may be is a very delicate balance.

I think that we have gone overboard in this province for a long time in favour of non-intrusiveness into the family, and as a result many children have suffered. Some have even lost their lives.

It is indeed time for us to look at how we take action on behalf of these children so that the prime directive is the best interests of the child. While we may see that within the context of not unduly intruding into families, where there is any conflict between intrusiveness and protection, protection must win out. I would caution all of us that it is important for us, as this pendulum swings from non-intrusiveness toward protectiveness of the child, that we not let it swing too far.

Before the Child and Family Services Act came into effect in this province, very often families experienced intrusive intervention from child protection officers, and it was as a result of society's repugnance around it that the pendulum swung when the Child and Family Services Act came into effect. If it has swung too far toward non-intrusiveness, and I believe it did, we must be very careful that in changing it we don't swing that pendulum too far the other way. It is very important that we work to achieve a balance, and I would say that if we go too far on the side of intrusiveness, we will find a reluctance of parents and the community to co-operate with child protection authorities, so I would urge us to look at that balance.

I think one of the most important ways in which we look at that balance is a series of extensive hearings on this bill. Yes, the Minister of Community and Social Services conducted an inquiry, had a task force that looked into these issues, but the general public in Ontario has a right to comment on this very important issue. We need to hear from those who have been wards of children's aid societies; we need to hear from those who were not made wards of children's aid societies, who in fact see children's aid societies as not having protected them; we need to hear from the families of origin and foster families; we need to hear from the child protection workers themselves. It's extremely important, if we are going to change this act, that we do so with thorough consultation with those who have been affected by it.

I believe that one of the things we will hear when we go out to hearings on this act is a huge disappointment on the part of people across Ontario who are concerned about child protection that the changes are minimal in the amendments that have been brought forward. Those of the members who sat on the social development committee with me as we looked at the private member's bill on the protection of children involved in prostitution will know that one of the biggest disappointments will be the government's failure to heed the task force recommendation that child protection go to the age of 18 rather than just 16.

I think it is a mistake for the minister to have cherry-picked among the recommendations from the task force and not to have looked at those recommendations as a whole. I think we will get good advice, which may encourage the Minister of Community and Social Services to amend her act in a more appropriate way. That is certainly my hope.

1610

We know from inquest findings, from the very serious comments that have come forward from coroners, from pathologists, from coroner's inquest jurors, that it is extremely important for us to look at things that were left out of the original bill. One of those is the issue of evidence from past situations in terms of child protection. It was not possible in the previous act for child protection officers to bring forward past conduct, what in the courts is called "similar case conduct," in order to try and adduce the kind of proof that was needed to find the courts able to give protection to children.

This act is being very clear that there needs to be an improvement in that part of the bill, that we need to be able to look at the pattern of behaviour that may give rise to a pattern of abuse or a pattern of neglect; that it is relevant to a child protection hearing to know whether the adult involved as a caregiver has had a past relationship with child protection authorities and what that relationship was. I know that in the courts, when we have looked at issues of child abuse from a criminal perspective, when we've looked at issues of wife abuse from a criminal perspective, one of the major important pieces of evidence that gets brought forward is whether or not there is a pattern of behaviour that has happened in more than one situation. That is something this bill enables to happen and is something we would definitely want to have in place.

Another part of the bill makes it important for us to report to the child protection authorities when we believe that a child is in need of protection. One of the things that has come forward is that teachers, doctors, ministers and many other professionals who deal with children have been reluctant to report because they didn't believe they had a sufficient level of proof. The act is trying to say that it's important to report on the basis that you have a reason to believe that the child may be in danger and in need of protection. Then, of course, it's up to the child protection authorities to determine whether that belief has the level of proof that's required to have them intervene. This reinforces the requirement of people who are in a professional relationship to children, who are doctors or teachers or early childhood educators or nurses, to report child abuse and neglect if they have reason to believe that it is happening, and to report it themselves.

I remember when I was Minister of Education and there arose a great debate: If a teacher had reason to believe that there was abuse of a child, many school boards required that teacher to report that to a principal, and then it went up a chain of command and very often never got reported at all. It is important that professionals report directly, that it be their responsibility. It is not good enough to delegate that responsibility either upward to your boss or superior officer or downward to a secretary or someone else, because it is based on the belief that the professional had.

It's going to be important in these public hearings to reinforce the fact that all of us are responsible for the protection of children. We must build a capacity and a willingness among people in our communities to take this duty very seriously, to create a culture in which we all share that responsibility, where we accept absolutely that it is important for every person who suspects child abuse and neglect to be part of the system that protects that child. Very often that culture has not been there. It has been a real problem in communities where those who report then get castigated for having reported it. They become outcasts in their own communities because they have dared to speak the truth.

The whole problem with abuse, whether it's abuse of children, whether it's abuse of women, is silence. One of the things we must do if we're going to change our approach to protection is to change our belief that what happens in the family is not the business of the rest of us as the community, because it isn't the case.

It is always our business, because the damage that occurs to children in abusive or neglectful situations is damage that follows that person all their lives, in many cases. They require a lot of support and intervention to be a productive and contributing citizen, in many cases. Therefore, we're all concerned because we all bear the cost of ensuring that people who have been abused and neglected as children do become productive members of our society, and we bear that cost as well as the pain when we do not intervene successfully.

One of the issues we all have, of course, is, are we going to have the resources to make this bill actually effective? We certainly have heard, over the months of this task force, from those who are on the front lines that even with the current bill, children's aid societies do not have the resources they need to be effective in their efforts to protect children.

I know that in my own community, year after year the children's aid society has had to drop one program or another. Those protective programs, those preventive programs, are not mandated programs. Very frequently, children's aid societies are able to work with parents in their own homes and help them to be more effective and appropriate parents, but it takes resources to put into those homes and to help those parents adopt an appropriate parental role.

Those kinds of support programs are not mandated and they need to be provided. But children's aid society after children's aid society, facing a financial crunch, have pared down their programs just to the mandatory programs that they are required to provide. Unfortunately, the preventive-supportive programs are not among those mandatory programs. As a result, more and more children are coming into care, and yet the children's aid societies find themselves without sufficient foster parents to deal appropriately with these children to ensure that the children are safe in foster care.

In my own community, in fact in the bulk of southwestern Ontario, in recent days there have been reports about the desperate efforts of children's aid societies to get more and more foster parents available to look after children, yet they have not been able to attract those foster parents. Part of it is because, of course, the daily stipend for doing that is so low that people will not take on these very often troubled children who are in need of very intensive parental care.

It may well be that the funding formula that the minister announced - not here to this Legislature, but announced somewhere else today - may ease some of these fears, but that makes it that much more important for us to go out to the communities with lengthy hearings so we can see and hear from individual children's aid societies how they would fare under this new funding formula, because if the resources are not there, the strengthened act will mean nothing. If the resources are not there to permit children's aid societies to ensure that they have appropriate placements, safe placements for children, we are going to see what we used to see in this province: children incarcerated in institutions, supposedly to protect them, supposedly to give them a better quality of life, only to find that in those institutional settings those children were abused even more.

We don't want to go back to those days. What we want to be able to do in strengthening this act is make sure that if children are brought under the protection of Ontario, they will not find themselves further jeopardized in care; that they will find it is truly a protective placement and not one which leads to even greater abuse and neglect, as has sometimes been the problem in the past. This is an act that we are anxious to see discussed in committee.

1620

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr John L. Parker (York East): The member for London Centre spoke eloquently, as she always does, this time on the subject of Bill 73, the amending act to the Child and Family Services Act.

The member points out some of the respects in which the current act has failed children in this province and the need to amend the act so that it responds better to the needs of children in this province.

The member points out that the existing act, in its wording, in its structure, has had the effect of discouraging some care workers to intervene in cases where obviously intervention has been and was required. There are a number of coroner's inquests to testify to that very unfortunate situation.

The member spoke quite eloquently on that issue and, as a result of that issue, the need to make amendments to the Child and Family Services Act so that it more effectively addresses the needs of children who need the protection of the act. The member, I think, is optimistic that the amendments this bill brings to the act will in fact enhance protection of children in this province.

The member spoke, to some degree, on the matter of funding for the services to be provided under the act. I will have more to say on that later. But the good news is that the funding, as a result of changes made by this government, will be more consistent and will be more responsive to the needs of children. That is good news for all of us.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I too would like to compliment the member for London Centre for her insightful presentation with respect to Bill 73. I find it kind of curious, listening to the member for York East just a few minutes ago proudly talking about the funding formula, why it's taken this government over three and a half years to realize that there wasn't money being spent within the children's aid societies. As a matter of fact, we can all remember that it wasn't too long ago when in actual fact $17 million was taken out of the children's aid societies' budgets.

I can't think of a tougher job in society than being a worker with the CASs, particularly those workers who are involved in protection. At one time, when I used to practice a fair amount of family law and juvenile law back some 15, 20 years ago, I dealt with the children's aid society in Kingston quite frequently. I was always amazed at the kind of work ethic and the difficult situation that the child protection workers were involved in with the children's aid society.

These are usually people who basically aren't wanted in the situations they encounter. They normally aren't wanted, certainly by the families they're investigating, and quite often even the children, particularly if they're of a younger age or of teenage years, also don't want to deal with these workers. A lot of the time they're involved in situations where we, as a society, feel that the children need to be protected, but on the other, these hard-working individuals aren't wanted by any of the people they're dealing with from time to time. All the support we can give them is extremely useful and needed by them.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to congratulate the member for London Centre in regard to the comments she made on this act. The member, as always, has done her homework and has looked into this matter, but she also brings a very large amount of personal experience in dealing with these issues over a number of years, both as a former minister of the crown but also from working in the field and seeing at first hand how previous legislation impacts families and children and how it works, or doesn't work, in the system.

I just want to add two points to what she has said.

One thing I think we need to recognize is that the government made some decisions early on about funding cuts and that's had a negative impact on the ability of the children's aid societies to do their work. They initially withdraw a bunch of money out of the system, and because of that, it ended up falling into a bit of a crisis. The government then came back and, by reaction, put money back into the system after it had taken it out. The point I'm trying to make here is that you're not helping matters much by making these huge shifts inside the system, because if anything, it makes it more difficult for people to access services. Also, for those people working within the system, it's already a tough enough job as it is and they don't need a government doing things like this that doesn't understand the work they're going through.

The other thing I want to point out in this part as well is that we, as members of the Legislature, often deal with issues having to do with protection of children. I just want to report to the House that I have seen a fairly significant increase in people and families coming to my office who are trying to deal with the children's aid around questions of protection of children. I imagine there is a relationship between what we're seeing manifest itself by way of violence towards kids - it's caused by something and I think that something, in a lot of ways, is government policies, especially around welfare.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I listened quite carefully to the member for London Centre when she spoke. I always find her comments very intriguing. She has a great deal of experience and knowledge to bring to debates in this House.

There are a couple of important things to note about this act. Of course, the ultimate objective of this act is to protect children, particularly children who are at risk of abuse and neglect. She makes a good point when she says that in the past the pendulum had swung quite a bit in the opposite way in trying to keep families together. That was the objective, keeping families together, and there wasn't enough attention paid to the abuse and neglect the child had received. I think she makes a good point, to make sure that the pendulum doesn't swing too far the other way and prevents families from staying together. I think we have to be very careful about that. No doubt, we will hear some of those comments through the committee hearings.

The ultimate goal and the ultimate objective here is to protect children, and I think it's a step forward. It's a step-by-step strategy to look at children, to look at the care that children receive and to ensure that children receive the care they need, when they need it, and ensure we get early intervention to identify and assess their needs as early as possible.

I thank the member for her comments.

The Acting Speaker: The member for London Centre.

Mrs Boyd: I thank all of the members: the member for York East, the member for Kingston and The Islands, the member for Cochrane South and the member for Hamilton West.

This is the kind of work that, when we have an opportunity to do it in this House, requires us to be thoughtful and careful in what we do. Although we may have different approaches many times, and some of us may be disappointed that some of the recommendations of the task force didn't find their way into this iteration of the act, I don't think there's a member in this House who doesn't take very seriously our obligations as legislators to respond to the serious allegations that the act has not worked in so many cases and has led to the suffering and death of many children.

I believe very strongly that as we go through the process of debating this act, of taking it out to our communities, we will hear very good advice from our communities as to how to even strengthen this act. We have to be sure that we are acting always in a way that is going to be defensible and is going to add to the quality of life for young people.

I know that in my own community, increasingly the children's aid society is becoming the de facto parent for children with disabilities and they are becoming the parent because of all the problems that parents face in trying to care for those children with disabilities. The reduction in social assistance and the inability to get medical help for those children is adding to that. We need to have that as part of our discussion.

1630

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Parker: I'm pleased to have this opportunity to contribute a few remarks on the subject of Bill 73, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act. Maybe there's no better way to summarize the effect of this bill and what it hopes to achieve than was put forward in the headline in the Hamilton Spectator on October 29, the day the bill came out. On that day the Hamilton Spectator used the headline "New Bill Puts Children First." That is really what this bill is all about.

The Child and Family Services Act is a bill that is intended to protect children and to serve the needs of children at risk. As the member for London Centre has pointed out, that act has proven to have numerous deficiencies throughout its content and those deficiencies have been at the heart of some tragic stories that have come to the attention of each of us in this chamber.

There have been six coroner's inquests recommending amendments to the Child and Family Services Act. Of course not all of the tragedies have resulted in that degree of severity, not all of them have resulted in the need for coroner's inquests, but those inquests have certainly pointed out where there are deficiencies in the current act and where there are important areas for improvement.

It's not just the coroner's inquests that have brought forward recommendations. Hosts of caregivers in the field have been coming forward with recommendations for improvements to the act. The minister convened a task force, the Ontario Child Mortality Task Force, to pull together all of these recommendations and come forward with recommendations for improvements not only in the act but in other areas of government policy as well that touch on the issues relating to the act.

The bill in itself is not the government's entire response to the concerns that have been brought forward. It is not the entire response to the need for a change in the way these matters are dealt with. It is an important part of the response but it does not stand alone. It is backed up by a host of other steps the government has taken over the past several years to address the needs of our children and to address the deficiencies of past policies.

Maybe the most significant part of the bill is the very first section where it sets out in clear language the purpose of the Child and Family Services Act: "The paramount purpose of this act is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children." It makes it crystal clear that all the provisions of the act are to be understood in the context that the purpose of the act is to serve children. As the Hamilton Spectator put it, "New Bill Puts Children First." Lest there be any doubt on the part of anyone who is involved in the care of a child as to where the priority lies, that doubt is removed by the new purpose clause in the Child and Family Services Act, as implemented by Bill 73, if Bill 73 does pass this House: "The paramount purpose of this act is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children." The entire act is to be understood in that context.

Perhaps some reference to other commentators on this subject might not be amiss at this point. The Hamilton Spectator, commenting on the bill at the end of October, wrote as follows:

"At long last, the provincial government is taking concrete action to close some major gaps in Ontario's child safety net. A new bill..." - Bill 73, the one before us this afternoon - "will make it easier for authorities to rescue children at risk of abuse and neglect. That's an important breakthrough in protecting vulnerable youngsters, and it's critically needed when as many as 50,000 new cases of suspected harm to children are reported every year....

"Social Services Minister Janet Ecker deserves applause for making the move in response to many recommendations from child care professionals and coroner's inquest juries. The bill, in general, is broadly worded - as it should be - to give authorities the necessary discretion to intervene on behalf of children when trouble first appears. Surely the safety of children must take precedence over the rights of parents and guardians. If this legislation had been in place earlier, some tragic deaths of children might well have been prevented."

I think the Hamilton Spectator very clearly sets out the broad themes and thrust of Bill 73.

The member for London Centre points out the difficult balance between the need to protect the interests of children at risk and the need to respect the integrity of families and individuals in society. This bill makes a choice on that difficult balance. This bill makes the choice to put children first. That's the side of the issue where this bill lands firmly.

The Windsor Star commented on the bill when it first came out. It made the point that the bill will revamp existing legislation to ensure children's best interests are always put first. It summarizes some of the provisions in the bill:

"The bill would make it perfectly clear that the primary goal is the protection and welfare of the child. It will expand the grounds for taking a child into protection by explicitly including neglect as a ground and allowing intervention at a lower level of emotional or physical harm."

This has been an area of some vagueness in the past. At what point can a caregiving professional intervene to rescue a child who is suffering in this province? There are clear cases that don't require a great deal of interpretation. Where there is clear physical abuse, there never has been any doubt that intervention is indicated.

But not every case that presents itself is so clear-cut. In many cases, what we see is not necessarily physical abuse, but there are any number of other kinds of activity which are by their nature abusive. A pattern of behaviour can itself be abusive, and neglect. In certain circumstances, we can all imagine cases of children who haven't been hurt, haven't been physically assaulted, but the mere nature of the neglect to which they have been subjected is in itself terribly abusive. The amendments to the act make it clear that that is a case where intervention is warranted and required.

The bill will change confusing rules for reporting suspected abuse to encourage more and earlier notification of authorities. Again, sometimes when abuse is proven, it's too late to give the assistance that's required. All too often, professionals are aware that abuse is going on but they lack the evidence to give them confidence to move in and step into a situation where they might face a strong legal defence because they didn't have all their ducks in a row. But by the time they get their legal ducks in a row, it's too late to save the child who is the victim of the abuse.

The bill removes the ambiguity from those cases and permits cases where suspected abuse is enough to warrant intervention.

1640

Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would you like me to check for a quorum?

Mrs Boyd: Yes, I would.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The chair recognizes the member for York East.

Mr Parker: When the member for London Centre is not delivering articulate speeches in this House, she seems to occupy her time by counting members. We're all grateful to her for that service.

The Windsor Star also points out that the bill will permit evidence of a parent's or caregiver's past conduct toward any child to be used in child protection court hearings. Again, that's a breakthrough, because so often that is evidence that is useful, from a common sense standpoint, to get a picture of exactly what's going on in one of these case. But the rules of evidence are often very strict and sometimes prohibit courts from hearing evidence which, to any normal person, would be very useful to them in understanding what's going on. Well, this bill puts children first. Where the children are at risk, the benefit of the doubt goes to the child and past conduct is fair game in determining just exactly what is going in the care of that child.

The Toronto Star summarized the provisions quite nicely. I think it might be useful to review their summary in the article they ran late in October:

"The new measures:

"Would declare that the best interests of the child must be the main objective of child protection workers.

"Spell out for the first time `a pattern of neglect' as grounds for children's aid to take children away from their families.

"Clarify vague wording and loose definitions of children at risk and lower the threshold for declaring when a child is at risk. What used to be `substantial risk' of abuse will change to `risk that the child is likely to be harmed.'" So no more quibbling over whether the risk is substantial or not. If the risk is established, the bill calls for a response to that risk.

The bill will "clarify the rules for professionals and the public, who must report suspected cases of child abuse to the authorities." So often, it's important that those suspicions be brought to the attention of the authorities so they can link up patterns that establish themselves and get a sense of the picture that is developing. It is now important that suspicions be reported, not necessarily acted on, but they must be reported so the authorities can develop a picture of just what is going on.

The bill will "make it easier for child protection workers to define the child as being at risk of `emotional harm.'" As I said earlier, these aren't all easy cases. Not every case comes before the authorities with bruises or with broken limbs. There are other forms of abuse that can be every bit as devastating in the life of the child but don't show up with quite such clarity of evidence. Emotional harm is one of those fields. The bill makes it clear that emotional harm is an area deserving of response.

The bill will make use of a person's past behaviour towards any child, not just the child directly in their care, during child protection court proceedings. The previous rules were unclear and the admissibility of past treatment of children was often questioned. That ambiguity should be addressed by implementing the provisions in the bill that is before us this afternoon.

What as to funding for the services to be provided under the authority of this bill? In the budget last spring the finance minister announced $170 million in new dollars over the next three years for children's aid societies, to hire more staff, to provide more training and to revitalize foster care.

The Minister of Community and Social Services today announced some of the benefits that will accrue from that funding. Children's aid societies in this province will get 760 more front-line staff under the new funding framework, as announced by the minister today. That's 760 new front-line staff operating under the authority of this act. That is in addition to the 220 new staff who were hired last year. It will provide new and existing staff with more than just the numbers, but a comprehensive program of intensive and thorough training in child protection, including a 12-week pre-work training program for new front-line workers so they are better prepared to serve in the role of protecting the children of this province.

The funding announced by the minister will increase minimum foster care rates by 85%. One of the problems we face is a lack of foster families who can look after the children in need. By increasing the funding that is available in that field, we expect that the children's aid societies will be able to recruit about 500 more foster families by the year 2001. Each one of those families will play an important role in providing safe homes for the children in need of protection.

Under the new regime there will be benchmarks that will allow children's aid societies to better predict their workload and their resource needs. One of the difficulties in the past, and one of the difficulties at present under the current regime, which will be revised in accordance with the announcements made by the minister today, was that funding for children's aid societies was provided locally and responded to local budget constraints. There was a lack of coordination across the province and a lack of consistency from community to community, as each children's aid society was funded largely with local dollars.

With funding provided 100% by the province and monitored centrally, there's an opportunity for all children's aid societies to share information, to compare records of need and to ensure that the dollars go where the need is. Patterns can be monitored so that the need can be anticipated year by year, so that the dollars are there before the need arises, so that there is an end to the pattern we've seen in the past where the needs are funded locally, with predictions made to the best ability the local agencies can put forward. Then, as the need proves to exceed the available dollars, emergency dollars are put in after the fact to compensate for services that were provided above what was budgeted for.

That has been the pattern in the past because of a lack of cohesiveness across the province, as individual societies in each municipality have had to operate on their own, to anticipate needs, to anticipate the appropriate budget, and all too often they have been unable to anticipate accurately what the needs would be, resulting in emergency funding coming in after the fact, after the dollars are already spent, in the hope that the funding ultimately will balance out at the end of the year. But in each of those cases, each local agency had to go out on a limb to provide services for which funding had not been made available because it hadn't been anticipated. With greater coordination across the province, there will be a greater opportunity to anticipate what the funding needs will be and to make sure the money is there in advance.

1650

The new funding framework and the $170 million in additional funding are part of a comprehensive reform initiative that was launched by this government in response to recommendations from a large number of sources, including several coroners' inquests into the deaths of children involved with children's aid societies, and as I pointed out earlier, the Ontario Child Mortality Task Force, which pulled together many recommendations that have been received over the years.

Other steps that have been taken to improve the protection of children include the introduction of amendments to the Child and Family Services Act, as we are here discussing this afternoon; a common risk assessment system, which is now being implemented in all children's aid societies, so that, as I pointed out, there is greater consistency across the province in anticipating where the needs are and in making sure the dollars are there in advance of the need; and a substantial investment in early intervention and prevention programs.

Bill 73 is a keystone component of these reforms. There are numerous other reforms also included in the steps taken by the province, by the provincial government, but Bill 73, which opens up the Child and Family Services Act and makes certain vital enhancements to the degree to which that act is able to respond to the needs of children and to meet the needs of children, is a vital part of that reform program.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I first of all comment on the member for York East's remarks. He certainly reads very well from the briefing notes that are provided by the minister. It's interesting what the member left out. The member left out that funding for children's aid societies in Ontario has been such that practically everyone has been in a deficit position. They've been so starved for funding that they haven't been able to live up to the mandate that the government and the public have believed was necessary. Now, at the 11th hour, the government comes along and says, "Well, we'll give you a little bit of funding, and it's going to all work out just fine."

It's very interesting that the Liberal party, under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, with our critic in this area, had a task force that went around the province dealing with children's issues, and we came up with a comprehensive policy on dealing with children. It's called First Steps.

We believe that if a government were to implement this policy in its entirety, it would have incredibly beneficial results for society in general, because when you make the investment in children in those early years, you save so much money down the line. Not only that, but you are providing really the building blocks you need to take advantage of your health care systems, your education systems, your community and social service systems. If you do it properly at the beginning and have a good foundation, then you can build on that.

I am very pleased to see that many of the aspects of our report and of our policy have found their way into some of the government's thinking. I would say, for example, that we recommended full implementation of the Ontario Child Mortality Task Force recommendations and greater action on coroner's jury recommendations, certainly one of the aspects the member touched on.

Mrs Boyd: I'm pleased to comment on the member for York East's discussion of the bill. I would point out to people that he would have been completely lost in his discussion of the bill had he not had the minister's notes about the funding announcement that she made today but did not make in the House.

It is extremely important for everyone to be really aware that this bill was first called before the House on November 5. It has not been called since, until today, when the minister has finally announced the funding framework to cover the $170 million that was announced in the budget some months ago.

It is very important that people be very clear that a discussion of the changes to the Child and Family Services Act without substantially improved funding would be a very different matter. We are pleased that the minister has finally announced the framework, and we'll be looking very carefully at the various elements of that to ensure that it fills the need that will be there to actually enforce this new act.

I would say, however, and my caution would be, that this act provides for much more intensive work and much more intensive staffing in terms of the Child and Family Services Act. We have heard complaints for years and years that the understaffing because of underfunding was causing a lack of effectiveness on the part of child protection workers, so it will be essential for us to monitor the actual spending of these announced dollars to ensure that the act as it is now is able to be enforced but these new requirements of child protection authorities can be met in an effective way, which they would not be able to do without a substantial infusion of dollars.

Mrs Ross: I just want to comment, because I couldn't resist. The member kept referring to the Hamilton Spectator, and for those of us who come from Hamilton - we consider it a tremendous community with so many good things happening in it - it's rare that we would ever quote the Hamilton Spectator, because it's such a negative paper, let alone read it. I commend him for finding something good in the Hamilton Spectator.

With respect to this act, I want to say that this is a good piece of legislation which advances the needs of children, and that's the important part of this act. I can't stress enough how important children are. We all know that. Most of us in this House have children, as a matter of fact, and they are our finest resource, so we need to do whatever we can to protect them.

This legislation really focuses on children, really focuses on ensuring that children's needs are protected above and beyond anything else, and the best interests of children are at heart in this legislation. I think it's important that the bill does encourage more and earlier reporting of suspected abuse. It takes out the word "believe" that was in the legislation before. Before, you had to believe that a child was being abused, but now if you even suspect that a child is being abused, it's important that you report it. That's an important part of this act, and it's amazing how one word can change the whole direction of what happens to children. I think that's very important.

This act goes a long way to addressing many of the recommendations that came out of the coroner's inquest. There were 253 recommendations and I believe 82% of them have been addressed in one way or another. I think it's really important, and it's a good piece of legislation. I commend the member for York East for supporting the bill.

Mr Gerretsen: I think it should be remembered, though, by the people of Ontario that yes, apparently a new funding announcement was made today, not in this Legislature where it should have been made but somewhere here in Metro Toronto, to the effect that there will be enough funding now to hire 220 more social workers in this province. I think what ought to be remembered is that it's the same government that caused the layoff of 156 social workers when they cut the funding to the CAS earlier, so that the net result of all this is that there are going to be about 60 or 70 more social workers available than there were before the funding cut took place, and that is across Ontario.

If there's one thing this government can be remembered for when you look at the totality of things, I think it's the fact that this government, right from the day it took office, attacked children. How did they attack children? They cut welfare in this province by 22%. Who is affected by the welfare cuts more than anyone else? It is children. Some 40% of the people who are affected by welfare in this province are children, so they attacked the children immediately, the moment they took office.

1700

Some people can say it was really the parents they cut off welfare. The children were affected, and that's the legacy of the Mike Harris government, that it has attacked the most vulnerable people in our society, starting with our children. That's the reality of the situation. Some 41% of the people who use the food banks here in Toronto are children. Those are just some of the statistics that we offer to you.

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

Mr Parker: I thank the member for Oriole, the member for London Centre, the member for Hamilton West and the member for Kingston and The Islands for their comments.

I did find the comments from the members opposite quite instructive, because it turns out that all they care about over there is money. That seemed to be their biggest concern over there. If you're concerned about money, I've got some good news for you. This government is spending more on child protection than any government in the history of this province, so we have no apologies to make to the members opposite for the amount of dollars going into the system. It looks like the members opposite are only concerned about the number of dollars that are going into the system; that seems to be their prime concern, their prime focus. We don't see it quite that way.

If we see that the system is flawed to begin with, the solution to the problem isn't to put more dollars into a system that has flaws. The solution to the problem is to address the flaws and then direct the necessary funding to the system as it's been reformed. Make the corrections first, then let the money flow. The members opposite seem to think that if the system isn't working, just put more money into it. That seems to be the answer to all problems that we come across opposite. That's not the way we do it.

As far as the number of front-line workers is concerned, this government has added 980 new front-line workers. There are more front-line workers serving the interests of the children in this province now than ever before in the history of this province - more than under the Bob Rae government and more than under the Peterson government, more than ever before in the history of this province.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to seek your guidance on a matter that's of particular concern to me and I'd like your thoughts. Yesterday in the riding of High Park-Swansea there was a woman who celebrated her 98th birthday. Her name is Kathleen Shea. I wonder if you might tell me how I could express from this forum my very best wishes for her on that occasion.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order, but it is of extreme interest to not only the House here but a lot of those watching. Thanks very much, and our congratulations to her.

Further debate?

Mr Parker: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Not to trivialize the proceedings, but I think it is important to note our congratulations to Mrs Shea, but to express our condolences on the outcome of her son.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Thank you, Speaker. I'll be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and The Islands.

I am very pleased to be addressing, on behalf of my party and on behalf of my leader, Dalton McGuinty, our responses to the introduction of Bill 73.

I can tell you, first off, that it is a serious matter, and while birthdays are important, I think the timing of the introduction of that sort of thing in the House - probably a better time would have been appropriate because this is a very serious discussion. We're talking about the protection of children.

Firstly, I'd like to say that our party is very much looking forward to hearings on the bill. This is significant change in the area of law surrounding children. We are very anxious to hear from people in the field and we expect to be doing so through hearings. We don't have the details of that yet but we hope to have that opportunity and, as a party, we insist on the opportunity to have hearings on this bill.

Secondly, we think that there are other issues. This government has been accused of putting the blinders on when it comes to dealing with our children, and I do think this is one more of those days. In fact, today the minister took her show on the road and went to a children's aid in Toronto to make various announcements. As members of the House, we're getting used to a lot of announcements the government makes. The announcements don't mean anything to us any more. Announcements of funding mean nothing to us because ultimately we have to stay on and on this government to actually see money arrive months later after announcements were made. The announcements today are just more reannouncements of things that had happened before, announced once again in yet another press release. What we know is happening, especially for children's aids across Ontario, is that now many of them are facing deficits. We are curious to see what the announcement will do to the books of children's aids in Ontario.

We have lots of examples of the government's track record on announcements. All of a sudden the government found a crisis in hospital emergency rooms across Ontario, so the minister made all of these announcements of money especially for emergency funding. That was done months ago. The crisis in emergency rooms continued months and months later as we brought example after example back into the House of how emergency rooms were still overcrowded, how there's still a shortage of beds in hospitals, how we still had not resolved problems at the local level in hospitals, and we said, "But you said you had made an announcement."

All of a sudden the Premier dusted off his seat and off he went on his magic tour with his own film crew so that he could prepare his commercials for the election and took half of the Queen's Park press with him. When they arrived in London, they said: "Why did we travel all this way? This is not news." It was a cheque being presented for money that had been announced months ago, and that's the point: All of the announcements that are made are done time and time again to get the maximum press mileage out of your announcements, but we don't know when the money actually arrives.

We went to London. We went to the clinic where you deal with children with cancer. Again promises of funding had been made, and we had to stay on and on the government about kids with cancer and why we didn't have enough oncologists working out of the London Health Sciences Centre. We had to stay on and on even though the Premier himself had announced that funding would be made available, but we had to chase it down until the money actually arrived at the door.

When we hear that the Minister of Community and Social Services has been out making announcements of funding again - listen - we're not reacting all that strongly because you do it all the time. The difference this time, we hope, is that the time frame between your announcement and when funding actually arrives is going to be a lot shorter. This is a very serious situation and it's been serious for some time.

The members opposite who have already spoken to this bill certainly read from briefing notes, but I hope that in their own ridings at minimum they're going to visit their local children's aid society. I hope they're going to visit local children's mental health agencies that work in partnership with children's aid and I hope they're hearing what these people on the front lines are telling them, that while the press release looks terrific, what's actually happening in the field, such as what's happening in my own community, is record numbers of children in CAS care.

This is happening before the new bill for child protection even passes in this House. There are many reasons why that's happening, but many of those reasons have to be laid at the feet of the provincial government for having put the blinders on and made changes to funding in the past, which is finally coming home to roost at the expense of our children. The worst part is that it's coming to roost at the feet of this government because those children who can least afford it are being affected; those who are vulnerable to begin with are being affected in many ways by government policy.

With the blinders on, no one is seeing that a change in the housing ministry has a significant impact on children. When we look now to families who do not have appropriate housing because the housing minister made changes to apartment availability in Ontario and in particular in large urban settings, that had a major impact on children. Had you followed the recommendations we made, that Dalton McGuinty put forward in First Steps, which came out months ago, had you listened to that - we have asked you specifically for a children's directive in the government, which would mean that every single policy that comes out of the Ontario government is vetted through somebody, a minister really for the child who says, "How will that policy change affect our children?" Had you had that kind of policy in place, the Minister of Housing, who abolished rent control in an area like Toronto which has a massive impact, would know immediately that this is not going to serve our children well. While people are being moved off social assistance, they still have a need to find affordable housing, and in this city of Toronto it doesn't exist.

1710

The housing minister would have had to vet that policy through a child ministry, not the one that exists today, which unfortunately is there for show only. We have a minister, called "minister responsible for children," who refuses to answer questions in the House that are clearly within the purview of that ministry, who will not even stand up and answer questions about children, still pulling a cabinet salary, still a member of the cabinet and will not answer questions in this House. The position is nothing but show. We insist on a real minister for children who would see the changes in community and social services. Whether they be changes to OSAP and how single mothers apply for loans to continue education and how that has impacted on their children, whether that's the Ministry of Housing and the changes to rent control and how that affects children who live in families that need affordable housing, those kinds of policies would not have come through as they have.

We are looking forward to the hearings on the new law to protect children in Ontario. We've been waiting for a long time. The most remarkable change happened in the late 1980s under a Liberal government, and I'm almost certain it passed with unanimity in the House because everyone recognized the need. At that time, the focus was on keeping a family united, but a significant part of that was that the legislation needed to be reviewed on a periodic basis, that over a period of time you'd need to continually review the legislation. That didn't happen. Unfortunately, since that time we have not had a government whose priority was children to ensure that it would continually be reviewed. Let's be clear: This government was not elected because its priority is children. That is not what this gang went out on the hustings for during the last campaign.

I think it is incumbent on the government to say that we as a group thank someone like Lyn McLeod, who for the first time introduced a critic's area specifically to shadow children's issues. Some of you in government have never been in opposition, but at minimum, if you ever are, and I hope that might be soon, you will then appreciate the role of critic in opposition, but in particular when you're meant to shadow children's issues. It brings a focus to an area where, had we not had that opportunity, I believe it would never come into discussion in this House.

We have to thank Dalton McGuinty, because he said as his first statement after becoming the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, "My priority is children."

One of the first policy pieces that the Ontario Liberal Party came out with was First Steps. The first tour that Dalton McGuinty made in Ontario was about children. In the back of our First Steps policy piece you'll see quite an extensive list of community groups and agencies that we met with in various parts of Ontario. In all sincerity, all of this was made available, even to members opposite, and I know that you agree with many of the items that are in First Steps. As a matter of fact, we're pleased because Dalton McGuinty continued to bring those issues forward as lead questions here in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: We can do without the prop, please. Please lay your article down when you're not using it.

Mrs Pupatello: We also have to thank journalists today. For the first time in recent history, journalists who work for a whole variety of newspaper outlets have focused in their own communities here in Toronto on children. We have had very extensive and detailed research pieces done on what has happened to Ontario's children because of government legislation. Those journalists have talked about it for three and a half years. I think we all remember the series that was done in the Toronto Star. The Windsor Star also did an extensive piece on children. Every one of those for the most part followed the coroner's inquest, and that was over several months. So at least it's a tribute to those papers for taking the time and finally putting children on the front page.

We know that this government responds to what's on the front page of the newspaper. That's an unfortunate finding for this government but we know that up until the emergency rooms in Toronto hit the front page of the Toronto papers, this government was unwilling to respond with emergency funding, albeit that it would not be available for another seven to eight months. At minimum, we know that when it hits the front page of the newspaper, the government is responding. So we must thank the journalists across Ontario for continuing to put children on their front pages, because it has made a difference. It has made a difference in the House leaders' meeting; in actually making time to present Bill 73 in the House, making the legislative time in the calendar to bring this forward.

This information that's here was available in the minds of bureaucrats within the Ontario civil service for years. There are experts who work for the Ontario government. There are civil servants who are quite exceptional at their jobs, and they have been waiting for a government to have the political will to bring this forward. This particular minister, who wants to take credit for having done everything for children - I think we've got to take a good look at what we do as MPPs in this House.

First, the experts in the civil service are those who have the knowledge and the expertise to put the bill together. Second, we know that journalists and opposition have been instrumental in bringing children to light in such a way that the government must respond, because we know this government was not elected for children. It was the last thing that the government was elected for. You guys are about tax cuts. You told everybody that. You didn't tell people what that would cost us as a society. That became clear within your first year.

What was clear was that as the NDP made cuts across the board up to and including children's agencies - under a whole different set of economic circumstances, admittedly - we know that this government continued those cuts, again not looking at the impact on children. Now, a full three and a half years later, when the experts in your civil service within the bureaucracy of this Ontario government have known for some time that you needed to do a review of that legislation that came out in the late 1980s, as the legislation said, you did nothing about it for three and a half years.

For you to choose today as though you have done something, let's at least be up front about who has made you do it. I think those people out there in communities deserve credit for keeping this issue front and centre because you guys were not elected for children. Not one of you campaigned on that: for children. You're the tax guys, admittedly. But today, now we have -

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Did you campaign for children?

Mrs Pupatello: Yes, actually, as a matter of fact, I did. The Minister of Housing wants to know why I was elected. Actually, yes, I was elected for children. That's exactly what I said I would be following when I ran for this job. That's exactly what I said. I think we should be clear. If you want to caterwaul in the House, at minimum let's use the facts, and that goes for the members who have spoken as well, that almost none of the $170 million that was announced will go out this year.

The children's aid societies across Ontario have been begging for a review of the funding formula, but today we have an announcement that finally it has happened, three and a half years after you were told that the formula is not working well. It takes you three and a half years to bring in something that you always knew you were to do? How many months after our First Steps policy came out have you finally come forward with changing that formula? It's absolutely in there.

If the Minister of Community and Social Services was actually adept at this job, she would have read cover to cover the First Steps policy piece that Dalton McGuinty forwarded months ago. We told you that children had to be a priority, we told you that when you made policy changes within various ministries, it would affect children negatively, and you didn't listen to us. We told you that there are more poor children today than the day you took office. In a time of economic boom it is children who continue to suffer, and that is what we have today.

1720

We're months before an election and, all of a sudden, you've found legislative time to bring in a bill that your bureaucrats have had for some time. We've all known that the issue was around the definition of neglect. We knew that the risk assessment tool, as a pilot project already working in Ontario over the last couple of years, has been effective.

Second, we have to tell you, if you already know that the assessment tool is in operation in Ontario today and already in those children's aids that are using it as a pilot project, the automatic effect is a greater increase in children intake.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): It's not a pilot project. It's in place because the government put it in place.

Mrs Pupatello: Speaker, could you kindly be fair in terms of the government members as well? I'd appreciate it.

The Deputy Speaker: I'd like you to speak to me rather than to the other members. If you would address your remarks to the Chair, it will take out some of that.

Mrs Pupatello: I guess the most important part is that in the end, all of us want what is best for children. All of us want the bill to pass and all of us want it to have been done well.

We know it needs public hearings. Anyone who follows this issue will know that there will be changes that will enhance this bill, and we insist on having hearings. We know we can do that in a short space of time. We have been prepared for this for the last three and a half years. The likely thing to happen now is the government will try to pull some kind of a political stunt and say that we are trying to delay the bill. After we've been talking about this for three and a half years, at minimum you owe the public hearings on this and you owe the public the best bill you can possibly offer.

I would also say to those who are listening today who actually work for children in Ontario, whether it's through a children's mental health agency, if they work for the children's aid, if they work for the government in community and social services, to actually see first-hand the effects of changes of funding levels and policy and what it has meant to children.

I'd like to give you some good examples. When we talked about the record numbers of children in CAS care, what we know is that before the children actually get to the point where they're turned over to children's aid care, it's happened because there's been less support in the community than there has ever been in the history of Ontario.

We had a case only last week in Windsor and it was about a shooter who sought help. What was interesting about this case that I hope all of you heard of is that two days before this young boy allegedly shot an acquaintance in the face with a pellet rifle, this Windsor boy was denied psychological counselling because of a case backlog.

The parents said: "We knew something was going to happen. We could see it coming." The most frustrating part for the family was that when they contacted a local mental health agency, they said that despite a three-hour consultation, his request for assistance was denied. The agency could not help the boy because its resources are stretched too thinly. They said, "We are absolutely run off our feet and we can't deal with what we've got," adding that there are 68 other children on this list.

The story goes on about what happened with this particular child. In the Windsor area, the children's mental health agencies are stretched to the limit. By the time the children's aid gets the call, the child has already reached a very severe state.

This is the best example of a government that puts blinders on and doesn't understand that the children's aid, as that end service, should only be used when it's the end service and that all the way along in the continuum of this child becoming worse and worse and worse, the government had every opportunity to intervene before.

The government talks a great talk about prevention, it talks about the new healthy babies program and it talks about all of the new services that are going to be available. But if you talk to parents who need services, they are finding themselves on a waiting list. Even for all of those favourites of the government there are waiting lists. Coupled with the waiting list specifically to the mental health agencies for children are significant cutbacks in the education system. When these children are identified in school because we haven't identified them before they reached school age, the children are in a regular classroom with a teacher, likely in a class today that is larger than the class was last year. Why? Because the government under another ministry, the Ministry of Education, took a billion dollars out of the system, and what they called fat and bureaucracy was actually the consultants who work for the board who deal in many ways with education for special kids.

We're talking about cuts that the government called fat and bureaucracy that actually was psychologists who were hired by the board, so that a school teacher would actually have someone within the board to call who is a psychologist. Those people are gone. That was in some little envelope in education that was deemed fat and bureaucracy.

Yet another example: In this new funding formula for schools, the government has a special envelope supposedly for special education and things. We found out later that the government wasn't giving the money, and that was only after the members in this House raised those issues, specifically about children being sent home because they didn't have aides any longer. Because they needed special attention and weren't receiving it, the children were being sent home. Why? Because the board never received the money from the government despite the announcement.

The members opposite have to understand that you have a legacy. You'll make any former or future government embarrassed to make announcements. Former governments pale by comparison in how you've managed to manipulate announcements that ultimately - I guess you must think that once the announcements are made, everyone forgets, but the money never arrives and suddenly the Minister of Education is scrambling to figure out, "Gee, I guess we never sent the money around for that special education envelope." You told the school boards they'd get X amount; you sent half. They actually had half the number of aides they needed in the classroom.

All of those cuts in the Ministry of Education are affecting the same pool of children. All of the cuts you made to children's mental health agencies affect these same children. All of the cuts that you have made since 1995 to children's aid societies, most of which are carrying some level of debt now, are affecting those same children. The children's aid needs those other agencies as partners. Once a child comes into care, they need help. Once the agency is identifying the children that are in need, they need to intervene. It's difficult to intervene when you get placed on a waiting list, and that in fact is what's happening - kids not getting help. That is the story in Ontario today.

Despite the good news that we finally see a bill here in the House that all of us have been pushing for, that all of us have been supportive of, that all of us will probably say, "I wish we could have gone further with this," all of us know that when we get to committee and are doing hearings, we're going to find ways to make Bill 73, this child protection bill, even better because children deserve that. If there are any nuances to the bill you may discover you didn't intend, you're going to find a way to remove that through an amendment. That's what we're all looking for.

You cannot simply look at these particular children whom the CAS, the children's aids, deal with without looking at a whole spectrum of children's services, and this current government must take responsibility for the changes you've already made that have had a very negative impact.

We talked about the risk assessment tool earlier. We knew that once you could streamline, once you could better identify, once you allowed better training for those people who actually work in the front lines for better identification, with less risk in assessing those children, what ultimately would happen was more children coming into care. Therefore, you must have more services available. If we expect that we are going to do earlier identification of kids in need, so they never get into children's aid care, then those agencies that provide that prevention in advance must be there to do it.

1730

Sometimes you find better ways to treat children. Sometimes it takes resources to make that happen. We keep hearing about all these new workers who are going to be out there. The risk assessment tool takes hours and hours longer than it used to take, as to whether they admitted a child or not. Just the sheer volume and time it takes to enact this new risk assessment tool says that the worker is going to need more time per case. If the caseload is going up, if each case takes more time, you're going to have two things happen: You're going to have the caseloads going up excessively, as they are now, and you're going to have to have more workers. Seeing that we know Ontario has already lost 156 front-line workers, I challenge the government to say how long it will be before you get them on the streets, at least up to the levels they were at in 1995, because we know what's happening out there in the field.

The new announcements about all this changing of funding are long overdue and everyone acknowledges that. That's why we don't understand why it would take three and a half years of this government to discover what they learned the first day they were here in the House, and if they didn't learn it then, they learned it the first day that Dalton McGuinty was in here as leader in the House. What did he talk about? He talked about the children's aid funding formula.

After the inquests were over on all those children who died while in care, they talked about the coroner thing, because we are going back months and months. Those of us who followed it closely were saying, "What on earth took so long to finally get this bill in here?" I say again that it's merely a function of political will, and the most unfortunate part about it is that it takes journalists across Ontario to bring that will to bear, that it takes opposition to continually bring these issues forward, which Dalton McGuinty has done.

Ultimately we want to see a speedy passage of this bill and we want to see it immediately after hearings on this bill. We know that this government will want to hear from experts in the field to confirm that the bill was done well. We also note that in the bill there is the opportunity to have an automatic review in five years, which is absolutely essential, and that's actually everything that is needed.

There are lots of parts in the bill that talk about changes in the justice system and what happens when children are in that system, about the kind of timelines that are going to be accumulated this time instead of looked at individually every time a child enters care. Those things are laudable, those are things we want, but there are also areas for us to consider, that when you make changes in law in one area, then we have to talk to the Attorney General's office. We also have to get him involved to say what is happening in the courts with our children, that in the beginning, when we start looking at case management of children in the courts, now it's starting to work, now we know the kind of funding that must follow so it is going to be the norm, not the exception. At the moment it's the exception in Ontario. It's finally beginning to happen and it has to be the norm.

Unfortunately, whether the members opposite understand it or not, it will take the resourcing to make it happen. You have to have the political will to find the money available, so that a Minister of Community and Social Services or a minister for the child will actually have the political power within the cabinet to make it happen, the same kind of power that in a heartbeat could spend $47 million on political advertising that could easily have been spent in the area of housing, in the area of assistance for children, in the area of educational aides for those same children, in the area of children's mental health services for those same children, in the area of the court system for those same children.

You spent $47 million in a heartbeat. You obviously found the political will to do that. But when it comes to children, it has taken a full three and a half years of constant prodding to make this happen., After all the years you have talked about the funding of children's aid, only now, after three and a half years, do we finally see it here in this House. Only now, after three and a half years, do we see the House leader making legislative time on the calendar to talk about this bill. At this point, we are expecting that it will be done well.

I am looking forward to those hearings. I am looking forward to speaking to the experts in the field so that we can get back in this House and pass this bill and enhance Bill 73, if that's what it will take. I know all of us in this House are looking for a law in Ontario that reflects what the general population thinks, and that is that every child deserves the best possible protection. That is what all of us should be striving for as we work to pass Bill 73.

Mr Gerretsen: I would like to start off by addressing a comment that was made by the Minister of Community and Social Services in a remark she threw across the floor to the effect that we have smaller school sizes. I would just like her to explain to me why, in my particular case, the budget for the Limestone District School Board, which takes in the counties of Frontenac and Lennox and Addington as well as the city of Kingston, dropped from $152.3 million to $146.208 million, a drop of $6 million - at least that's what the board thought they were going to get - when in fact there are more children in the system.

You can imagine the surprise the board got when the ministry figures came in. They said, "Oh, you're not going to get $146 million to run your school system this year; it is only going to be $143.9 million." So they had to find another $2.2 million.

We all know that by far the largest cost in our education system, since it's very human-resource oriented - the teachers should be given a pat on the back rather than the kick in the head that this government has given them over the last two to three years - is the cost of the salaries we pay to teachers. How does she explain the fact that this school board is operating with $10 million less this year yet has more children in the school system?

Hon Mr Leach: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know you allow a lot of latitude for members to broaden their comments on the bill, but when the member gets up and doesn't even start off by addressing the bill and starts to talk about education right off the bat, I think he should be reminded of the bill we're dealing with.

The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order. I'm listening carefully to the member and waiting for him to bring his remarks within the scope of Bill 73.

Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you check to see if we have a quorum?

The Deputy Speaker: Is there a quorum?

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gerretsen: I've noticed that the last couple of times the government members have made those kinds of interventions when I've spoken on various issues, it is always on issues where I've got the facts right in my hands. Obviously they feel they cannot argue about it, so they say, "We don't want to listen to the member for Kingston and The Islands," or perhaps one of the other opposition members, "because they've got the facts and we don't want the people of Ontario to listen to the facts." Mr Speaker, the people of Ontario do want to know the facts, and what I've told you and them and the members of the government right now are the facts as they relate to the education system in the counties of Lennox and Addington.

1740

Let me address the bill. What the government members don't realize is that there is a very close connection between whatever we're doing for the best interests of the children and the education system we have here in Ontario. If we allow you to run the system for another four to five years, the people of Ontario can look forward to a voucher system and the Americanization of our system. I'm telling you, the people of Ontario don't want that. You will find out from them next June or May, or whenever you call your election.

Hon Mrs Ecker: That's not what we're doing. Stop scaremongering.

Mr Gerretsen: That's called scaremongering? It's not scaremongering; it is the truth.

I find it very interesting that the changes that are introduced in this bill are very significant. I don't believe there has been a change in the principles under which children are to be taken into protection probably in the last 20 to 25 years in this province, probably not since my former colleague in Kingston, Mr Keith Norton, who is now the human rights commissioner for Ontario, a man I have great respect for, made some changes when Judge Thomson was involved back in the late 1970s. That's probably the last time there were some major changes to the Child and Family Services Act, or whatever the act was called at that time.

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: The minister says that is right. I want to know, then, Minister, if that is right, why you are not allowing for public hearings on a bill like this. This bill has been here since October 24. We are now five weeks later; we're in second reading. In about another 10 days we're out of this place, hopefully. You want to give this bill, in the next two weeks, the next 10 days, second reading, committee time and third reading. Why is it that you never want to hear from the experts?

I hope Hansard got the response that the minister just gave me, when she acknowledged that this is a major change under which children's aid societies in this province will operate. I can't for the life of me understand, if it is such a major change, why they don't want to hear from the experts in the field.

What do you have against the public having good input into a piece of legislation like this? Of course, it's not the first time we've heard this, because they don't want any input with respect to Bill 79, which is going to committee on Monday for clause-by-clause determination without any further input from anybody, the experts. You don't want to hear it with respect to Bill 81, which is the Greater Toronto Services Board, another bill on which you invoked closure and basically said, "We no longer want to hear from the public on that bill." You are doing that with just about every piece of meaningful legislation in this province.

The only type of legislation they want to go to committee is legislation that is fairly innocuous, for which there is general consent among all parties. Then they say: "How much committee time do you want? Do you want a week? Do you want two weeks? Do you want three weeks?"

I want to know why the Minister of Community and Social Services, who always has so much to say in this House, particularly when nobody's asking her a question, did not get together with the House leader on October 29, after the bill was given first reading, and say, "Let's have second reading on this bill in the first week of November. Let's have some committee hearings. Let's hear from the experts," back in the second and third week of November, when we were on constituency week and when we had a committee week here.

No, what this is really all about is it's a power play to bring in the most meaningful legislation at the last minute, knowing full well that the public can no longer have any input then, whether it's the property tax legislation, whether it's the greater Toronto servicing board or whether it's this kind of bill that affects the health and welfare of our children, that the government decides we no longer want to have public hearings.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): On a point of order, Speaker: I think it's very important that the House understands and certainly that the honourable member understands, it is not the greater Toronto servicing board, it is the Greater Toronto Services Board.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. When I'm standing and someone else is, someone else is out of order.

Mr Gerretsen: That's just the kind of meaningful interjection that we're accustomed to from the member for York-Mackenzie. I think the public and the other members in this House can judge those comments for themselves. Certainly I'm not going to comment on that, other than the fact that obviously the member doesn't want to hear the truth. That's all I can say to that.

There's another situation that has been brought forth in this House that also directly affects the best interests of children, which this bill talks about, and there have been a number of questions asked about this. That deals with the situation as it affects a disabled child in the Kingston area, the 11-year-old boy Harry Bellemare.

You may recall that Harry uses an electric wheelchair. He lost his teaching assistant. The reason he lost his teaching assistant is that Harry, who had an assistant all of last year, under the new provincial rules doesn't qualify for extra help because he doesn't have any academic or behavioural problems. He has some physical problems. You may recall, there were questions asked about that situation in this House, I believe of the same minister. No, it may have been the Minister of Education. Basically the answer was, "Well, we're doing something for Harry," or children in his situation, "and we're trying to look at it."

Nothing has happened yet. You know why nothing has happened? Because Harry falls through the cracks. He doesn't fall within that category whereby his educational needs are of a special nature as far as in-class instruction is concerned, and therefore he is not eligible for the kind of funding that used to be available. It is another classic case where this government, under the guise of making smaller government, in effect claws everything back for itself and wants to micromanage every situation from here inside Queen's Park.

Why wouldn't the government say, "OK, let's give the special needs funding to each and every board of education," as we have in the past, and let the local boards of education, the professionals who work in the various offices, the boards of trustees that we have there, determine which children in their system should have the use of the various teaching assistants?

Wouldn't that make the most sense, Mr Speaker? I know that you're from a municipal background and I'm sure you would agree with me that when you were a municipal politician, like most other municipal politicians I know, you felt that you had a much better understanding of the needs of the people in your community, in whatever particular area we may be talking about, rather than the well-meaning bureaucrats here at Queen's Park. But oh no, this government has decided that it is going to micromanage the education system in its entirety and that is the way it's going to be, whether or not it makes any sense, whether or not a child in this particular situation would need a -

Mr Parker: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In this case, not only does the member not have the facts with him, he's not on the bill. He said earlier that we had difficulty, when he had the facts with him, whether he was on the bill or not. I can assure you, he is not on the bill -

The Deputy Speaker: That would be put in the order of half a point of order: the facts, no; the bill, yes. I'll mention it to the member that I would like him to confine his remarks to Bill 73.

1750

Mr Gerretsen: I find it very interesting that yesterday the member from Wentworth spent the whole evening berating his local council in Hamilton-Wentworth when we were talking about Bill 81, and in effect he was talking about Bill 79, and nobody said a thing, and now, for the third time while I've been giving my address tonight, the member somehow finds something objectionable about the fact that I'm talking about what is truly in the best interests of children: a good education system, a system in which the local boards of education determine which children and under what circumstances special teaching assistants ought to be employed and all the issues relating thereto.

If the members of the government don't want to hear that and if they want to get up on stupid interjections to basically cut off the opposition from speaking in this House, it falls right in line with the other non-democratic moves that they're making all along, such as not allowing any committee time, not allowing any hearing time in what the Minister of Community and Social Services here tonight acknowledged is one of the most major changes that has taken place as it relates to what's in the best interests of children in the last 20 years in the province of Ontario.

She agreed with me. She said it. I say to her, go back to your House leader and let's get some hearing time on this bill so we can hear from the experts. God knows, if we know one thing about this government, they sure don't get it right. Just look at the property tax legislation they've passed and have had to pass over seven or eight times before getting it right. We still don't know whether they've got it right or not. You need all the help you can get.

The tragedy about this whole situation is this, and let's see if they can argue with these facts. Did you know, Speaker, that 31% of boys and 21% of the girls in Ontario have suffered some form of physical abuse, that 12% of girls and 4.5% of boys in Ontario have suffered some sexual abuse in this province? Also, here in the city of Toronto one in three children lives in poverty, and we know that quite often the situations where children's aid societies get involved with families is very closely related to the state of poverty.

I once again ask the government members, what do you have against the children of this province? Why did you take out of your desire for a tax cut and your vengeance against the most vulnerable individuals in this province, namely, the elderly and the children of this province when you cut off the welfare rates in August 1995 by some 22%, when we know that over 40% of the people who are directly affected on welfare are children?

Over 500,000 children, half a million children in this province - we've got about 11 million people in this province, so about 5% or 6% of all the people in this province are children who live in poverty. I think that's a shame, an embarrassment, an indictment on this government and an indictment indirectly on all of us. I personally think that is totally unacceptable in a society that has as much as we have here in Ontario.

Why we aren't working together, hand in hand, to try to resolve these kinds of problems, I don't know. I, for one, know we'd certainly be willing to do it. I'd certainly be willing to do it. Instead, we see more and more children relying on food banks on an ongoing basis. That, to my way of thinking, is totally unacceptable.

The Ontario children's aid societies last year investigated approximately 47,000 reports of children's maltreatment. I found a very interesting statistic in some material that I was looking up the other day. I hope I can find it here. Yes. Did you know that the number of cases which were sent to the children's aid society in 1997 - I take it we don't have the actual figures for 1998 - was a 17% increase.

M. Bisson : Un point d'ordre, monsieur le Président : En regardant le Règlement de l'Assemblée législative, ça dit que la présence d'au moins 20 députés est nécessaire.

The Deputy Speaker: Just give me a minute to get my -

Mr Bisson: Roughly said, Mr Speaker, I believe it means we don't have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: If you're using French, I have to put this on. If you're using English, I don't.

Mr Gerretsen: He just spoke in English.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you like me to check for a quorum?

Mr Bisson: Yes, please.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung / Le Vice-Président fait entendre la sonnerie d'appel des députés.

The Deputy Speaker: It being almost 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30.

The House adjourned at 1758.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

3 décembre 1998